Why Atheism Cannot Be Correct

[rlrose328]

Atheism doesn't HAVE to be correct... it is the default position.  One has to be carefully brainwashed and indoctrinated to believe and one is taught to believe the faith that is predominant in the country or area where they live.  It's only if they think for themselves that they break free... to either non-belief or another belief that suits them.

And no, I didn't read the entire thing either.  Too much bluster and not enough real information.

[Wechtlein Uns]

The rejection of logic allows one to irrationally claim science as the truth.

Are you going to argue, as a christian, that irrationally claiming science is--illogical?

...To the author of letter, whoever you are: F**k you.


(That's Right I said it. The mods can dock me if they want to. I normally refrain from such words, but in this case I feel it was justified.)

[Tanker]

I am NOT going back through that mess again to get quotes so i'll paraphase. "Mathmatics is intuitive" WHAT? well I geuss I was right when I told my math teachers I didn't need to learn it. Math is NOT intuitive, "primitive" cultures that never developed higher or even basic math usually have for math 1, few, many. Not much else and that's not really math just a basic understanding of quantity. Everytime he tried to 'bring his arguement down' to a scientific structure He took for granted that god was a fact. Which is silly because in science no matter how well documented scientist rarely use fact ie: it's still called the therory of gravity. Anoter of his suppositions is that "if all human life died and if life never evolves on another planet to a point to understand math, all that knowledge would be gone. Does a buried treasure disappear just becase the last pirate to know it's location dies?" How can you even try to compare a physical object and location to intelectual idea. It accures to me, the easy respose would be, the math texts would exist just as the treasure does. I didn't read all of it I coulden't my eyes were crossing, but I probably read near 2/3 skipping here and there. It seemed like he was try to use scientific method against scientific method which would be about par for most theist's circular reasoning brains, and of course there were many of the usuall falicies that were written 10 times longer then they needed to be. Probably to try and disquise their well worn and refuted arguments. I just wasted 10 mins on something that made me feel dumber for have read it.

[Akwo]

Is there a tl;dr format for that wall of text?