There is no evidence that atheism exists

Given that the burden of proof is on my opponent, he has to prove to us that atheism exists.

My framework will simply be that:

Any evidence given for atheism is logically insufficient to establish certainty = It is impossible to prove with certainty existence of atheism.

People say that atheism exists, people say that they are atheists, people say that God exists, people say they are prophets of God, people say that atheism doesnt exist, people say that there is no evidence for God, people say there is evidence for God. Clearly we can't believe everything people say. It would be actually very silly to base your evidence on what people say, given how much it contradicts. Person who comes to me and says that he is atheist, I am not going to believe him any more I would believe a person who comes to me and says that he is a magician, son of God, prophet of God, or promising to make me rich if I just give him some money in advance. These are common scams.

Some people say rocks don't believe in God, but that's impossible to prove. How would they know? We can't even know if what we observe actually exists as we observe it, and not as merely some imagination of God. Some people say lack of belief exists in imagination, but there is no evidence of that, and likewise imagination isn't real and doesn't actually exist. Otherwise I could just imagine world where God exists and atheism doesn't, and there, I would prove my side of topic.

Munchausen trilemma further makes it impossible to prove atheism, because all evidence requires another evidence, forcing circularity or lack of proof, and none of these are proof. If circular reasoning was proof that atheism exists, well same can prove that God exists.

Countless other problems exist for person who argues that atheism exists. I ask where? Show me where atheism exists. Let me see it. Have you ever seen atheism? How does it look like? If you say atheism only exists in your head as part of your imagination, that's like someone coming to a debate to prove God and then says "God exists in my imagination". But how do you even prove that atheism exists in your imagination? A lot of people say they are atheists, but there is even greater number of people who say they are tarot readers, who say they saw ghosts, who say God helped them in life, who say atheists are possessed by devil. Should we believe in all of this then? We simply can't believe whatever someone says. If someone says he is an atheist, he first has to prove it. Otherwise, it's like someone claiming to be a tarot reader.

We have to simply use logic and see that we can't observe atheism, there is no any logic telling us atheism exists, there is no even any logic telling us that world exists as opposed to being some God's imagination, and no, imagination doesn't exist because if it did, then I could accuse my opponent of using AI or forfeiting a round because I imagined him doing so. Word "exists" doesn't deal with imagination, to put it simply. And we can't even see your imagination, so we still don't know if atheism even exists in your imagination.

More problems for people who claim that atheism exists, it's like saying that Santa exists or that tooth fairy exists because someone imagined it. For person who says that atheism exists, let him show us this "atheism" he claims, let him give us a photo of atheism, let him have atheism manifest in front of our eyes, let him use logic to show that atheism exists, and he will fail in all of these because no one has seen what he claims to exist.

Even if we were to believe that it was possible that atheism exists, well its also possible that it doesn't. The idea that there is something out there which lacks a belief in God, such idea doesn't have any scientific evidence to support it, let alone to be proved with certainty.

Some people claim to be atheists. Are we going to trust whatever people claim they are? In that case, I claim to be Goddess Venus, mother of dragons.

Belief in atheism, in tooth fairies, in whatever a child's imagination could maybe produce, we can say for sure isn't something which exists for certain. Can anything lack a belief in God? That remains to be proved.

My opponent walks into this debate carrying all the burden of proof, but I will add a bit more burden for him to carry: all evidence is ultimately circular, all evidence can be incorrect, no person has all knowledge, and with limited knowledge, certainty is impossible, you come into this debate to prove something with certainty, yet you could be lacking the very knowledge which proves you wrong.

Is there such thing as certainty? Anything could be wrong, even this. But my opponent, as description of debate commands him, says that atheism exists for certain! How does he know this? Did he see the evidence? And how does he know that evidence isn't misleading? How does he know that he correctly interpreted the evidence? How does he know that he is not actually just imagining things when he sees this? How does he know that what he sees even exists? How does he know that imagination where atheism supposedly lives in, even exists?

