Atheism is a LIE

Let's go over Pro's points. 1. belief Pro is obviously confused or he did not understand what the statements mean. The statement: "Person A believes X" does not mean that X is TRUE. I will kindly provide Pro an example to understand. (Person A believes that God exists. ) <---- This can be true (Theists exist) (Person B believes that God does not exist. ) <------ This can also be true (Atheists exist) The above statements are not mutually exclusive, this means that they both can be TRUE. By TRUE, it is not implied that either PERSON is right. It means that People with opposite beliefs can exist. I hope that clarifies. It is a pretty basic concept, I hope we don't spend any more time on this. 2. evidence - knowledge I am amazed that Pro is trying to deny that evidence can exist both ways. This is, again, a pretty basic concept. Pro wastes so much space on something so simple. This, of course, has nothing to do with time. Pro essentially tries to exploit that I wrote 2 hours ago and 1 hour ago in my example, which is, of course, irrelevant. Jack is observing Mary's short hair RIGHT NOW. Does he have evidence that Mary has short hair? (Mary actually has long hair, and she's wearing a wig) Two people measure the height of a person at the exact same moment. (One of them makes a mistake in the measurement. ) You see a person's blue eyes. (He's wearing contact lenses) You see a person with a gun above a murdered person. Is that evidence? It classifies as evidence in court. .. I have to kindly remind Pro that the first thing I wrote in R1 is that I would not like to argue about how strong evidence is or how deep a belief is. Let's keep this a logical debate. To show his point that my simple example does not stand, Pro makes the following statement: "I just disbelieve Mary has long hair because there is no evidence that Mary has long hair. In fact there is evidence that Mary has short hair , and that's because I saw her one hour ago. So I know Mary has short hair. Which is why I disbelieve Mary has long hair. " Then Jack is lying Pro essentially dismisses sight as valid evidence. The question is NOT whether Jack is lying. The question is whether Jack HAS EVIDENCE that Mary has short hair. If Pro asserts that Jack's statement means that he is lying, I am really confused. Jack is not required to know everything. Jack is not God, he is human. There may exist evidence against Jack's claim, but he's not aware of it. Jack is justified to make the a claim that he has evidence that Mary has short hair, if he saw her. Since Pro dismisses a lot of evidence, including sight, I would expect him to define what valid evidence is, and provide some examples. Pro not only confuses evidence with proof, he also dismisses any evidence for any statement that is not absolutely 100% true. I am getting the feeling that Pro assumes that humans are omniscient. So, if a something happens, everyone is aware of it. That's not how the real world works. People get plenty of evidence for different things. Evidence could be contradictory. Then a person uses his judgement and weighs the evidence and decides what is more likely. So when I say "Person A has evidence that God does not exist", it means that Person A is aware of evidence both against and for God, weighs them, and decides that evidence for one of the two is stronger. That's why agnostics exist. An agnostic is someone who can't decide, can't reach a conclusion about which evidence is stronger, or doesn't care enough to weigh them. Theists believe that the evidence for God's existence is stronger, while atheists believe the opposite. When I said "I will not accept", I meant as an assertion. Pro is welcome to show how one side claims, and the other does not. Is the claim "Jesus resurrected" not a claim for valid evidence about God? Miracles? The whole Bible? Prophecies? Isn't this evidence? What classifies as valid evidence according to Pro? Does Pro dismiss resurrection/prophecies etc as invalid? That would be an interesting question for Pro to answer. Finally, let me notice that my point still stands, since Pro did not even try to show how the core point of his argument, "no one knows if God exists of not" is true. I would like Pro to explicitly make an effort to show how this statement is possibly true. Without showing that, his whole argument falls apart.