Atheism is a LIE

I welcome your rebuttals , as they are but misconceptions I now hope to clarify for everyone reading. Con especially. -the burden of heavy ears- In a formal debate, or even in a civil conversation where both parties are genuinely interested in discovering truth, one does not place the "burden of proof,," on to one side of the conversation. If it were so that a conversation would go on where one side constantly demanded proof from the other , ,for every single claim , One can easily imagine ,another scenario where one person is placing their fingers in their ears and singing "lalala" and the outcome of both conversations would be more or less the same. There is a always a burden on both parties involved , or any party making any expression of thought at all. if it were not so, my opponent would not have needed to provide a rebuttal. This is the first demonstration of the atheistic LIE. Or atheistic Falsehood. New atheists enjoy demanding that one person has the burden of proof. While they are free from any burden of providing proof of their own claims. In no realm of reality does such a standard apply when honestly discovering truth. Even in court, a defendent must provide proof of his alibi to be taken seriously. . A prosecutor must provide proof of allegations to be deem the defendant guilty. . And so on. Here , proof is not scientific but any type of compounded evidence that leads accepting a claim as true, beyond a reasonable doubt . -definitions- Con wants to redefine the words i provided which i generally took from dictionary. com anyways. But at the end of the day con only obscures the definition, limiting the term ,LIE to mean only statements that are made deceptively. Con also points that that "intentions" as well as "deliberation" are a critical factor in determining whether such person is a liar or not. However, my contention is that ,"atheism " is a lie. An ideology, such as atheism, democracy, etc. cannot intend to do anything on its own. So the "better version," offered by my opponent does nof fit the definition in my resolution. The more robust definition of lie, is not to simply include verbal statements that can exact intentions behind them, but also include the idea of "falsehood, an untrue idea, or a false belief" noun1. a false statement; lie. Synonyms: fabrication, prevarication, falsification, canard, invention, fiction, story.2. something false; an untrue idea, belief, etc. :The Nazis propagated the falsehood (lie) of racial superiority, while Atheists propagate the lie of an absence of God, evidence for God, and belief. Whether the individual intentions of the nazi or atheist is good or bad becomes entirely irrelevant, if the claim made by their ideoogy itself is . . 1. False. 2. Propagated as True ( by knowing or ignorant individuals ) 3. Setting forth false information ( by knowing or ignorant individuals )4. Concealing true information 4. Concealing true information ( by knowing more ignorant ) 5. Consistently used to persuade others. Thus, if atheism is found to be false (a god really does exist) , then the ideology itself would be a lie. At least according to commonly accepted definitions as stated above. The truth of the matter is, anyone knows what a ",lie" means. It certainly isn't a difficult vocabulary to understand. But my opponent would have you believe it is. Yet another lie. The dependency of "atheism" being true or false, relies on the existence of God, not on the intentions of the atheist. Logic. And if I were to say that I "knew" for a fact or held scientific evidence that God does exist, I would also be contradicting my own assertion, making myself a liar. I donnot claim to "know" such things, but I do assert that a majority of atheists (if niot all) DO claim to "know" that God does not exist. The claim is simple. As my logic above. The "disbelief" that atheists assert can stem from only one of two "intentions". As my opponent himself conceded already. The first intention is that of "ignorance. " Which my opponent describes as a mistake. An accident. An UNINTENTIONAL action or statement that mis leads to harm or falsehood. The second form of disbelief stems , not from "ignorance", confusion or bewilderment, but instead stems from "contradictory evidence! " This type of disbelief, or rejection of a claim, is based solely on the idea that the claim cannot be true or appears unlikely, due to the readily available evidence, which does not support the claim, and therefore stands in direct opposition of the claim. A key example of this would be the assertion of evolution over God. In any case. Disbelief is therefore hey rejection of a claim with or without evidence. A rejection of a claim without evidence is better known as being "unbelievable," or we could properly define it as an "unbelief. " Unbelief is a result of ignorance. Not knowledge. A rejection of a claim with evidence , implies that contradictory evidence has been evaluated and accepted as true. Ergo, such a rejection of a claim is also a COUNTER claim, for which evidence is being presented, and therefore being presented as KNOwLedge. (See definition of knowledge. ) Belief itself cannot be knowledge. Though it may be founded on valid evidence. But disbelief is also not knowledge in itself. But also may be founded based on valid evidence. regardless of whether someone disbelieves or believes , if they claim that their beliefs are based on valid and justifiable evidence , then they are claiming to have knowledge to sustain those beliefs. Atheists individually claim to have knowledge of God As a result of their ideology. An atheists demands evidence (for which he has not determined what constitutes validity by any sensible means) and asserts that if God existed, so would the evidence for God. Here the atheist is lying by nature of his ideology by "pretending" to "know" what evidence for God even looks like or would be. The atheist presupposes and assumes that he KNOWS what God is like, how to define Him, and how to scrutinize evidence for such an entitiy. If God is defined as the creator of all things. And all things exist. Existence of all things is evidence for God. Even according to cons definition of evidence. yet Con proves my point by saying " we have consistently failed to find evidence of God's existence. God probably doesn't exist. ". As stated above, con is pretending to know what God is. Con has defined God in his mind , as no objective definition for God exists, and con has concluded that his imaginary God probably does not exist. Well I agree with con, that his God does not exist. Sincerely, I do not expect con to know Or be able to define God in his mind. Nor do I expect Con to be able to provide any evidence for or against The real God (should he exist). Thus i can conclude that Con is either ignorant towards God,, or pretending to know somethin he does not. And since Con demands evidence, we can easily see he is acting like he knows what evidence for God should be. As a final nail in the coffin , and to demonstrate my and to demonstrate my point once more over point once moreover, i'd like to see if con can answer a simple question. If you cannot , all of my claims would appear to stand Val all of my claims would appear to stand Valid. The question is this; Con states that if God existed we probably would have found some sort of evidence. What kind of evidence (not already presented) would lead us to believe God existed ? In answering this question. Con must provide a reasonable answer that would properly reflect reality. Con cannot assume God manifesting in the sky as a bearded man would be evidence for God. That would only be evidence for cons imaginary God. Con's evidnence that would convince him, must demonstrate an all powerful ,but also an all loving, God.