Worst atheistic argument?

[Rhizomorph13]

Blessed Be Her Hooves

[objectivitees]

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?

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.

[leo-rcc]

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

Tiberius stated Atheism does not presuppose naturalism

Demonstrate to me how a disbelief in the Loch Ness monster presupposes anything.

so I challenged him to suggest an explanation for the universe that was not naturalistic in it's scope.

Atheism has nothing to say about how the universe came to be or what it is made of. Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with cosmology, biology, math, physics, or whatever else you want to presuppose any label to.

You think that because I don't believe in gods that I therefore need to apply some alternative explanation. But I don't have to do anything of the kind. All I need to do is look at an explanation that your world view gives, and evaluate that on its evidence.

[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.

[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?

[leo-rcc]

I did not ask you what any individual Atheists believe or don't believe, I asked you about Atheism as a philosophy of life.

But that's what we have been trying to tell you. Atheism is not a philosophy of life, it never was.

There is no need for atheism to "know" anything, what an individual atheist does or does not wants to find out about the universe is up to the individual. His or her atheism has bugger all to do with that.

You are the one that maintains that we need to come up with some alternative, but that is just blatantly untrue, and then you have the nerve to claim that we don't have an honest conversation?

[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.

[Violet]

Blessed Be Her Hooves

Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves

Added, because it fits the Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHHH) better

I hence propose a change in some of our standard reverences for her... she is the source of all things Holy... thus her Holiness should be included in our wishing her well

[Rhizomorph13]

Ahh, but you are not a master of unicornology like me, so your point is wrong! It is only (BBHH) because obviously they are holy!

To be honest I've seen both and don't really feel that either are wrong. I choose (BBHH) because the third H would make it look lopsided to me. Had I searched the internets and found a preponderance of either, I would feel it is worth arguing but since it is just a gaff religion anyway... then, um fuck it!

She knows your heart regardless of how you not-worship Her, so have at it! Besides She loathes worship of any kind so this kind of talk should probably be avoided. I know this because of my deep not-faith in Her.

Rhizo

[Ryft]

I asked you about Atheism as a philosophy of life.

Atheism is not a philosophy of life, sir. You will not find in any philosophical literature—not even in theistic scholarship—the notion that atheism is a philosophy of life. That is a vacuous canard which fails to square with reality. Atheism is a presupposition that informs a philosophy of life (e.g., secular humanism, nihilism, etc.), but is not itself a philosophy of life.

And you are not likely to find an atheist more patient and open-minded than Tiberius, so perhaps you might consider losing your egregious attitude and try fostering the "honest conversation" you wish for.