debunking atheism (cont.) <thread? >

As John Locke states atheism puts a stop to learning.

Here's a simple question that might explain:

Question # : Why should atheism be promoted now that it has been scientifically proven to be an evolutionary disadvantage? https://twitter.com/TenMillionIQ/status/1282175683645636609

You will notice atheism cannot answer these because there is a contradiction in their beliefs, a contradiction with actual science.

Question # : Why should anyone believe in atheism, now that it's scientifically proven it harms your health, and has no benefits to your health?

#1 & #2 are very direct questions that get straight to the point.

More indirect questions assuming they claim to have morals would be:

Question # : How does atheism logically decide what is good and what is bad?

This is a good way of seeing if an atheism is educated or not.

If they answer something along the lines of JSM's Harm Principle, or Maximizing Happiness. Then they're educated.

If they do not, then they are most likely are in high-school, or do not pay attention in university.

And can be refuted as this thread says: https://twitter.com/TenMillionIQ/status/1206675704475201536

The ones that answer the other way might say "you can base it on consent"

But in that case it would point out a logical error, the majority of people consent to religion, and all Muslim women consent to wearing hijabs yet atheism has a problem with this. https://twitter.com/TenMillionIQ/status/1267655128036884480

And if they do not claim to have morals like atheism philosopher Peter Singer who says “I have no intrinsic moral taboos”, then it just goes back to Question #

In other words no matter how you look at it, atheism is just not a rational belief system.