Is atheism self-contradictory ?

[Parsim0ny]

---

Even assuming that the human brain evolved doesn't help much, you still can't justify belief that your mind can actually demonstrate anything objectively true, that reason is indeed a reliable tool. Nothing can justify this without some kind of an appeal to a being with superior abilities.

I have no particular use for objective truth, as I manage just fine with conditional truths.  Even if there is such a thing as objective truth, that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to worship your imaginary friend in order to access it.  I know enough about evolution to accept it and to reject creationism in all its forms as pure fantasy, not even up to the status of a hypothesis.

Conditional truths aren't even truths, they are simple conclusions derived from certain accepted axioms. Also note that the assertion "There's no such truth as objective truth" is self-contradictory, since the assertion itself is either objectively true or not, if it is true, the it contradicts itself, if it's not, then there is actually an objective truth.
I am merely saying that without an exterior force you cannot trust your own thoughts about anything, that's about it.

How, um, convenient to exclude your god from the possibility of ever being demonstrated via non-religious methods.  Suffice to say that empirical evidence is literally the only thing that I would find even remotely convincing, so if you don't have that evidence I have no interest in your religion, as I have no interest whatsoever in attempting to  develop religious faith.  Your statement "God by definition created matter" indicates only that you have a very weak definition, as it's just a bald assertion.

So you're claiming that God cannot be proved with reason alone ? Empirical science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a being independent of matter itself, if you're exclusively relying on empiral science to acquire facts about the world, then I'm afraid you need to enhance your proofs toolkit.

Various Biblical characters and narratives, including Adam and Eve (mythical), Noah and the flood (mythical event and probably mythical character), and many more.  Here's a list.  Copying nonsense from another religion results in your religion being just as nonsensical.

As for Galen:

But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’)  [Source]  

I see that you came up with a possible explanation for the sunset, which is moderately plausible but still a bit questionable (how would the reflection of a setting sun appear in a mud puddle?  Too low to the horizon, IMO).  Not a word about the talking ants, though.

I actually thought you mean by plagiarism that the Qur'an literally quoted sentences from the Bible. Since this is not the case, no Muslim scholar or believer will disagree with you that there are many similarities between the two books, that's because we believe that christians were initially following the word of God before their book was corrupted by Greek mythology. Also, the fact that the Qur'an shares many stories with the Bible is not proof that the Qur'an is false.

Regarding the sunset, the Qur'an didn't actually state that Zul-Qurain saw the reflection, he saw the Sun as if it were going down that mud puddle. The story of the Prophet Solomon coming upon a valley of ants and being able to understand their language is a mere divine miracle narrated by the Qur'an, and there isn't something contradictory about it even if its sounds weird and likely to be a manufacture, we cannot prove that it is false.

---

Similarly, I consider homosexual acts to be far more gross and disgusting than child marriage, does that prove that homsexuality is inherently wrong regardless of any belief system ? If your answer is yes, then you better come up with a better pretext to condemn anybody's actions. If not, why bother with asserting it if you can't show us why think it is wrong ?

Bolded mine.

And yet you charge atheists with having no moral foundation.  This is the kind of shit that should embarrass theists, not embolden them.

 How embarassing for me to despise inserting one's sexual organ in where shit literally comes from