Worst atheistic argument?

[objectivitees]

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.

Don't be stupid. I don't want a supernatural explanation for the existence of the universe, I want one that is not naturalistic, and consistent with Atheism, just like you implied exists. To come back here and pretend I was asking for something I was not asking for is dishonest. I guess I gave you credit too soon. You can pretend you don't need an explanation of how the universe exists that is consistent with your presuppositions all you want, but that does not engage the question I asked, don't pretend it does because your attempt to do so comes off as either ignorance or fear.

The point was made, that you do not need to believe anything about how the universe got here to be an atheist.

Nonetheless, you made the claim Atheism does not presuppose naturalism. If I am to take your claim seriously, you need to provide an explanation that is not Naturalistic. Are you trying to tell me you came to your Atheism solely through faith and that is enough for you, you have no need to figure out how the universe came to be, or is it just that you now realize you can't answer my challenge directly and are taking the cowards way out by pretending Atheism does not presuppose anything, by avoiding the point?

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.

I did not ask you what any individual Atheists believe or don't believe, I asked you about Atheism as a philosophy of life. You pretend I am asking something else, but that's just dishonesty on your part, because you know you can't describe a beginning to the universe that isn't naturalism, and have it be consistent with you beliefs about god.

You ask the question, and even though many people in this thread have given examples, you ignore them and jump straight to your conclusion.

I ignored nothing. No one gave an example that is consistent with Atheism.

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.

What rebuttal? No one here provided an explanation. All I got were denials (like yours) that one wasn't "needed". Why not have an honest conversation with me? Acknowledge that naturalism is the only explanation for the existence of anything that is consistent with Atheism, instead of pretending that ignorant Atheists who have not thought through their worldview and its implications don't need to have answers to questions? Are you really going to let it stand here? Are you really going to claim "we don't need to know"? Ignorance is bliss, is that it?

How about I rephrase the question for you?

What explanation for the existence of the universe exists, that is consistent with the assumption there is no God?