Atheism is a LIE

Pro decided in the last round to reiterate his position from R1. He made a slight modification: he dropped the "by definition" part. So atheists in R5 are not liars by definition, just some atheists lie. I have to remind Pro, that I understood his position, his proof was absent. He can't assert things without supporting them. Finally, Pro decided in R5 to accept all the points I made in R1, and change one major thing: HIS definition of knowledge. In brief, he took my advice from R4, " it requires biased definitions", and did exactly this, he introduced a biased definition. So he agrees after 5 rounds that both sides have evidence BUT his new definition of knowledge is: Person A knows X if he believes X and has "scientific evidence" for X. Very dishonest and unsportsmanlike from Pro if you ask me, considering that he established in R3 that: 1. He did not agree with this definition "The Atheist's Evidence "Evidence is that which is repeatable, testable, and observable by scientific measurements. " Of course, I do not agree with this definition of evidence, but it is what definition set forth by Atheism. Not myself. " 2. He clearly stated in R3 that the the atheistic definition of evidence is synonymous to proof, and is different than the term we are using. "Note : I am only using the Atheist's definition of evidence here. Which is synonymous to PROOF. " Of course, the biased definition "scientific evidence" is introduced to give theists a free pass. We were clearly debating about evidence and not proof. I understand that Pro is in such difficult position and he must bend the rules in order not to openly admit that he lost. After Pro admitted that theists have evidence, he supported that this evidence is valid, and now he says that it is "different". If you ask a random person, that if he sees someone rising from the dead, or someone turning water to wine etc. , or a person going in a room and getting fire from God (see Holy Fire), that's pretty solid scientific evidence right there. Pro never explained why such distinction should be made. Probably he assumes that the above are fairytales (resurrection) or a scam (Holy Fire). Anyway, since Pro decided to change his OWN definitions to something that he does not agree and something that we were clearly not debating on, I am assuming that I am allowed to introduce my own biased definitions as well. Def1: To know is to believe and hold theistic evidence. P1:No one knows whether God exists. P2: Whoever claims to know whether God exists is a douchebag. Theists believe in God and claim that they hold theistic evidence. (using Def1) Theists claim to know whether God exists. (using P2) Theists are douchebags. (Proven? ) Atheists don't claim to hold theistic evidence. Therefore they do not claim to know anything. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Since Pro did not make any effort even in the last round to support his position, and pretty much accepted every single one of the points of my case (see R1), I will use the remaining space to post some highlights of our debate. 1. human omniscience (Pro claims that I am lying because I said that humans are not omniscient) Me: I am getting the feeling that Pro assumes that humans are omniscient. So, if a something happens, everyone is aware of it. That's not how the real world works. Pro: mmhmm. . Con is PRETENEDING TO KNOW SOMETHING, he does not know. What do we call that ? LYING. "That's not how the real world works. " is a typical atheist mantra. Empty in actual content or veracity or truth. How does Con know how the "real" world works? Con is assuming that he has already figured out how the entire universe, reality, and human mind works. (! ) 2. Pro answering 3 similar questions, which of them is evidence? Me: -Jack is observing Mary's short hair RIGHT NOW. -Two people measure the height of a person at the exact same moment. -You see a person with a gun above a murdered person Pro: -According to an atheist, No. -They must admit it was a mistake or that they are NOT sure. -Yes. I personally would consider that very compelling evidence. Pro gave 3 different answers to pretty much the same question. He had to consult an atheist for the first, he decided No by himself for the second, and Yes for the third. Finally, he concludes, that his position does not matter (! ). He has to ask an atheist on all cases whether this is evidence or not. Remember, these are simple everyday life questions. I wonder how he survives every day if he can't make up his mind about if his clothes are clean, or if his child did his homework etc. Does he have an atheist to ask for every decision he makes? 3. Pro on evidence again. Me: Jack saw Mary an hour ago and he observes that she does not have long hair. Is that evidence? Pro:Jack LIES about KNOWING whether or not MARY has short of long hair. At surface level, it may seem that Jack's evidence is "more valid" than John's evidence ( having seen Mary one whole hour after john. ). However, when given just a tad bit of CRITICAL THINKING, we can surmise that EVEN JACK must ASSUME that Mary has short hair NOW. Without Looking at Mary NOW, JAck cannot say he KNOWS Mary has short hair. Even with the evidence of eye witness testimony and sight. However, IF jack CONSTANTLY PRETENDS TO KNOW something he does not know. .. . in the 21st century, we call the LYING. IF Jack acts like John's valid evidence is NOT valid evidence, then JAck Lies some more. IF JAck acts like a douchebag, and pretends to know-it-all, while calling John a nutcase or a bronze age peasant, then Jack is an atheist. (! ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is impossible for me to gather all the contradictions and inconsistencies of Pro's position. Pro throughout this debate conceded that: -both sides have evidence -the definition of atheism does not include evidence -atheists hold scientific evidence against the existence of God The above pretty much destroy his case.