the i dont know position means, i know its false

I will finish off with a point by point critique of my opponent's position. --"all the knowledge i have is from my sensory experience, yes" That is faulty philosophy. Empiricism is a self-defeating concept. If what you claim is true, then you do not know any concept. You wouldn't know logic, science, and countless other things. How do you know all knowledge is gained by sensory experience? Did you observe it "all my knowledge was gained by observation"? --"i have plenty of memory.." Yes you do, as do I. --"religion is not true, thats why you have to believe in it, because you dont know is true, and not that religion is true" I believe in math. I believe that 2+2=4. Does that make it false? I believe in the processes of science. Is that false too? I could easily claim "You believe in Atheism, and that is because its false!". That would be a sad claim. You are arguing in a circle. Saying "You believe in religion, and you believe in it because it is false. And religion is false, because you believe in it, making it false". You are using circular reasoning. --"logic is observation, log i see" I'm beginning to doubt if you are being serious. Are you being serious? What does "log I see" have anything to do with logic being material? Logic describes the correct chain of reasoning from premise to conclusion. Please look up what you are arguing for. --"logic is absolute, no belief involved, i know you cant close your eyes and read on if you are human like me, so its resonable to keep them open, logical" Please read a book on logic. It is the correct chain of reasoning. It is the structure of arguments. Laws of logic are only absolute if someone upholds it absolutely (which is God), so you just proved my point. You believe logical reasoning and that Laws of Logic are absolute, but the only way you could know this is if the Biblical God exists. Your own beliefs are anti-Atheism. That is because you are basing your beliefs on Christianity. And that is why your position is wrong. Your position presupposes that my position is right. Without God, you couldn't know if the law of non-contradiction is absolute. You stand on Christian beliefs, use Christian beliefs, and then try arguing against Christianity. --"anything that is created or constructed is a machine, and nature is life, so i am not created, cause and effect" Machines are created by people. You are correct, a human person didn't create you in a factory. Nature is not life. Nature is a concept. Nature is a concept description of the relationships between living things. You believe that you are not created. But that doesn't change reality. This is not cause and effect you described. You described multiple misrepresentations of words in order to attempt to prove your point. That is called using the logical fallacy of equivocation. Human's where created. You may believe everything came about my random processes, but that is a sad belief. That life has no meaning. That you are just rearranged pond scum. Its sad that I think more highly of your existence then you do yourself. --"i have no beliefs, matter is eternel, no beginning and no end, only now" According to the 2ed law of thermodynamics, matter does have a beginning, and an end. I suggest looking up the 2ed law of thermodynamics . You believe in some strange things. You believe that you have no beliefs, which is silly. --"religion is belief, unknown, not real, if its known, its not a religion" You do not determine the definition of religion. Belief is necessary for knowledge. You must believe in Laws of Logic in order to reason correctly and come up with true knowledge. You misrepresent the definition of religion. Look up the definition of religion. It isn't "the lack of knowledge", or "believing in something for no reason". Before you define religion, research its meaning first. --"i see rocks, there is no religion in that statement for me" You really didn't prove anything by that. I agree, rocks don't make religions. But the rock either exists or not exists. That is based on the law of non-contradiction. You seem to believe in Laws of Logic, then say you don't have beliefs. --"logic is by default eternal, as any cause is cause by another cause, a first cause is impossible." Actually the first cause is necessary. What is the cause of matter? The 2ed law of thermodynamics states that matter is constantly loosing energy. Thus, cannot be eternal. The ancient Greek philosophers believed mater was eternal. But science disproved that. So everything does have a first cause, weather you believe it or not. Also, how do you know logic is eternal? Is that just your belief? Do you have a reason for your belief? That definition has noting to do with being eternal --"imagination is false" What about if you imagine real events that happened? Truth and false doesn't apply to imagination. A rock cannot be true or false. Imagination isn't a claim, it isn't a supposed idea. It is fun and wonderful and an important part of being human. It neither is true nor false. It simply is. --"religion is illogical, belief is illogical, while the opposite of belief is knowledge, is logical" That can be your belief. According to you, belief in logic is illogical. So I guess we can't believe and trust in the scientific method. I hope those who vote see the problem with Pro's argument. Pro's argument disproves itself. --"there is no logic in fantasy" But isn't it possible to imagine logical arguments? That's what scientists do at least --"reality is logic." Logic describes reality, not the other way around. Reality includes that which is material. While logic is non-material. I will finish my argument with a story. I hope this helps the voters understand my position. Even if you disagree with some of the points I gave, I hope you see where I was coming from. There was this person who was debating on the existence of air. Debating for the existence of air was hard. The opponent made many claims. As he said "Air doesn't exist, after all I don't even believe in air, and I can breath just fine!", all the while the vibrations in the air where traveling to everyone's ear, allowing them to hear. This is my problem. I may not convince my opponent on my position, but I hope the voters see the problems here. The problem is with my opponent's belief, mainly, his belief in empiricism. Although we got off topic, "the i don't know position means, i know its false" is a false statement. The lack of knowledge position doesn't mean that you know it is false. If that was so, if it was true, then everyone who doesn't know in their position would apparently know something. That it is false. I hope I'm not the only person who thinks this is strange.