Atheism is a lie

Premise 1: men in Minnesota wear beards Premise 2: Paul is from Minnesota Conclusion: Paul has a beard Is a perfectly logical statement but if Paul is a man without a beard than it is also false. Is an example of a logical but untrue statement. "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." Is really false. Weather a person keeps their beliefs to themselves or not has no bearing on the validity of their beliefs. A preacher and a believer can be one in the same. A preacher is merely a believer who either teaches their belief or try to convince others of their beliefs. And the statement that believers don"t try to preach is almost laughable. Talk to any believer and they will bring god into the conversation at some point. And tell them you don"t believe or of a different religion the majority will try to convert you. Believe me I am an atheist I would know. Not to mention most churches have an outreach program and missionary works to convert people. The bible even tells people to go out and make new believers. Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Psalms 96:3 "Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples." Anyone can believe whatever they want to believe but if they don"t have good reasons or evidence then the belief is not supported and does not need to be taken seriously by others and especially should not be used to make big life decisions that may affect others. For another person to accept that claim as reasonable that person would need evidence. Beliefs " is a claim or idea that is accepted Knowledge " is a belief that is supported by evidence Certainty " absolute no doubt of a claim as far as we can know anything. Faith " is a belief that is not supported by evidence I don"t know " is not accepting or rejecting a belief because there is not enough information to decide. Disbelief " is not being convince of a belief due to lack of evidence to support it and the presence of evidence against it. Rejection " claiming a belief is false with certainty I have to accept knowledge in order to be logical but I do not need to accept faith. I can reject knowledge but then I would be illogical. A believer or an atheist can claim to know that there either is a god or there is not a god and both of them would be wrong. No one knows if there is a god or not. All we have to go on is the evidence to decide whether there is most likely a god or not and the evidence show that there is either no god or most likely no god. There is no proof that he does exist and plenty of proof that he is not there. One would merely have to define what god is in order to test the claim of that god in order to find evidence. Once we know what god is defined as for any given person than we know what to look for to proven his presence or absence. "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 don"t 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." By this logic which I do not agree with even believers would be making the same claim of knowing. And if they did find evidence how would they know what to look for to prove god was real.