What is the reason atheists often appear to win the argument with theists? Is it because they are right, or is it that they just appear to win the argument?

Point - whoever goes first, when the subject is not falsifiable, is the one who looks wrong.

Illustration - Two brilliant professors meet every Friday at a coffee shop to publically debate a topic that is selected for them. This Friday the topic is "Does Intelligent Life Exists Elsewhere In The Universe". Each professors has to pick a side and try to convince everyone of their position. The first professor "Tim" has a slight advantage over the other professor "Tom" because he knows whoever goes first can easily be made to look wrong. So Tom wisely picks one of the sides and graciously lets Tim go first. Tim spends the next hour trying to prove there is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe. He gives statistics, probabilities, reasoning, and even emotional appeals. He gives facts as to how many stars and possible planets there probably are. He states that life must have occurred other places in our universe. You can imagine all the arguments and appeals Tim would make.

When it is Toms turn he confidently states that he has lack of faith in what Tim said. That Tim had provided no evidence and that his arguments were just opinion and his proclamations not falsifiable. To all there Tom looks right and Tim looks wrong.

As they walk home together Tim says to Tom, what would have happened if you had picked the other side of the argument? Tom replied that the results would have been the same, I could have easily made you look wrong. Whoever goes first can easily be made to look wrong, when the subject cannot be proven either way. Next weeks discussion is on whether or not God exists. Tim has decided to let Tom go first.

When a theist states that God exists, and an atheist says prove it. The theist looks wrong in his futile attempt to prove his belief. But if the theist let the atheist go first he could make him look wrong by denying his argument, by stating that he has provided no falsifiable evidence, with the obvious conclusion that his position should not be believed.

This is one major reason why atheists seem to win the argument.