Atheism is a LIE

I again thank Con for providing his Rebuttal. But this time around, even Con must admit that his rebuttal is weak, and my argument is becoming stronger with each round. As I clarify what I mean, and the truth of the matter is revealed, it becomes quite undeniable that Atheism is a Lie and Atheists Lie. Con states: "The above statements are not mutually exclusive, this means that they both can be TRUE. By TRUE, it is not implied that either PERSON is right. It means that People with opposite beliefs can exist. I hope that clarifies. It is a pretty basic concept, I hope we don't spend any more time on this." - We would not have to spend more time on this, if you would admit you are wrong. Nobody is talking about if people exist or not. Quite ridiculous tangent that you drew. We are talking about if God exists or not, and if there is evidence for it, and there what people ought to believe or disbelieve about it. Con states: "I am amazed that Pro is trying to deny that evidence can exist both ways." - And the strawmen continue. I did not deny that evidence could not exists both ways. THAT is what ATHEISTS CLAIM!!!! That is the very atheist lie, that I am exposing in my resolution. It is the Atheists that consistently claim that theists have failed to provide "Evidence for their beliefs" and then Atheists resort to name calling when the evidence is presented. IT's quite disgusting. Yet here, Con admits, theists in fact DO have evidence. And Atheists Lie. This was already explained in R2 and Con has not made his argument any more sound. Then Con goes and tries to make several examples of how to deconstruct his own example that he used to support MY claim. Pro is laughing out loud. Con asks: "Jack is observing Mary's short hair RIGHT NOW. Does he have evidence that Mary has short hair? " Pro Answers: According to an atheist, No, Jack does not. Jack must have testable, repeatable evidence. Sight alone is not testable and repeatable. (Note : I am only using the Atheist's definition of evidence here. Which is synonymous to PROOF." Con states: "Two people measure the height of a person at the exact same moment. (One of them makes a mistake in the measurement.)" Pro Answers: If one makes a mistake, then in order to be honest, they must admit it was a mistake or that they are NOT sure. They can BELIEVE they are right. Then even if it was a mistake, they would not be liars. Otherwise...they'd be a liar.. Like if they told the other guy, he was the one probably making the mistake. and said his measurement was evidence but the other guy's measurement was not. How could he know? Con states : "You see a person with a gun above a murdered person. Is that evidence? It classifies as evidence in court..." Pro Answers: Yes. I personally would consider that very compelling evidence. However, the question is not what I consider valid evidence. The question is what does an ATHEIST consider valid evidence? Afterall, who is the one requesting evidence? It's the atheist. Obviously the one requesting the evidence must set the minimum standard for what constitutes as "valid" or evidence that they would accept. And the atheist does not classify such as evidence, or he would believe people when they had Near Death Experiences. But the atheist does not believe ppl with NDEs , considers them delusional, and the atheist continues to demand evidence. When asked, "what evidence do you consider valid?" The atheist is ALWAYS ready to give his response. The Atheist's Evidence "Evidence is that which is repeatable, testable, and observable by scientific measurements." Of course, I do not agree with this definition of evidence, but it is what definition set forth by Atheism. Not myself. IF CON DISAGREES, and says "No. That's not what atheists claim to be evidence!" Which is an understandable knee jerk reaction to being "caught red handed." ,, (the common reaction being - Denial.) .. then Con is stating that non-scientific evidence is evidence. he is saying Eye Witness Testimony, the Bible, Prophecies, JEsus Christ, are indeed "valid evidences" then Con is saying that Atheists are in effect "Ignorant." Why so? Simple. Think about it. P1. Evidence for God exists. P2. To be ignorant is to make incorrect statements or assertions (mistakes) in the light of valid evidence. C: Atheists are Ignorant about God's existence. For me, the theist, I consider the bible to be valid evidence for God. The Atheist will say that this is not evidence. The Atheist lies or is ignorant. demonstrated yet again. Con needs to make up his mind about which side he is on. Con says: "If Pro asserts that Jack's statement means that he is lying, I am really confused. " Pro Answers: Hint ; John is the theist. Jack Is the Atheist. Read the analogy again. Jack LIES about KNOWING whether or not MARY has short of long hair. At surface level, it may seem that Jack's evidence is "more valid" than John's evidence ( having seen Mary one whole hour after john.). However, when given just a tad bit of CRITICAL THINKING, we can surmise that EVEN JACK must ASSUME that Mary has short hair NOW. Without Looking at Mary NOW, JAck cannot say he KNOWS Mary has short hair. Even with the evidence of eye witness testimony and sight. However, IF jack CONSTANTLY PRETENDS TO KNOW something he does not know.... in the 21st century, we call the LYING. IF Jack acts like John's valid evidence is NOT valid evidence, then JAck Lies some more. IF JAck acts like a douchebag, and pretends to know-it-all, while calling John a nutcase or a bronze age peasant, then Jack is an atheist. Con asserts : "Pro essentially dismisses sight as valid evidence" - No. It's the atheists that do this. Con Asserts more straw men by saying " I am getting the feeling that Pro assumes that humans are omniscient. So, if a something happens, everyone is aware of it. That's not how the real world works. " -mmhmm.. Con is PRETENEDING TO KNOW SOMETHING, he does not know. What do we call that ? LYING. "That's not how the real world works. " is a typical atheist mantra. Empty in actual content or veracity or truth. How does Con know how the "real" world works? Con is assuming that he has already figured out how the entire universe, reality, and human mind works. Then in the very same sentence before, Con says "I am getting the feeling that Pro assumes that humans are omniscient." - No Con. I certainly don't think YOU are omniscient. Not when you are unable to do logic. and certainly not when you act like a hypocrite and blame me for your own misdeeds (see definition of Lie.) The most rational statement by Con was : "People get plenty of evidence for different things. Evidence could be contradictory. Then a person uses his judgement and weighs the evidence and decides what is more likely. So when I say "Person A has evidence that God does not exist", it means that Person A is aware of evidence both against and for God, weighs them, and decides that evidence for one of the two is stronger. That's why agnostics exist. An agnostic is someone who can't decide, can't reach a conclusion about which evidence is stronger, or doesn't care enough to weigh them. Theists believe that the evidence for God's existence is stronger, while atheists believe the opposite." Con admits that both sides have evidence. but Con provides another fallacy in ASSUMING that the evidence is simply weighed like weighing out fruits and vegetables in a grocery market. Evidence is not weighed in such a simplistic manner. Certain evidences are given higher weight or authority. For example, Scientific evidence is not weighed in the same category as witness testimony. Con ASSUMES, the theist and atheist collect evidence and simply weighs them to make their decision. This is simply not true. Not all people come to "believe" in this way. MOST people come to believe through a single undeniable and immensely powerful spiritual personal experience - often described as "Meeting Jesus." So in conclusion.. IF we decide that evidence is scietntific evidence or even demonstrable evidence in court, YES the evidence for theism is weaker. It is patently and obviously so. This is why the atheist will consistently demand scientific evidence from an unwitting theist. Because the atheist is aware of the different weight in evidence. But at the end of the day , all the atheist is doing is setting a snare for the theist. The atheist already knows the theist cannot provide any evidence to satisfy their doubt. Its not only common sense, its logic. Yet the atheist asks for the evidence any ways. Why? Because he is a liar. And wants to lie about having contradicting evidence.