Can any atheist answer the most basic Q in all of Philosophy?
By what rational method do you know truth from a lie, reality from delusion, fact from fiction?Irrational losers will be banned. If you have nothing to offer but irrationalities, ignorance and mental illness, move on.
All atheists claim to have a mind, but it is invisible and is not testable by science. It must not exist, right? If you say it does, prove your mind exists? If not, we will infer you have none.
Is it possible that all of reality is proof of the existence of God, but something in you makes you unable to perceive, comprehend, understand and accept that truth? Provide a rational justification for your answer. Trolls will be banned. Of course, I do not really expect a serious answer to this Q as atheists are too narcissistic and deluded to even entertain the idea that they are the problem.
Atheists, if atheism is true, then you are nothing but a deterministic machine, which is to say a non-thinking automaton that merely does what the laws of science compel you to do when confronted with environmental stimuli in keeping with your biological makeup. Philosophical naturalism has its downside.
What experiments you have done that you observed something coming from nothing, information coming from a blank slate, life coming from non-life, humanity coming from non-humanity, mind coming from mindlessness? Until you can, shut up, with your anti-science, mystical claims.
Atheists love to claim they are free thinkers, but the reality is they are slavishly devoted to whatever their latest Google search reveals that confirms to their confirmation bias without any regard to the truth of the claim. Indeed, in speaking with 10,000s of these mental midgets, it is clear that they have no idea how to think. This makes senses given that the naturalistic worldview leads to materialism, which leads to determinism, which is to say, they have no mind. What they claim is thinking is actually just bio-electo-chemical reactions in the brain that are compelled by the laws of science and environmental stimuli. In other words, atheists do not hold to their positions because they are true, but for the same reason a baseball when dropped falls to the ground - the laws of science compel them to hold to that position regardless of truth.
They are terrified of cross-examination. They know their worldview is irrational, ignorant and based on mental illness. This is why when you ask them a direct question about it, they immediately try to change the subject. They know in a real debate with cross-examination, they would look like the fools God says they are.
Atheists, what is wrong with more evolved pond scum...
Atheists tell me man is nothing but evolved pond scum and that we became such through survival of the fittest. Given this, what is morally wrong with one bag of evolved pond scum shooting bag of lesser evolved pond scum. Is the shooter not simply more fit to survive?