That being said, there is no atheist WLC. There is no atheist debater who has dedicated his life and career to defending atheism. When Craig debates he does his homework. He reads material his opponent has published, he is well read and knowledgeable of most of the arguments that atheists typically use and he therefore comes to the debate prepared with counterarguments for them. Atheist debaters on the other hand who've debated Craig have almost always underestimated Craig's debating skills and arguments, despite there being a tremendous amount of knowledge freely available of Craig's arguments and opinions on the internet.
Therefore, in the future, in order for atheism to maintain the intellectual upper hand over the absurdities of religious belief and faith, we desperately need good atheist debaters on our side who are informed, articulate, charismatic, and as determined as those who argue for god. All an atheist really needs to do is study the best arguments made by theists, and find sufficient counterarguments for them. But this doesn't come easy: in order to refute the cosmological argument, one has to posses a substantial amount of scientific knowledge that often takes years to accumulate. Craig has been studying cosmology for decades and so most philosopher atheists fail to be able to articulate cosmology as good as he can. Most atheist cosmologists also fail to debate the philosophical aspects well because science and cosmology operate very differently than philosophy does. Craig has cornered both markets pretty well even though I think his moral argument fails miserably (see posts here and here). So unless we get a person who has all those attributes I mentioned above in addition to dedicating their life for defending atheism, we will not get an atheist debater as good as WLC.
Case in point: The recent Rosenberg v. Craig debate Is Faith in God Reasonable?