For every new answer, there is just another "How?"... How do you know that it's true?

And I am not yet done placing burdens on my opponent, for I feel it is necessary to maximize burdens so that my opponent doesn't become lazy.

In formal logic, there are premises and conclusion. But each premise requires another premise to prove it. This causes infinite regress or circularity. Can my opponent avoid infinite regress or circularity in his argument? Not really, unless he wants to leave an unproved premise. Each claim requires another claim, each evidence requires another evidence, logic is proved by what? Logic? How very circular of you. And what do you use to prove the evidence with? Evidence? How very infinite regress.

And don't get me started on a silly claim that you can avoid circularity. Munchausen trilemma proved beyond doubt that you can't. But it isn't the only one. Incompleteness theorem likewise proved that any closed system of claims results in inability to prove claims within a system. Suppose you have claims A, B, C and D. No matter how you organize them, if A proves B, B proves C, C proves D then what proves D? Circularity is unavoidable in a system of limited claims, and one such system is my opponent's round consisting of limited number of claims. So no matter how he organizes the proof chain, the chain breaks because one claim is left without a claim to support it.

And let's not forget few more thing. System cannot prove itself true, that is infinite regress. Likewise, my opponent cannot say "I am correct", because then he would also have to say "I proved that I am correct", but what proves that claim? "I proved that I proved that I am correct"?

This is just insane talk by my opponent.

Even if my opponent were to somehow prove that atheism exists, I would still not believe it, but we are still far from even reaching that point.

All definitions require other definitions, making all dictionaries circular because it's impossible to define each word without creating circularity of definitions: A is defined as B, B is defined as A.

I ask my opponent: what if you are wrong? How do you know that your claims are true? Are you using your claims to prove your claims? Is the world where atheism exists even possible? Can we trust anything a person says, if he says that he is an atheist? Could all the people who say that they are atheists be liars just like all the people who say they see future using tarot are?

Are animals atheists? Are rocks atheists? Is water an atheist? Does water lack belief in God? Does a squirrel believe in atheism? How would you know?

Should people lack belief in atheism, just as atheism lacks belief in God? If the default position is to lack belief, one ends up lacking belief in lack of belief, because how do you know that you lack belief? You feel it? How do you know that you feel it? How do you know that you see or feel anything? How do you know that you even think?

"I think, therefore I am." - But how do you know that you think? Are you using your thinking to prove your thinking? Are you using your knowledge to prove your knowledge? And what can knowledge be proved by? Senses? What can senses be proved by? What can logic be proved by? How do we know that senses or logic prove anything? How do we know that what we believe in isn't a lie? How do we know that what we say isn't a lie? How do we even know that we believe in atheism?

People can say a lie, and most people say some lies. One of those lies could be atheism. If atheism is a lie and no one was actually atheist, that would be of no surprise.

But I don't need to prove that atheism doesnt exist, as the burden of proof isn't even on me. All burden is on my opponent. I just pointed out that evidence which says that atheism exists is a very weak evidence based on hearsay, assumptions, and network circularity.

In the end, someone can claim that atheism exists, but we don't believe everything someone claims. We need to have good reason to believe in such a claim. Some people say they are wizards. Some say they have supernatural powers. Some say they mean well, but they don't.

We live in a world of lies, world of politics, corruption, delusion, and we cannot simply sink in delusion and join the party by saying something like "atheism exists".

If someone says "Prove it to me that God exists", I say to him "Prove it to me that you are an atheist, and I will prove you God."

If my opponent starts crying about how we should just blindly trust people who present themselves to us as atheists, I say I don't want to blindly believe in anything. Blind belief, even in atheism, is still a blind belief. Even if there is no evidence that God exists, is there evidence that atheism exists?

Or is atheism a lie and only God is the truth? Should we believe in lying assumption of atheism?