Atheism is a lie

Premise 1: men in Minnesota wear beards Premise 2: Paul is from Minnesota Conclusion: Paul has a beard Based on the argument it is logical to assume that Paul has a beard. Now of course it is possible that you are wrong and Paul does not have a beard. Certain areas can have trends and fashions. Now does everyone follow them no but premise 1 as an example is a potentially true statement. "Also. I never said believers don"t express their beliefs, or "TRY" to preach. I said believers are not preachers. And even preachers never claim to Know. Even when they verbally say "I know God exists," since it"s only an expression of their belief, it can be easily assumed they don"t know, and only believe." So a believer is not able to honestly make a claim to knowledge of a deity weather its true or false because for them to say they know god exists is only an expression. Yet when atheists say it there somehow actually making a claim of knowledge sounds more like you want one side to be justified and the other to be in error when anyone claiming to have knowledge of a god or lack of god weather a believer or atheist would be wrong since no one knows for sure whether or not a god exists. "However, it is important to note, when the atheists say that they disbelieve something, they are actually making a claim to knowledge. The reason for that is, when atheists say they disbelieve they provide reasons. They also claim that their reasons are tantamount to scientific evidence. And if we define knowledge as being beliefs that are well supported by evidence, then one can rightly gather that atheists are assuming to have knowledge about God, and therefore can say that he is unlikely to exist." Atheist are not convinced there is a god because there is no evidence to support that such a being exists. Now an atheist may even have reason to doubt the claim because of evidence suggesting that a god is not there. One need only describes a deity to figure out if there is evidence of a god. Take for example a creation god. A deity that created everything. We know through scientific evidence that a need for this god is not there and there is nothing to suggest a deity like being had a hand in it. Unless you simply contribute the name god to physics but that is just giving the name to what is the real cause rather than the real cause being contributed to the idea of a deity. Now this may be a claim to knowledge because it is a belief supported by evidence. It is not an absolute claim definitively saying one way or the other just simply providing evidence for one side or the other. Which is perfectly justified to make the best decision one can on the topic. There is a difference between saying 100% there is or is not a god and providing evidence to say this is way there is most likely a god or not a god. And if the evidence of one side wins out more than the other. The side with the best evidence is the best choice at the moment to determine what is most likely true until new or better evidence can be found. "But to say that you disregard faith entirely, is also another lie. Doesn't everyone have faith in humanity? Doesn't con have faith that he or she is loved? Doesn't she have faith That love even exists? Or does she disbelieve love too? Faith is required for love because it cannot be proven." I do disregard faith as being completely useless tool in finding truth. Faith provided no way of telling a truth from a lie or what is most likely from what is unlikely. Unlike science, knowledge and reasoning. I do not have faith in humanity I have history and personal experience and the experience of others to tell me that people can to great and wonderful things but can also do every wretched thing. That despite hard times humans pull through. I do not need to have faith in this I have evidence that tells me it is possible. I don"t need faith that I am loved I can test and find evidence. Does the person say they love me? Do they want to spend time with me? Do they put me first? Do they use me? Etc., etc. I can never know for 100% but based on the evidence I can make a good guess on weather I am loved or not. Same can be said of love in general. I can read about love, talk to people who claim to be in love and read studies done on love and how it works biologically and psychologically. I don"t need faith. Love can be proven people sometimes even ask people to prove their love by marring them or by giving or doing others tasks or signs of love. Faith is not needed and is far inferior to evidence and knowledge when it comes to the search for truth.