Worst atheistic argument?

[tavarish]

Atheism doesn't presuppose Naturalism.

Really?? Then how did everything get here? Come on, give me a supernatural explanation that doesn't invoke the ontological definition of God.

---

Which definition? There have been many, and the ontological argument is one of the most widely disputed in human history.

You could very well say anything supernatural could be called "God", which is like saying anything natural could be called "Tim".

How about a supernatural entity that did not have knowledge of its actions, which resulted in the creation of the universe by chain reaction? Would that qualify for your trick question?

No, many atheists may presuppose these things but atheism itself is simply a lack of belief and nothing else.

It sounds like your confusing the word atheism with your personal experience of atheism.

Actually, most don't presuppose them, but only because they are not aware of them. My claim is not what an individual Atheist may or may not know with respect to the presuppositions, but what Atheism itself presupposes. No confusion here. If an Atheist thinks the belief God does not exist (or the "lack" of belief) has no bearing on the issues of Morality (ethic), Epistemology (theory of knowledge) and Metaphysics (the nature of reality) then he is ignorant, or intentionally distorting the problem to avoid rational debate.

Your "lack of belief" claim is standard fare, and a dishonest attempt to avoid having the discussion.

Your inability to distinguish the difference between a positive claim that requires belief and a lack of belief is astoundingly sad.

You're taking a Christian viewpoint as the default, and an atheistic one as one that needs some sort of weird confirmation. Atheism presupposes as much as a disbelief in fairies does. Why does a belief in God presuppose a moral standard? Can this be divided? Are there theists that don't feel that a God demands moral standards? What about deism?

There is no dogma. There is no central underlying theme. We are not all scientists in disguise.

It's not avoiding the discussion if the discussion itself isn't valid and the person doesn't realize that they're making a ridiculous assertion.