Atheism is a LIE

Ok Thanks again Con. For setting for a formidable rebuttal. -BoP- First, I must concede to Con on his remarks regarding BoP. Though I would just like to mention, that since it is not really relevant as to whether one side holds the burden or both, (at least in terms of determining a winner for the debate), it isn;t worth taking up space to argue about further. However, overall, I must admit I see arguing against Con's idea that an instigator should hold the BoP. Since I have asserted the resolution, and provided the logical construct , he is absolutely right. I am holding the burden of proof in this case. All Con needs to do is show or demonstrate that my BoP is lacking or inconsistent. Still, Con should not ignore what proof is presented before him, and neither should the readers. Now thats finished ... to the meat. Definitions. -I must apologize also, for saying dictionary.com. In fact it was just the top result on Google, when typing in the word. if you type a word into google, it gives you the definition at the very top sometimes, ) - I provided a valid definition of Lie. which can be used to express the false statement of an individual, BUT ALSO to describe the accuracy or veracity of a belief, idea, or ideology. (ie. Chrisitianity is a lie, the lie of racial supremacy, etc.) -Con continues to argue that this definition is incompatible, but is grasping for technicalities that do not apply to the robust world of semantic logic. The word LIE, applies to a very many different circumstances, And FURTHER, my resolution is NOT to say that each individual Atheist lies all the time, and cannot live without uttering lies. My resolution is only that "Atheism" (or even more specifically New Atheism) is a false ideology, therefore being a lie, and then it is propagated mostly out of ignorance, more than anything else. Though the falseness of the ideology relies on God's existence, existing or not, it also makes the individual atheist a liar IF there is the assumption of knowledge, in the absence of such knowledge. Ergo. My opponent exlaims.. : "If God was ever here, he would've left a marking in my backyard!' Then, my contention is that ...that is an atheistic lie, borne from an atheistic doctrine upheld by Atheism. And if atheists lie, (at least about God) , and atheists say its probable God doesn't exist. Then inductively, we can gather, God probably does exist. Since Atheists lie. Logic. Yet I digress. First I must demonstrate that You, as an atheist, LIE about God, about everything related to the topic. (Though not necessarily all the time) - To reiterate, Con says my definition of Lie is incompatible but does not provide ANY argument for why. Except for restating what I said., describing an aspect about it,.... then declaring it "incompatible." There is a lack of logical argument suporting Con's assertion that my definition is incompatible. And therefore, what can be asserted with out evidence... can be dismissed as such. Con believes I am insulting him, but I am just debating my position and pointing out glaring flaws in Con's argument while restating my own. I am not insulting you, I am just telling you you are wrong. Con summarized my argument as such except changed the notion of "God" into "Supernatural Atheist." "As it is impossible to explicitly confirm evidence of supernatural attributes which practically by definition defy definitive provability. It is impossible to have knowledge of possible supernatural attributes and therefore impossible to know for certain that a supernatural atheist exists." Then, to demonstrate his point, Con demands that I believe his supernatural atheist not only exists, but is in the same scope of relevance with the notion of God. Con says "There is no logical reasoning that one unprovable supernatural occurrence would be more likely than the other (by your incorrect interpretation of your definitions) and it cannot be deductively reasoned." As mentioned before, Atheism can only be 1 of 2 things. a Lie, or Ignorance. But Ignorance, can be yet again reclassified as agnosticism, By using the most standard and basic definition of God , we ge... God is the creator of all things. Therefore, all things existing are by default an evidence for God's existence. Con says we cannnot deductively reason this, but ignores the very famous and elementary Kalam Cosmological Argument that states : Whatever begins to exist has a cause; The universe began to exist; Therefore: The universe has a cause https://en.wikipedia.org... This argument is a clear deductive method of reasoning the existence of God. Con again, without providing any real logical argument, demonstrates my point. The point that atheism is a lie. And that atheists lie about God. Con states: "The point is that there are small pieces of indicative evidence that god does not exist - (That every thing we investigates shows non-supernatural causes that would indicate the existence of god). " How does Con know this? Con has done exactly what I have argued that Atheists do. He has effectively created a version of God in his mind, and determined that "small pieces of indicative evidence" CONTRADICT the plausibility of God's existence. Not only must one ASSUME that Con KNOWS who/what God even is, one must also assume little old Con (out of the 20 Billion people on the earth) must also be able to know exactly what kind of evidence to look for. I am not saying that Con does know what to look for when looking for evidence for God. But Con is already acting like not only does he know what to look for, lhe already has looked for it, and has found nothing. Con is pretending to know. I accepted Cons definitoin of evidence as acceptable. But Con is the one who is missing the whole point of the argument. The question is not about the definiton of Evidence. The more important question is WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU CONSIDER "VALID?". Also, this is a restatement of my question in the previous round. That Con could not answer as I had already said he couldn't. I will restate the question: Con states that if God existed we probably would have found some sort of evidence. What kind of evidence (not already presented) would lead us to believe God existed ? In answering this question. Con must provide a reasonable answer that would properly reflect reality. Con cannot assume God manifesting in the sky as a bearded man would be evidence for God. That would only be evidence for cons imaginary God. Con's evidnence that would convince him, must demonstrate an all powerful ,but also an all loving, God. IF Con cannot answer this simple question ,,,, everything CON said in R1, R2 and R3... would become entirely irrelevant. Thanks Con. Looking forward to your closing arguments.