Why do I answer in the form of a question?

When I state that I'm an atheist, I get asked a lot of questions. Some quite vindictive and usually ad hominem.

Quite a few times, my usual retort consists of asking them a question in response analogous to a question they pitched at me. Often they would be offended or get frustrated and ask me why I pose a question instead of an answer. I haven’t given this much actual thought, it’s always seem to have been a reactionary response to a question.

Someone once responded to that with “The Socratic method?” I thought that was funny and used it quite often as the witty response.

An acquaintance of mine asked me to participate in her “company” selling herbal extracts. She asked, “Wouldn’t you want to invest in something that would make you and others healthier?” I responded with, “If you found out cyanide was good for you would you drink it or give to someone else?” She of course asked the question, “Why do you respond to my question with a question?”

The night ended with me poking a lot of holes in her sales pitch, and truthfully answering her original question with an actual answer this time; however it still had me thinking, why do I personally do this? As I observe my discussions with my friends I never see this “response in a form of a question”

Except when my friend asked me if I would like to grab a bite to eat with him after a long day of work and no breaks. I asked, “Do blue space monkeys like purple pineapples?!”

That gave me a pause… Coincidentally the answer is a YES by the way. The reason I never do this with my friends while we are having a discussion is they ask questions that I personally don’t feel is that obvious. But, when someone poses a no brainer, I automatically react with re-posing the question in a different perspective, without all the sugar coating. To me, in a serious debate, if an answer is so painstakingly obvious yet they ask the question, I automatically lose a little respect towards that person. I do however make room for ignorance, not much mind you, but when it’s an irrational question, or logical fallacy, I just can’t help but take a jab.

Sadly, I encounter this way too much, whether it’s a devout young earth creationist, or someone trying to sell me to a pyramid scheme.

Evolution does NOT explain the origins of life.

I hear the argument: "The theory of Evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origins of life".

I respond with: "Because you know how to drive a car, can you build one?"

I can't help but respond to a question such as this in such a crude manner. Any argument from pure ignorance who's answer is so blatantly obvious shouldn't be asked in such a serious tone.

The theory of evolution is a model that attempts to explain the divergence of species from a common ancestor. More details of evolution include survival of the fittest, simple life to complex life, inherited traits and behaviors, and so on...

Perhaps the argument shouldn't be addressed to evolution, since it is a phenomenon after the inception of life, but the point of inception itself, Abiogenisis.

Abiogenisis is the study of the inception of life from the inorganic to the organic.

Evolution is NOT Abiogenisis.

To my knowledge, unlike The theory of evolution, there is no generally accepted Theory of abiogenisis, though I personally do favor one over others.

Like the theory of evolution, abiogenisis is secular and does not directly affirm any particular belief of or rejection of any beliefs.

The conclusions being drawn is that the divine is not needed to produce organic materials from inorganic substance.

If I were Omnipotent, I'd kill myself.

A god who is both omnipotent and omnipresence is contradictory.

Sometimes this contradiction is hard to see, so let me show you a different way to understand it.

Think of "seeing the future" as if you were watching a VHS tape. Except, you're watching it in reverse.
Let's say it's a tape of a railroad trip.
You see yourself arrive at your San Francisco destination.
As the tape reverses, you see yourself get on the train.
After a few min, you board at San Jose.
As you approach the ticket stand, What do you think you said to the ticket vendor?
Would it matter if you said you wanted a ticket to Oakland?
No, it wouldn't matter, you know you will end up at San Francisco for one reason or another. You already know the destination despite the decision.

To "change the future" we'll have to look at a situation where we can see and change the actions dynamically, this is done by a domino rally pattern that forks into two.
However, there is a switch that only allows one of those forks to go on, the other goes in another direction. If you place a red piece at the end of the right fork, knowing it will be knocked down; you are basically seeing the future.

However, because you want to change the future, you switch it to the left position, when you set it off, the red one will NOT be knocked down, invalidating your red domino prediction. Therefore you did not see the actual future.

Some would argue, What if you switch the red domino to the left branch, it'd work. It's a short sighted argument. You really haven't changed the future, you've just stepped back to square one.

Some would argue, maybe omnipotence is knowing all possibilities of the future. Therefore it wouldn't be contradictory to choose one of those as it's actual event. Again, it is a short sighted argument. Once one of these possibilities is chosen, all other possibilities are false futures, and again you're back to square one.
There still is only one red domino.

If you can see the future, you can not change it.
If you can change the future, you haven't really seen the future.

Maybe your definition of omnipresence is that of the now, not of the future. Unfortunately, that's not very all-knowing.