Worst atheistic argument?

[Tiberius]

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.

If you want an honest discussion of something, I suggest you drop the attitude. Calling someone stupid isn't nice, especially when that person has gone to the trouble of answering your posts. Anyway, you say you did not ask for a supernatural explanation.

Your original post: http://atheistforums.org/thread-1939-pos...l#pid57360

An excerpt from that post:

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.

(Bolding mine). So it seems "stupid" me didn't read it wrong at all. You asked for supernatural explanations, I gave you a few, as did others. Let's start again shall we? You respond and confirm your mistake, and then confirm whether you meant supernatural or "non-natural".

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?

I have given you examples of non-naturalistic ways for the universe to come into existence. If you want me to choose one, how about the idea that there are higher dimensional beings that created us as some part of experiment?

To your other point, I am also saying that someone need not have to figure out how the universe came to be to be an atheist. I'm not "pretending" atheism does not presuppose anything; I genuinely think that. Stop accusing me of "cowardice" and "avoiding the point" when I am clearly addressing your point (that Atheism presupposes naturalism) by countering it directly. Your illogic combined with the rude attitude is starting to make me suspect that you aren't here to have a proper discussion at all. Please prove me wrong and address my rebuttals.

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.

No, it's not dishonest. If there are atheists who have a non-naturalistic view of the beginning of the universe, it counters your claim that atheism presupposes naturalism. If atheism presupposed naturalism, then all atheists would subscribe to naturalism, correct? Please point out the flaw in my logic here...

Oh, and I also dispute atheism as some kind of philosophy of life. My philosophy of life is humanistic with a good amount of agnosticism.

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

That is irrelevant. If you don't think the examples given were consistent with atheism, then explain why. In a discussion, you don't just not comment on examples given that you think are ineffective, because to the other side, you've just ignored them. We have no way of knowing, to put it another way, that you think our examples are "non consistent" if you do not tell us. I can't read your mind; so a good start would be to address our examples individually and explain why they aren't consistent with atheism. You may have not personally ignored the points, but you did in terms of a public response to them.

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?

I denied that you had to have an explanation of the universe to be an atheist, yes. I still stand by that. I also gave you examples of how the universe could have come into being that were non-natural. I'm trying to have an honest conversation with you, but the countless insults, non-responses to my rebuttals, and general ignorance of atheism and philosophy is getting annoying and like I said before, I'm starting to believe you are being disingenuous. Please prove me wrong.

I'm not going to acknowledge that naturalism is a presupposition of atheism until you give me a reason to do so, or rebut my points directly. And no, I don't see any reason not to know about the origins of the universe. It isn't an argument that ignorance is bliss, but more that how the universe came into being is of no significance to most people's everyday lives. You could easily go through life not concerned about how we got here, and not believing in God. For an example, look at the Pirahã tribe of the Amazon. They don't believe in gods, and they don't have an concept of the "past". For them, the universe has always existed in some form. This explanation of the universe might be wrong, but their atheism isn't affected by it.

As for your final question, I believe I've answered that multiple times. I'm looking forward to hearing your rebuttals.