Atheism is a Lie

I am very impressed with my opponent's rebuttal and sound conduct. Whether his deductions are valid, we aim to gather. All Pro's definitions I accept as clear and valid. Also his deductions seem fair enough. Agnosticism is a lack of faith in any one particular God. The agnostic is not able to have evidence , nor is he given spiritual insight to take a leap of faith. However, the agnostic does not reject the The God, only he does not reject any god, necessarily. Without having conviction, the agnostic is not only unable to decide, but he is unable to assert any claim at all, regarding the topic. As Descartes said , his life is too short, and the topic is too obscure. Surely, we have come along way since the times of Descartes, and knowledge has multiplied upon the earth, not only in sciences, but is sociology, philosophy, and religion. Surely still our deas about God are not always correct, whether individual or written in a book. It would be "impudence" to claim that one possessed absolute knowledge of God, so as to define God, or make God comprehensible to another. So i guess saying The God should suffice. Isaiah states "there is no searching of His understanding."Jesus states "no man has seen the Father save the Son."So clearly, no man "knows" absolutely if God exists or not. This is why one must believe. Having faith or believing is a virtue. Believing is an act that DOES manifest humility and modesty, by its nature it also disowns any claims to valid , testable evidence. Valid , testable evidence, meaning scientific evidence,Meaning evidence that can be shared, meaning there can also be communal knowledge on the topic. Beliefs become knowledge not when evidence exists. Belief does not become knowledge even when one has encountered evidence first hand. Belief only becomes knowledge when you can recognize the evidence that demonstrates the truth and share that truth with others. Knowledge is often shared. Static. Defined. Beliefs not so much. . . As far as altruism and philanthropy , they are less of a concern (at least here on the internet) than that of discovering truth. Perhaps your versions of spiritual edification is much of the same idea, except you may call it philanthropy while i simply call it discourse. I do not assume to know the truth,though i reserve the right to believe my beliefs R true, i do not assume they are right. I do not know if they are right. I only believe such. In light of this fact about myself, and my limited knowledge, and lack of conviction to say i KNOW the God exists , i prefer to say i ,believe god exists. I cannot say if it And if the agnostic has not rejected god, and even the believer does not KNOW god, so as to be 100percent free from doubt (unless u claim to be jesus) , that God exists, then the agnostic is not far from being a believer and an atheist not far from being a believer. And as such, it may not be philantropy, but if it can be decided reasonably that ones does not need to ,KNOW god, in order to believe god (but one must know him to reject him),, it is my hopes that this will open up avenues for those who are still "lacking belief because i have no evidence," to believe without evidence. First they need to realiZe that belief comes first. Then comes knowledge. They do not need evidence to belief. They decieve themselves into thinking such. And if i can help them see the illogicality of their position, ,,then perhaps even out of insolence can altruism manifest. The eventual conclusion that comes out of these seemingly agnostic constructs, is that it does not matter what the priests say, what the pope says, or the monks or even the bible. there is only one truth. One light. And one way. Regardless of what the hirelings claim. None of them are infallible representatives for God. Nor am I. i am but a sheep following the good shepherd because I believe i am known. Not because i know. "Beware of the bread of scribes and pharisees. "