Worst atheistic argument?

[Tiberius]

Wow, you guys are really poor at staying on topic.

Tiberius stated Atheism does not presuppose naturalism, so I challenged him to suggest an explanation for the universe that was not naturalistic in it's scope.

I see that he at least was wise enough to not respond, apparently being (the only one here) honest enough to not try all the fallacies of irrelevancy the rest of you tried.

So much for your honesty. Any other challengers who want to defend Tiberius's claim Atheism does not presuppose naturalism?

I didn't respond because others beat me to it and their responses I deemed adequate examples. If you want several supernatural explanations for the existence of the universe, there are probably many, given that the supernatural is so vast.

The point was made, that you do not need to believe anything about how the universe got here to be an atheist. To be an atheist, you just have to not believe in gods. Atheists may believe that the universe is the result of our collective consciousness, that it is an experiment by some higher beings (though not gods), or they may not hold a belief about the beginning of the universe at all.

Can a single one of you come up with one single explanation of reality that is not naturalistic, and does not contravene Atheism?

I thought not. Therefore my claim "Atheism presupposes Naturalism" stands.

You ask the question, and even though many people in this thread have given examples, you ignore them and jump straight to your conclusion. Your claim doesn't stand whilst there are rebuttals that you have failed to reconcile. Logic doesn't work when people ask for rebuttals to a position and then proceed to ignore those rebuttals, claiming victory regardless.