Atheism is a LIE

Burden of ProofI think that PRO misunderstands the argument. I am not stating that at no point in my entire argument I have no burden of proof in any way as he seems to suggest and rely on in his argument.Instead I hold to the basic conception of the burden of proof, which is that people must back up their own claims with evidence and reasoning. He must back his claims up with evidence and I must back up mine. His extraordinary scenarios about eternal asking for BoP or some core atheist falsehood of never needing a burden of proof are therefore misreadings on his part or my argument and completely irrelevant - for instance if I say he has not met BoP, that is a claim on my part which incurs the BoP for me and I must prove it.As the central debate of this issue is a claim he makes, he holds the burden of proof over this issue. As we discuss and debate and make arguments, we will each have the burden of proof over the specific claims we make in relation to this. The key significance isn't that I don't need to provide proof or evidence when I make my own claims but rather that when it comes to the central issue, I need provide a more convincing argument for an alternative OR show that his claim does not hold true.Although there are many different assumptions about Burden of Proof, I would note that the DDO Tutorial lists my position as the customarily correct one."Finally, it is important to establish which opponent has the burden of proof, abbreviated as BOP.The general custom is that an instigator that makes a positive claim, must provide evidence that the claim is true. Asserting that a claim is not the same as arguing that the claim is true."[1]When instigators wish to have a shared BoP, the norm is to state this in the opening post along with Personally I think I can prove his argument incorrect even if there is a shared burden of proof over the central claim, but as I believe that the greater leeway from the standard BoP assumptions is on my side as standard I feel I shouldn't throw this away.DefinitionGeneral PointsI have compared your definitions to those in dictionary.com[2]. Contrary to your claims not a single definition is taken from dictionary.com. You might personally think some are close enough in meaning to be analogous for the purposes of this debate and for some of those I'd agree, but that is a personal opinion and for those where there is dispute you cannot lean on dictionary.com as an expert source that agrees with you - because not one of your definitions is from there.Lie DefinitionMy opponents arguments here are inconsistent with his R1 argument and show that he cannot be correct.His central argument as presented in R1 hinges on showing that atheists lie (as a verb, saying falsehoods). See for example: "Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists." His argument is that a collection of individuals are performing an action that can be performed as a lie.His R2 definitions are incompatible.He states that as per the heading, the argument only relates to atheism as "An ideology, such as atheism, democracy, etc" which "cannot intend to do anything on its own.". Furthermore he now presents lie as a noun, referring to an essential truth - something that is not related to whether individuals or not. SO the argument is in essence "Does God Exist".As if we assume his R1 logic is correct, that only shows that individual atheists as people are liars. It does not show that atheism as an ideology is a lie. It is therefore clear that his entire argument lacks topicality and is irrelevant.Furthermore he does not relate his unevidenced claims to my point and devolves into name-calling. I offered sourced that the core and standard definition of "lie" is someone who deliberately tells a falsehood. Despite his argument having no proof or logic and basically being because "I say so", he then says I am lying. I ask that I be awarded conduct on this basis.And if I were to say that I "knew" for a fact or held scientific evidence that God does exist, I would also be contradicting my own assertion, making myself a liar.In this, even if you are right about every other point, you show your claims to knowledge about what is possible for atheists to know are in fact incorrect based on the premise of your argument.Your argument can be summarised as:"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 god exists."I don't agree with this argument and as explained in R1 and below, I think it can be shown that people can know things by your definitions.However, I would make the following logical extension of your argument to be true if voters do decide that my R1 argument (which I deal with again in the heading beneath this one) is in their estimation incorrect:"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."It is potentially possible for an atheist to have supernatural powers which definitively tell them whether god exists.Now I think such a statement is absurd (as with the existence of god). However, I cannot say it is definitively wrong and an impossibility using deductive reasoning because these supernatural abilities cannot be absolutely disproven.It might seem more absurd than the existence of god based on common cultural norms, but common cultural norms have no relation to the logic and reasoning which you say will be your argument. 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.Therefore Construct 1 premise 1 does not hold and the entire argument which relies on it fails.If you wish to use evidence and reasoning to show that it could still be true, then you must use inductive reasoning (please see my R1 source on this) - using the likelihood rather than the certainty that there are no supernatural atheists to support your claim. If you accept inductive reasoning as valid, you must accept my R1 argument.Either way you cannot be correct."An atheists demands evidence (for which he has not determined what constitutes validity by any sensible means) and asserts that if God existed, so would the evidence for God"No, this misunderstands the claim.The point isn't that there is solid evidence that definitely shows gods existence is a 100% impossibility.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).Based on this we can use inductive reasoning to assume that it is likely that God does not exist. This satisfies the definition of "knowing" you gave and "evidence" I gave (you had not offered a definition for evidence so it is unopposed as a definition). It doesn't prove with 100% possibility that god doesn't exist, but it doesn't need to because it still meets all definitions as laid out without reference to any argument over redefinitions - which are separate points.This is a summary of the latter part of my R1 argument, which you have not addressed and which meets all definitions you provided.If you think there is a valid definition of "just" which invalidates this logic, please provide it. Otherwise vague inferences do not make a sound argument.Still no backing for the premiseAlthough you try and rebut various points of my premise, you still have not offered an explanation for why your various premises are true. Your argument is therefore unsound.[1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl...