Atheism is a LIE

But this time around, Allcon can do is establish a straw man, and demand that I forfeit. random_noob Con "Pro seems undecided about the definition of evidence we should use. I find this reasonable, but since this is the case, I don"t understand why he argued with me in the first place. It seems that we agree. " - con says he accepts my definitions, yep pretends to be confused when the definitions stands against his logic. I specifically stated that we are using the atheist definition of evidence, which is scientific evidence. In this round Pro pretty much conceded this debate by accepting that valid evidence exists pro or against the existence of God. "I did not deny that evidence could not exists both ways. " "theists in fact DO have evidence" "For me, the theist, I consider the bible to be valid evidence for God. " "Con admits that both sides have evidence. " (That's one of the first things I said in R1, and Pro disagreed) - is con Suggesting that this have scientific evidence for their beliefs? I made a very clear distinction between theistic evidence , like the Bible, and atheistic evidence like science. The only way con can argue his logic is true, is by obfuscating this fact that no atheists considers theistic evidence to even be evidence at all ! Thus the only way con can make this logic work. Which is, to say atheists lie about there being no evidence. Either way, my opponent seems to be conceding to my resolution, and if anyone should forfeit, it should be the person who is no longer able to set forth a logical Argument. "The above make his statement C1P1 FALSE. Even if we assume that C1P1 is TRUE:" - my opponent keeps asserting that C1 P1 is false. My opponent seems to believe, people can know or have knowledge that God exists. According to my definitions, that con already excepted, to know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs. Here con is asserting that people know God exists because they have valid evidence to believe God exists. My opponent wants to include the Bible, prophecies, and Jesus Christ into the fold of valid evidence. But who considers the Bible to be valid evidence so as to lead one to knowledge? Opponent seems to think that knowledge of the Bible is somehow a proof for God. Which is preposterous. Believers are called believers , specifically because they do not know. And specifically because they do not know , They only have the choice or option to believe or disbelieve. Having decided to believe , in the evidence (valid or not) , they r called believers, and can never be liars. Including my self. Pro believes that God exists. (apparently) -yes i do. Pro claims that he has valid evidence for God. (he just did in R3) - no i did not. Please quote where i said this. Or i ask conduct points be deducted For defamation. Pro claims to know whether God exists. (see definition of knowledge) -your premise is a lie. Which is assumptive of an atheist. Pro is a liar. (through his construct 1) - correction ; Con is a liar. Plenty of people would be happy to argue about the existence of God in this website. If that's what Pro wants, he should make a debate stating explicitly that - no one is arguIng the existence of God. P1c1 clearly states no one can even know if God exists. You can build up your strawmen all around it however you like, yet all you do is further demonstrate my resolution, which is " atheism is a lie " . I know that making such a provocative statement will get more attention, but it's impossible for Pro to support such a case. -what is impossible to prove? That atheists lie about evidence? Like you did? That atheists lie about being able to KNOW if God exists? Like you just did? Or that atheists just flat out lie? Like you do now. In R2 and R3, Pro made absolutely no effort to stand by his initial argument. He wrote 3 constructs in R1, and he abandoned them right away. - sure. Keep writing your novel. Entirely fictionary. In fact, a more appropriate description of his own argument. He is trying to debate about whether God exists or not, which is irrelevant to THIS debate. -nope. As much as you try to confuse the audience. It wont work. My resolution is in the topic of this debate which is that "ATHeism is a lie. " this much, I feel I demonstrated Many times over again. This debate is about whether the definition of atheism means that it is a lie ("Atheism is a lie by definition and logic. "). - yes. That is correct. And as you can see your ENTIRE rebuttal up to now, is just a strawman, or your own inability to grasp my argument . I accepted Pro's definitions, and showed how (with these definitions) C1P1 is FALSE and C3P2 is not included in the definition of atheism. I asked Pro in both rounds to support his argument ("I am expecting Pro to address my points, and prove his case. Particularly the points I made about C1P1, and C3P2. ","I would like Pro to explicitly make an effort to show how this statement is possibly true. "). If Pro has nothing to support his initial argument, I will kindly ask him to forfeit the next rounds, or admit he lost. C1P1 is not false. You have failed to demonstrate why it is false. Are you claiming to KNoW God does not exist? Or are you continously going to lie about me claiming such things? Even when its my first premise lol. c3p2 is the definition of disbelief. To assume falsehood with or without evidence. And stands valid and sound. I'd like to remind Con that pointing his finger at something and screaming "inconsistency" doesnt make it so.