Atheism is based on ignorance

Before I start off my final rebuttal, I have a couple things.Pro has not fulfilled his BoP. He must prove that atheism is based upon ignorance, which he has not done. He says that some atheists do this and that, and that some atheists attack the Bible, but he has yet to show how a disbelief in the existence of a deity[1] is based upon a lack of knowledge or understanding[2].Again, I found some of my opponents points to be a bit hard to understand, so I apologize if I am not able to refute Pro's argument in full.REBUTTAL"For this debate, I will fulfill my burden of proof by showing how atheism is based on ignorance rather than on knowledge and evidence most of the time."No, not most of the time. The resolution clearly states "Atheism is based on ignorance". This means that all atheist's atheism is based on ignorance, and thus all atheists are somewhat ignorant. If you wanted to debate something else, you should have changed the resolution or called for a tie (which I still could have denied, but probably wouldn't have) because of a faulty resolution earlier in the debate." First, you commit the fallacy of circular reasoning.1. I claimed atheists reject God2. You claim atheists do not accept God because of the lack of evidence"Okay, listing two claims, is not evidence of circular reasoning. Do you know what circular reasoning is? It's when "A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition"[3]. Firstly you did not claim that atheists reject god, you've only said "Atheism claims that God "probably" doesn't exist" and "Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God" at this point. Even if you had said what you claim to have said, my claim that atheists reject god because of lack of evidence is not a conclusion drawn from your statement, but an add-on to your statement, which cannot be connected back to your statement at all. Reject means not accept, they're synonymous. The only way this could be circular reasoning is if you took the first statement and could use the second statement to justify it (There is a lack of evidence for god because we reject god), which makes no sense. No circular reasoning here."1. There must be evidence for God to believe2. Evidence requires natural observations3. God is beyond natural and cannot be seen while unicorns can"Really, there's natural evidence for unicorns? Where? What is it? Is there natural evidence for leprechauns and Zeus, as well? What about the flying spaghetti monster, who exists outside of the physical world? I think you must have found some evidence that the rest of the population hasn't, or you've failed to see the point of my analogy. There are plenty of things you cannot disprove, and this applies to god as well. I won't reiterate my entire point again because I've clarified it ample times, but you cannot disprove god which is why atheists, including myself, have not done so."That being said, there cannot be scientific evidence for God and he is beyond science and nature. Science does not concern itself with God (2). We can hypothetically prove unicorns exist because they are material. it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist since he is logically and philosophically able to interact with the world. in these respects, atheism is not knowledgeable of how science and God works as people constrict everything to evidence."I still don't think you got the point of my hypothetical, but that's not even the worst part about this statement. You've just said that you cannot give any evidence or prove that god exists, which is exactly where any person who is not ignorant and who is skeptical would dismiss your claim, just like atheists have done. This, of course, does not prove that god does not exist, because as I have said time and time again, it is impossible to disprove god. Thus, the burden of proof is on Christians to show through some sort of evidence that their god exists, otherwise there is no reason to believe he does. If I told you that there was an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent, octopus in the sky who has told all of humanity to follow him, is the burden on you to disprove that claim? You then say that atheists don't know how science or god works, which is an irrational claim. Are you saying that 40% of scientists don't know how science works[4]?" You claim it's biased, but has no relevance to what is being observed."Yes, using biased sources is relevant to what is being observed, because as I showed they manipulate the evidence to fit their conclusion, and since they have not updated since the 1990s, they might not have all the evidence we now have and thus their evidence or conclusions may be flawed. It is important to use unbiased and up-to-date sources. There's also a "sources" category in the voting section, which is meant to judge reliability of sources (cough cough)."Being consistent with the Bible is being accurate."I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that because science is consistent with the Bible that science is accurate, or that the Bible is the standard for accuracy, or that something is not accurate...? I don't know what you mean by this.I have to stop quoting Pro here for space reasons, it'll go paragraph by paragraph from now on.Maybe the translators should have thought of this when they were creating the English bibles, because not everybody has the time, resources, or brain power to learn Hebrew. We are quoting an English bible here, which the majority of Americans follow and which is the standard for almost all Christian religions. You could see how some people might get the wrong impression when the actual Bible they follow says one thing and you say another. Even if our modern knowledge of Hebrew is 100% accurate (which it's not because Hebrew was a dead language for a very long time[5]), the multiple definitions of words, etc. allow people like you to use semantics to "clarify" issues like these. I think you forgot to respond to one of my quotes, as the section underneath is unrelated to it, so I'll ignore that.You, sir, have just made up a fallacy. Despite knowing for a fact that there is no such thing as the fallacy of a rhetorical question, as rhetorical questions are used all the time by excellent scholars and are commonplace when emphasising a point, I looked at your source to find no mention of this fictional fallacy (in my opinion Pro uses "fallacies" far too much). You're talking about a loaded question, which this isn't. This is a hypothetical, as we can clearly see from "if god really wrote this". WBC gets their morality from scripture, obviously as they have stated many times. Their interpretation is so different from yours because they interpreted this scripture differently since it is so unclear.Once again, the fallacy of rhetorical question does not exist. Once again, that was not even a rhetorical question. Once again, Pro has no idea what he's talking about. Even if baldhead is equivalent to a death threat (which I can't verify because you cite some sort of book or website and give no link or page number), why would an omnipotent god have to smite over forty children to protect one adult prophet? I find that somewhat humorous.Weren't the ten commandments meant for the Israelites as well? Why should we follow those then? Also, you keep saying that because Jesus died we can now commit some forms of sin, which is not even remotely how it works. This you can verify by understanding better the context of the Bible.I find this ironic, as you are the one who has failed to refute my argument that there is a contradiction because you are too busy calling my personal views on the argument the fallacy of incredulity. Anybody could simply say, "actually, I disagree that those arguments are ridiculous", like you would have done had you a real argument.Is god killing almost everyone in the entire human race not murder? By showing that god is hypocritical, I am showing that people's attacks on the Bible are justified. Also, now who's using the argument from incredulity? "maybe you will present a better argument." Looks like god's not the only hypocritical one.You again quote me and don't respond, interesting...Many Christians use this as an escape route when they have been cornered by good arguments, I was using it as an example.Do you not believe that god created at least some part of the universe? If not, you're rejecting a major part of the Bible and Christianity. Also (side note), I love how the third point is simply "your conclusion is wrong."Again, you've misused a fallacy. You can look at Pro's source to see how as I'm lacking space. This is becoming a trend.Wow, two misuses of fallacy with one stone. You say you're not a creationist and this wasn't specifically towards you, so it shouldn't affect you. The god hypothesis is silly, and you have yet to convince me otherwise. I see no circular reasoning anywhere.I did not say atheists are exempt from indoctrination, as you can clearly see by reading my statement, which you seem to have failed to do.Again you fail to respond to my quote.For the last time. I do not need to do this because ATHEISTS DO NOT HAVE THE BOP. My arguments are sound and you have failed to disprove them. Again you're hypocritical, accusing me of generalizing then doing so yourself. You also insinuate that I am not smart which is not true and ad hominem. You've also committed the spelling error fallacy multiple times in your argument.I have jested at Pro a couple times, but this is to lighten the mood of the debate and so I can keep my sanity. I can't be expected to take every argument seriously.Vote Con.Sources:1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...3. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... 4. http://www.pewforum.org...5. http://www.sbl-site.org...