Atheism is a LIE

Clap Clap Clap. Very Impressive Con. I agree with much of the foundation in your logic. Thank you for pointing out there are ranges of degree in belief (from weak to strong.) and also accepting my definitions. However, Con's logic does become disjointed from the middle of his argument. And though Con has done substantial work frame-working his argument Con has not provided much reasoning behind his "refuting" my claims (aside from declaring them inconsistent.), while in the end...his own "framework" works against his own refutations, and supports my argument. Atheism is, indeed, a Lie. 1. Definitions. Truth : I agree with Con's logic in defining Truth to be X=X. and statement X=-X is false. To say the Sky is the sky is true. To say the Sky is not the sky is false. Here Con points out , according to such logic, and acknowledgement of existence of "truth", we can asset almost axiomatically " God cannot both exist and not exist." Much of the rest of Con's framework seems valid,, until! he gets to the point of saying : "As a last note, the statements: Person A believes X. Person B believes ~X. are not mutually exclusive. ..." Con has not demonstrated how both Person A and B can be right and their claims or beliefs be TRUE. Clearly, from the logic we both agreed upon above, both beliefs cannot be true. I believe Con is arguing that both STATEMENTS are TRUE STATEMENTS. But My resolution is not that Atheists are deceiving themselves or making false statements about themselves. My resolution is that Atheism is a Lie and therefore atheists make false statements about God. The BELIEF of an Atheist is therefore a LIE. therefore, when (and only when) an Atheist declares his beliefs, and propagates them as a form of Truth,, makes them also liars. It does not make the STATEMENT " Atheists disbelieve God." a lie. That statement is part of one of my premises. and the statement is true. The disbelief or lack of belief in God IS mutually exclusive to a belief in God. And it is my contention that atheism is a lie which makes atheists liars. This assertion of Con's that both can be true is recurrent throughout Con's argument. And is a stawman fallacy. (c) evidence: IT's interesting that Con accepts that both sides (theists and atheists) have "evidence" for their beliefs. Yet, important to note, that Atheists clearly do not recognize Con's claim that Theists hold evidence. Anyone who is an atheist, is familiar with the Mantra "Where is the evidence?" Clearly, Atheists claim that there is no "valid evidence" for the theist's beliefs. Ergo, the atheist's disbelief. Con is clearly using an equivocation fallacy to make his point again. (which seems rather convenient after asserting that he would not argue definitions.) If atheists say there is NO evidence FOR God, and theists say there IS evidence FOR God.... One side must be wrong. Either the theist has evidence,,,, and the atheist is lying. Or the theist does not have evidence, and the theist is lying. There cannot be both evidence and no of evidence for God. Logic. In conclusion, if Con states both sides have evidence, he makes Atheists Liars, because atheists claim theists have no evidence. And my resolution is demonstrated yet again. IF athesits say there is evidence against God, and theists say there is NO evidence AGAINST God, only one side can be wrong. Either the atheist has counter evidence (evolution) for God, or he does not. If we say Evolution is evidence against God, the theists must lie that there is no evidence against God. (If theists claim there is no evidence against God.) However, theists do not claim such ideas. Because Theists themselves have not properly defined God. Only Atheism has improperly defined God, making itself into a lie. (d) knowledge I'd like to expand upon Con's example, as I believe it supports my contention even more, if we clarify his proposition. And when clarified , Con's analogy is a better depiction of "knowledge" than evidence. As explained below. John has evidence that Mary has long hair. (He saw her hair two hours ago) Jack has evidence that Mary does not have long hair. (He saw her an hour ago) The question : "Does Mary have long hair?" Con asserts that "Mary cannot have both short and long hair, however evidence may exist for both. She may occasionally wear a short hair wig, which makes short hair false. She may have had a haircut between the two observations, which makes long hair false." Con is saying one thing , yet implying another. Which is a common atheistic tactic and yet another demonstration of my resolution . Is clearly saying that Mary cannot have both long and short hair, is clearly saying that Mary cannot have both long and short hair yet implying that Mary having long and short hair can both be true, and having evidence for them both can be true. What is Con doing here? Besides confusing himself and the audience? Allow me to clarify. The question itself suggests temporal truth. In that the question is actually asking "does mary have long hair (NOW)?" . The analogy fails to account for the fact that throughout mary's hypothetical life, she has indeed had short hair and long hair. Thus the evidence that Jack and John has can only be true if the question is "did Mary ever have long hair?" In the case the question is as implied "does mary have long hair (now)?" Or "does god exist (now)?" , then the only honest answer both parties can give is "I dont know." Because neither side is looking at Mary Now. John would be honest if he said , "i don't know if Mary has long hair, but I believe she does." In contrast, Jack would be found to be dishonest if he said "i disbelieve mary has long hair, because John has no evidence." Further. Jack does not KNOW if mary has long or short hair now. As mentioned before the evidence that John holes is not valid, if we are asking if Mary has long hair now. Jack having witnessed Mary's short hair, maybe entirely convinced that Mary does not have long hair , but without looking at Mary while the question is being asked , Jack cannot honestly say for certain . Neither can Jack assert that his evidence is more valid. It could very well be, that Mary was wearing a short hair wig one hour ago. And jack was mistaken. Then, logically we can conclude, if Jack says " 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 . 1. If mary was wearin a wig, Jack's claim is a lie entirely. 2. Even if Jack is correct, he is lying that either a. there is no evidence for mary's long hair (john saw it 2 hrs ago), and b. He has valid evidence that mary has short hair. C. Both Con says he will not accept the idea that only one side has evidence and the other does not. This means con will not except the atheist proposition that theists do not have evidence for their beliefs. Not confusing evidence with proof , but still differentiating evidence from valid evidence becomes crucial. It would appear that by "proof" pro means "valid evidence." as mentioned before, then Pro must be suggesting one side has proof, the other does not. Either way. C2 is not irrelevant. Which further demonstrates Con's ireconcilably confusion on my own contention. Believers believe the claim. They do not make any claims. Therefore cannot be liars. It is the leaders or religious organizations or groups that make the claim, the believers only believe the claim. Then conclusion of my argument is that should God exist, then his lack of scientific evidence is purely logicAL result of necessitating the need to differentiate "believers" from "nonbelievers." Its the perfect mechanism to decide who is innocent and who is guilty (at least in their hearts.)