Worst atheistic argument?

[fr0d0]

(Now he has a firm idea of his unique worldview )

[Altar]

1. Christ has no limits, or in other words he's bottomless.

2. If Christ is bottomless then Christ has no bottom.

3. Therefore he has no arse (or for you Americans, "ass").

4. Therefore he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

5. Therefore Christ lacks support.

6. ...Or in other words, Christ lacks supporting evidence, Christianity lacks evidential foundations.

7. Therefore the hypothesis of Christ being God is debunked, as is the Christian God because Christ is key to Christianity.

Hahaha. I signed up to this forum to tell you how entertaining I found that argument. Kudos

[objectivitees]

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.

---

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.

[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.

[downbeatplumb]

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.

---

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.

I dont believe in a hell of a lot of things.
I would bet you dont believe in Thor, Zeus or invisible pink unicorns.
I dont believe in god for the same reason you dont believe in Thor, Zeus and IPUs and that is that were ALL made up.

Your atempt to equate religion with morality is sadly missguided, anyone who truly lived by the bibles laws would be locked up and deservedly so.
Most christians are nice people but that is DESPITE the bible and not because of it.
The same could be said of muslims, the ones who really read the Quaran are the ones that strap bombs to their backs before taking a bus ride.

Your attempt to lecture this group of atheists on the nature of reality is gonna be amusing, bring it on.

[Rhizomorph13]

...invisible pink unicorns(BBHH).

You forgot something so I added it in bold!

[Welsh cake]

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

---

Hello Argument from personal incredulity... Goodbye Argument from personal incredulity...

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.

When dealing with extraordinary claims that fail to meet up to their requirement for extraordinary evidence, the default position is always disbelief, not belief. If you're standards of evidence are so appallingly low, you'll end up believing all kinds of nonsense with no justification or reason for it.

What if I were to say to you that the entire universe, reality itself, is nothing but the dream of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Would you honestly allow that huge claim to pass through your evidence filter without proper investigation and rational discussion first?

Would you immediately accept the idea we're all part of her pinkness' subconscious, just like that?

[Rhizomorph13]

(BBHH)

[theVOID]

(BBHH)

Your continual blasphemy is intolerable, there are 3 fucking H's you heathen!

[Autumnlicious]

(BBHH)

Bezigheden Buitenshuis Hebbende (Dutch: Not available because busy elsewhere)?