Atheism is a lie

Right now I am address your arguments which are flawed in themselves and their conclusion just in the matter of how logic works. I will first address this before offering my counter argument. An argument can be illogical or logical. If it is illogical it can be dismissed until revised to be logical. If the argument is logical then it is an argument to debate. Now just because an argument is logical does not mean it is correct. An argument can be logical but incorrect. For construct 1 premise 1 and 2 lead to the conclusion. It is a logical argument. Which I also find convincing. Now with construct 2, premise 1 and premise 2 are not relate and lead to no conclusion. In premise 1 you are talking about knowing and in premise 2 you are talking about belief with no relation between premise 1 and premise 2 the conclusion is defended and there for is illogical. A better argument might be premise 1: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs. Premise 2 belief does not need evidence. Conclusion: belief does not equal knowing. Construct 2 is more two statements and an assertion than an argument. Or a better conclusion for construct 2 might be believers don"t know there is a god. The argument does not prove that believers are not liars. Now with construct 3 premise 1 states that atheists don"t believe which is very different than knowing. Not being convince something is true is not an automatic denial of a claim. Basically what an atheist has is doubt. There not convinced of the claim of a god based on the lack of evidence to prove the claim. They would be convinced if there was sufficient evidence but the one making the claim has not meet their burden of proof to convince them that the claim is true. When a person makes a claim they must give sufficient evidence for the claim to be accepted. Now with the construct 3 it almost proves the opposite conclusion. Premise 2 states that to know is to have valid evidence for their belief. And in premise 1 the atheist does have evidence to the contrary of the god claim and the lack of evidence is also evidence of the none truth of the claim because of something is real it should leave some evidence. now this is not conclusive but is a more justification for doubt of the truth of the claim. So because the atheist has valid evidence they would in construct 3 argument be justified to believe there is no god. But of course as state before atheists are not convinced by the god claim. They lack belief. Not the same as knowing that a god does not exist. So ultimately your final conclusion is in error. "First, IF someone claims to KNOW, they are a liar.... Second, believers do not claim to KNOW. They only assert that they BELIEVE. and to BELIEVE is not the same as to KNOW. Therefore, one can logically conclude that even if the religion itself is a lie, the person who believes in the lie, is not a liar." Now this argument is logical and I do agree with the conclusion. Your argument is stated much better here. However, this argument could be said of either atheists or believers. Yes, there are some atheists and some believers who claim to know that god exists or does not exist and it is true they be wrong because no one can "know". But believers usually tend to believe. Now whether its justified or not is a different debate. Now for atheists most simply doubt. They don"t "know" or claim to know whether god exists or not they are simply don"t find the claim supported enough by evidence to accept yet. Your argument on disbelieve I completely reject. To disbelieve is simply to not be convince of a claim. It is not saying the claim is not true it is simply saying it is not convinced it is true. If a person did not accept a claim and believe it to be false, then they would be rejecting the claim. Fully stating the falseness of the claim. "So even though the atheist may preface many of their arguments with a meaningless "I don't know." immediately every word following that sentence would be plenty of statements assuming knowledge." An "I don"t know" is not meaningless. There are things that we as humans are not sure about we don"t KNOW everything. It could even be argued that we don"t KNOW anything. To not know something is not claiming knowledge it is the exact opposite. It is the stating the lack of knowledge. Its saying there is not enough information to make a reasonable conclusion that is most likely to lead me to the truth.