Atheism is a LIE

First of all, good luck to my opponent. I will accept Pro's definitions, except the one for belief/disbelief, which we agreed in the comments. Since this is a logical debate, I would rather not argue about definitions. Furthermore, Pro provides some terms that could be relative and not absolute. For instance, a person could have a strong belief, a moderate belief, a weak belief etc. Little evidence could exist, or very strong evidence could exist etc. A statement could be unlikely true, very likely true etc. Since Pro did not mention anything that implies the above, I will assume that no intermediate states exist, e.g. a person either believes or not, evidence either exists or not. I will follow this during this debate, and I am kindly asking that Pro follows it as well. Let me examine Pro's case. He provides 3 logical arguments and reaches the conclusion that "Atheism is a lie". It is his burden, to show how all of these are arguments are sound, and my burden to refute any of them. 1. Definitions -------------------- (a) truth When a statement X is TRUE, statement ~X (NOT X) is FALSE (NOT TRUE). This is a basic logic concept. This means that when the statement "God exists" is TRUE, statement "God does not exist" is FALSE. God cannot both exist and not exist. (b) belief / disbelief belief:Person A thinks that statement X is TRUE, or simply person A believes X. disbelief: Person A thinks that statement X is FALSE, or simply person A believes ~X. A belief does not make X true or false. However if the statement "Person A believes X." is TRUE then "Person A believes ~X" is false. As a last note, the statements: Person A believes X. Person B believes ~X. are not mutually exclusive. They both can be TRUE. Finally, It was agreed by Pro in the comments that belief/disbelief does not have to do with evidence. It is just an assumption of truth or falsehood. (c) evidence Evidence, since it refers to observations by individuals, and not absolute truths, can exist for both X and ~X. Therefore: The truth of the statement "Person A has evidence that X is TRUE" does not make the statement "Person B has evidence that X is FALSE" untrue. If this is not self explanatory, I will give an example: John has evidence that Mary has long hair. (He saw her hair two hours ago) Jack has evidence that Mary does not have long hair. (He saw her an hour ago) Of course Mary cannot have both short and long hair, however evidence may exist for both. She may occasionally wear a short hair wig, which makes short hair false. She may have had a haircut between the two observations, which makes long hair false. Both pieces of evidence are valid, and John and Jack can both claim that they have evidence for the length of Mary's hair. In our setting, both theists and atheists can have evidence for the existence of God, which is very reasonable. Some simple examples of evidence for the existence of God may be: Jesus, the Bible, miracles, intelligent design etc. Some simple examples of evidence against the existence of God may be: contradictions between religions, God of the gaps, God's non intervention etc. Of course I am not a theologist, I am not aware of all the arguments for both sides. However, it is not in the scope of this debate to assess which party has better arguments/evidence, I will just acknowledge that evidence exists both ways. (d) knowledge According to Pro to know is to believe and have evidence. Therefore: Person A knows X. If and only if: Person A believes X. Person A has evidence for X. Notice here that, using this definition, knowledge of a statement X does not say anything about X being TRUE or FALSE. Furthermore, because of the definitions of evidence and belief, two individuals can have contradictory knowledge. Person A knows X. Person B knows ~X. The above statements can both be true, since it is only required that the two individuals hold a belief, and have evidence. Opposite beliefs can exist, as well as opposite evidence, as I showed in (b) and (c). As a result of the above, statements: "Person A knows X.", "X is FALSE." can both be true. 2. Pro's argument -------------------------------- C1 P1: no one knows if God exists of not. This means, using Pro's definitions, that either: - neither theists or atheist have evidence to support God's existence or the opposite. - noone holds a belief about God. Both of the above of course are false, as I showed earlier. Plenty of evidence exists both ways, and plenty of people hold a belief regarding God. I am expecting Pro to show how this premise is true, which seems an impossible task, given his definitions. Notice that, whether God exists or not, is irrelevant here. C1 P2: redundant, we have already defined knowledge. C1 Conclusion Pro defines lie as deception, and in this statement, the definition implied, is someone being wrong. However, Pro"s position is already tough, so I "ll let him get away with that. Construct 2 Irrelevant to the resolution C3 P1: Atheists disbelieve that God exists. "Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists" is the original statement but the word "claim" here provides nothing and this is a definition. Pro does not have to show why this is true. C3 P2: Atheists claim that there is evidence that God does not exist. "disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence." is the original statement but this is inconsistent, and we agreed with Pro that disbelief is the opposite of belief. So, P2 is not a direct result of the definition of disbelief as originally stated. Pro can make the statement that both theists and atheists claim that they have evidence. He can also make the statement that neither of them claim to have evidence. I will not accept that only one side has evidence and the other does not. Evidence on something that abstract can be easily dismissed or accepted depending on your POV. Remember, we are talking about evidence here, not proof. ------------------------------------------- Summary: I am expecting Pro to address my points, and prove his case. Particularly the points I made about C1P1, and C3P2.