My argument for atheism +

[Objectivist]

Atheism: The belief that God almost certainly doesn't exist.

Reason for this: There is no evidence for god where there should be (not just that "there is no evidence..." that's agnosticism.)

Counter from theists: God created the universe/did the fine tuning/created humans/the Kalam/The argument from contingency/the Fine Tuning argument etc etc.

My counter for atheism that beats all arguments for God: God doesn't have a brain or neurons - he's immaterial not made of matter or energy - so how can he think thoughts or have knowledge? Without a brain or neurons he couldn't create a universe or create anything else.



I've never got any evidence that God can think without a brain or neurons.

You're right, if there was a god there would be evidence all over the place.  It would be practically or actually self evident that a god existed.  We'd live in a fundamentally different universe (one where consciousness had primacy over existence, i.e., "wising makes it so").  Now plenty of people provide what they call evidence for gods but when one examines it, it turns out that one would either have to assume that a god exists in the first place for what is presented to be evidence or it requires one to drop important context, accept stolen concepts, ignore contradictions and generally go on a fallacy filled spree.  The fact that this is still being debated after thousands of years underscores your point.  

But it's even worse.  Many theists have told me that no one can either prove or disprove that a god exists.  Now, if we can't even know what proof for a god would look like, then how in the world could we know what would constitute evidence.  It's another example of theists trying to have their cake and eat it too.  Theists who offer this view, which is not all theists, but those who do are tacitly admitting that their evidence is not sufficient to prove that a god exists, which means that the atheist is fully justified to reject the notion of gods.  

My favorite comeback, whenever someone says look at the trees, the birds, etc., this is evidence for God, is that those things are evidence for God in exactly the same way that a rainbow is evidence for a pot of gold and a leprechaun.  

The theist does not understand that when he or she attempts to provide evidence for their god-belief they are performatively contradicting themselves given that the concept of evidence rests exclusively on the objective view of reality and theism affirms the subjective view of reality.  They are also borrowing from my worldview while at the same time denying the very thing they are borrowing.  

As you have pointed out, notice what problems we are supposed to ignore such as the fact that God is conscious but has no brain, nervous system or sense organs since it is immaterial or "spirit".  We're supposed to ignore this and accept that God is conscious somehow when if it existed it would be conscious nohow.