Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[GrandizerII]

Point is though an atheist can be completely illogical and give bad arguments. They can lose a debate to a Christian. But after all that is over: It still remains that the Christian has no evidence for their God.

It's a common but technically inaccurate assertion that there is NO evidence for God. There is evidence. 

Just not the kind of empirical* evidence that some people seem to think is required. 

And therefore the cry, "NO EVIDENCE!" gets repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over....



*based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. (see? theory and pure logic are other forms of evidence)

Poor evidence if you ask me. One could pretty much substitute God with the cosmos in many of those arguments, and that would make the arguments more parsimonious. Also, such arguments tend to not be based on pure logic, but on biased interpretations of current scientific observations (or even making shit up and calling it scientific).