Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Saying you've thoroughly debunked something doesn't mean you've done anything.It does when I indeed have and we both know it.Anyone can say that. I say you're wrong.And i say based on the precedent set in our last debate thats an absurd rejection to make. Does your word carry more weight than mine?No. but I'm right. You can claim to appeal to argument, but I could claim the same thing.Youd actually cite your last performance? Yeesh. Thats embarrassing.I am not appealing to argument though, I am appealing to The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and there is no meaningful argument against this.I made several. Namely that you cannot differentiate in any way whatsoever how or in what way "supreme and ultimate reality" is distinguishable from just "reality".Also i found it ridiculous that your primary gripe over definitions in a dictionary was immediately abandoned once you turned to this "supreme and ultimate reality" argument, seeing as that term exists nowhere in the dictionary. Its just some concept you Frankenstein stitched together. And i reject your invented concept. And my reasons for doing so as stated before are pretty clear. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality obviously exists,Yes, reality exists. What retardedly redundant statement. The essence of reality is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.What an even MORE retardedly redundant statement. Also a meaningless one. The fuck does essence of even mean? How do you take all of reality and synthesize it down to an essence? What the fuck does that even mean?I believe this is apparentHEY! Theres a single shred of honesty from you. You admit this is just your belief. And thats fine. Have your ridiculous belief. But if you actually want to make an argument for what IS real, not just what you BELIEVE is real then you actually have to PROVE that things are the way you believe them to be.when you understand what those words mean when they are strung together.So you admit you just invented this concept. So it comes from your human mind. Making it immediately subject to intense scrutiny as any christian would assert. If there is reality at all, God is necessary.Baseless bullshit. You could insert anything in for God. If there is reality at all Krishna is necessary. If there is reality at all then there must be kangaroos on jupiter. If reality exists at all then there are mole men at the center of my colon plotting to overthrow trump. See? I can make up bullshit too. You cant just assert that "if A there must be B" and have that mean ANYTHING about reality without inserting a process of demonstrating that connection between A and B. Unless the process of A to B was obvious and apparent. Like if A) i dump water on your head then B) your head will become wet. That would be obvious. But even THEN someone could still pose the question of how A leads to B. You want so hard to be able to just type words and cite a few definitions and POOF god actually becomes existent in our physical reality. But you dont want to have to do ANY of the work of actually demonstrating that to be the case. You just play word games in an attempt to necessitate thats the case. Sorry. you cant necessitate things into reality that we havent already proven to be integral to the fabric of reality. Youre just ASSERTING that god is integral to that fabric and doing none of the work to demonstrate that is the case. You not being able to see this does not make it any less true.Youre right. My perception has no bearing on its legitimacy. It's your inability to demonstrate it which makes it untrue. Saying "If you can't measure it, observe it, detect it, quantify it, etc." has little to do with being natural.WRONG. It has literally EVERYTHING to do with that. Youre a fucking idiot to deny that. There is no way to demonstrate that anything is natural without these things.  In fact, one could argue that many of these processes are in fact ARTIFICIAL.Because the naturally occurring and operating human brain came up with them? Yeah no. So what are you disagreeing on fundamentally?That "supreme and ultimate reality" is in ANY WAY distinguishable from just reality itself. I disagree with your baseless assertion that reality necessitates god just because you slapped 2 redundant labels onto the word reality. I reject your idea of how you think forming a proof works and actually making a case for something existing WITHIN reality despite how completely devoted to that concept your argument is.I reject that in a normal conversation between two people who obviously know what eachother is referring to that the capitalization of the word god somehow changes what theyre talking about. I reject alot of stupid shit youve said."You have an aversion to God because of how you see it being used.If i am talking to someone and I have an idea of god in my head and they have the same idea of god in their head and we agree on that same concept then my POINT is that in that case it doesnt fucking MATTER if god is capitalized or not. You insisting I use one or the other doesnt actually change how im understanding and using the concept so IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER. I dont have an aversion to god i have an aversion to your nitpicky bullshit argument that capitalizing a G vastly changes what were talking about. Words are only useful insofar as they relay information. And when i fucking tell you to your face WE ARE IN AGREEMENT ON WHAT GOD MEANS then from that point forward capitalizing the word god is a fucking formality not a requirement.UNLESS before the argument we agreed on two set terms: god means X and God means Y. THEN it makes sense to differentiate because youre trying to be ACCURATE in what youre saying. Christ the fact that i have to actually explain how laymans english works to you is astounding. You have an aversion to God because you can't get passed things like culture and representations of things.What the fuck is god and religion if NOT all of those things? At least to a degree. Thats another thing i reject. Your divorcing of god in all of his physical qualities from all of the cultural qualities hes also associated with. If not from those cultural texts then where the fuck would you even aquired a concept of god in the first place?Oddly enough, you claim to not have this problem with the concept of "reality" even though it has been misused in the same way.You cited the word yourself and i agreed with YOUR proposed definition of it. In fact, ive agreed with essentially ALL of your arguments thusfar. I stopped accepting them once you invented your own concept and failed to explain how its distinctly different from how you had previously defined reality. Thus i rejected the core of your argument and thus your necessitation of god into existence. So what are we disagreeing about? I don't share your aversion. I don't share your aversion because I see how the aversion to God is actually worse than coming to terms with God.That means absolutely nothing to the facts of the argument we just had. Its just pleading nonsense because, again, i have no aversion to god. A god could exist for all i care. But im not going to believe in one without proof of it. And reality is not proof. And if reality aint proof then supreme and ultimate reality isnt proof either, because for the 45965th time you have not explained in any way how its different than reality.Homicide cures cancer though, right?For someone so entirely hung up on definitions you dont even know what the fuck cure means.You can treat dandruff by decapitation, right?Youve devolved into gibberish at this point