Atheism is a lie

Con has said that something can be logical, but incorrect. Yet fails to provide any specific examples where something is logically true, yet turns out to be false. If something is logically true, and we find it to make logical sense, the under all circumstances would the claim be true. Such as the claim that Believers cannot be liars for believing. If a believer also became a preacher, evangelist, or vocal messenger of his supposed beliefs, that believer risks becoming a liar, if his beliefs turned out to be false. However, it must be recognized that the moment a believer begins to preach, they are a preacher rather than a believer, and generally speaking most believers do not preach with conviction or agenda, nor do they carry interest in swaying non-interested parties. Thus, generally speaking, the majority of believers can be found to be entirely innocent of claim that "They claim to KNOW if God exists or not." Which indicates the intellectual dishonesty of the atheistic worldview and catch phrase slogans that demand evidence from people who profess beliefs, and have not truly (or logically) professed knowledge. Knowledge being beliefs supported by testable evidence allowing for prediction. Con also believes my logical conclusion is not valid because my premises deal with different states of mentality. Knowledge and belief. However, it is my argument that knowledge and beliefs are related, but that they are also contingent upon one another. Which is also stated in my first premise, which as accepted (however unwittingly) by my opponent. The ordering of the premises is irrelevant. and you would find they are identical to each other in both construct 2&3. The premise "To KNOW is to have valid evidence for your BELIEFS." Which I feel is a perfectly fair definition of knowledge, is identical in both constructs ,and could just as well be premise 1, for both constructs. The conclusion for construct 2 is that believers do not claim to know. Construct 3 states that Disbelievers (namely Atheists) do lay claim to knowledge, evidence, counter evidence, or the absence of reliable and conclusive evidence they would find acceptable. The subtle implication here is that the Atheist retains the knowledge necessary to decisively reject all God claims up to this point in history, deeming them ALL untrue. Atheist's claim to know, that IF God existed, they would have recognized evidence for it. However, much of this position comes from the atheist's misunderstanding of history, as well as the role of religion, while completely discounting the vast changes in human psychology over extended periods of time. They assert that because of the limited understanding of ancient civilizations, all of them were simply brainwashed. However, they fail to recognize that throughout history God has never been defined clearly enough to dictate what this evidence would or should look like, should we discover any. The question really is not about knowledge. But about what is deserving of being called "valid" evidence. Valid evidence is what is required for knowledge. Atheists demand valid evidence for God, and base their disbelief on the absence to said "valid evidence." However, one must not lose sight that without providing an objective means of understanding the subject of their study, no evidence that they gather can ever be valid...at least not in any scientific or empirical sense of the word. All evidence would become inherently subjective. The subject (ie. God, gods, big bang) has not been defined so as to be made objective. Again, my argument is that ATHEISM IS A LIE. The ideology in itself is irrational, perhaps even more so than a literal fundamentalist. The only method of sustaining an illogical belief system is through doctrinal mantras. Such as the mantra of Huxley the "agnostic atheist." Where you say you don't know because there is no evidence, it also assumes that you know what evidence should even look like. The REASON for your lack of knowledge, is founded upon the lack of evidence and failure of the "supposed existence" to provide adequate evidence for their existence. Thus your "i dont know" is not really a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of evidence that leads to disbelief or rejection. As you admitted, you have not seen any evidence to make you believe the claims are true. The falsehood is that you claim to know what this evidence would be. Yet Con fails to propose any valid or rational examples of said valid evidence, while basing her rejection of the claim upon it. In short, her disbelief is based on her claim that she KNOWS if God would exist or not, after reviewing the claims and the evidence to this point. The argument is not that she is claiming to never change her mind. The argument is that at this point in time, (which should be the only time that matters to this debate and discourse,) by nature of her atheistic ideology, she is claiming to know if God exists or not.