Atheism is a LIE

Thank you Chipmonk for making this debate. Best of luck.Format As Chipmonk is PRO and the instigator, the burden of proof is on him to support "Atheism is a LIE". As Con I will rebut his argument and support the statement that Atheism is not a lie.Definitions Thanks to chipmonk for providing several definitions. While mostly fine, I believe two drastically need redefinition and one additional definitions is needed that wasn't provided, but could be helpful as I expect we'd otherwise shortly be debating over it's meaning.The first redefinition is for "Lie". I propose that this should be redefined as "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood." 1) This is an actual recognised definition and the most primary and therefore pertinent one. [1]2) Lack of deliberate intent in PRO's version is a meaningful difference which requires redefinition if there is a better version offered.3) Several things give indications that PRO is referencing my definition. The capitalised emphasis on LIE in the title, offering the synonym of deceitful with all it's negative connotations and the fact that he goes out of his way to try and show believers as superior (see Construct 2 below) all give a clear impression that he holds "lie" in a moralistic context. This is only present with my definition, as with his definition the person "lying" is not by definition intentionally meaning to deceive so it could be synonymous for mistaken and other words which do not carry moral weight. My word best fits his usage.4) Using a non-standard definition of "lie" invalidates the underlying basis of the topic "atheism is a lie"The other redefinition is for "Disbelief". I propose this should be "assumption of falsehood with or without evidence".1) As antonyms with the same root and the difference being the prefix of "dis", belief and disbelief should be logically consistent. Instead belief is "assumption of truth with or without evidence" while disbelief is given as "assumption of falsehood due to a lack or contradictory evidence." The definitions of belief and disbelief are prejudiced and inconsistent as only one required a lack of contradictory evidence. This gives a biased and inconsistent usage when each must be used in a logical argument. 2) I would be happier with a more precise definition of "theinabilityorrefusaltobelieveortoacceptsomethingastrue"[2] but then I'd have to change the definition of "belief" too to keep them consistent and I'd prefer to keep that to a minimum, Again this usage is closer to the actual recognised definition and the most primary and therefore pertinent one.3) PRO's usage is already inconsistent. Under definitions he merely says it needs to be "due to a lack or contradictory evidence." Later he says disbelief must be "based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence". AND is very different from OR in this context and in addition to abundance this shows PRO shows him trying to weight the burden unfairly on myself when he puts himself under no such measures for arguing the belief of a theist.4) PRO uses disbelief as the inverse of belief in his argument so they should have inverse meanings. The statements "I believe X is wrong" and "I disbelief that X is right" should be identical meanings due to the change in right/wrong. Because of the radically different requirement and burdens of proof PRO tries to set for belief and disbelief, they are not. They therefore cannot be used.5) As disbelief is used in reference to what atheists claim in construct 4 and is used to define atheists in definitions, it should be representative of the word as atheists use it. Atheists hold a wide range of weak and strong, implicit and explicit, negative and positive beliefs about the non-existence of god[3]. Some of these, such as implicit atheists who have "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it"[4] do not disbelieve in God as per PRO's definition but do as per mine. Mine is more relevant and inclusive.An additional definition I would like to add is evidence: "thatwhichtendstoproveordisprovesomething;groundforbelief;proof."RebuttalPRO has put together three syllogisms, each with two premises and one conclusion. Despite his claim that if the premises are right then the final conclusion shows atheism is a lie, he has not at any point shown that the any one of the premise is true. Until he has done so the conclusion does not matter.The BoP is on PRO so I look forward to him offering this evidence from rounds 2 onwards.I will however offer some preliminary arguments showing that the premise are false or irrelevant.Construct 1Premise1 : no one can know if God exists of not.To know is to have "An assertive belief with valid evidence". The requirement is only to have evidence, not incontrovertible and completely iron-clad proof.Based on the assumption (please let me know if you contest it, otherwise I'll assume you concede it) that scientists have looked into the causes of various different phenomenon like gravity, waves, magnetism, evolution, etc and found no evidence of god we can state:We have consistently failed to find evidence of God's existenceGod probably doesn't exist.Although not definitive, it counts as valid evidence based on inductive reasoning[4] as per the definitions provided. Abductive reasoning could also be used.Conclusion: whoever claims to know if God exists or not, is a liar.Even if premise 1 were true this is incorrect. As per my redefinition, it does not mean they are a liar because that requires "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive". That is not shown in your construct. Someone claiming to know if God exists could be merely mistaken as they didn't think through the logic properly, or maybe they were lied to and were saying something they believed to be true.Construct 2This is completely irrelevant. If in the later rounds PRO provides proof that Construct 1 and 3 are right, then the overall premise of atheists being liars is proven true regardless of what believers claim. This seems to be only added as an attempt to prove moral superiority which is not a factor in this topic.Construct 3Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists.Premise 2: disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions)Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists.As per my redefinitions, this biased usage should no longer be used unless you can put forward an argument of why your definitions hold.Furthermore, as pointed out earlier you are contradicting your own previously given definition here.Lastly this relies on Construct 1 being true, which I have argued it is not.[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...[3] https://goo.gl...[4] https://goo.gl...[5] https://goo.gl...