Islam has more evidence, makes more sense, and is more rational than Atheism.

1. Your saying the answers to these questions are irrelevant and shouldnt cause one to become religious. Im not saying that, im saying it lowers the rationality of the idea of atheism. Which in this debate is related to science as a whole, because just not believing in God without backing is completely irrational. In this debate the backing for atheism shall be science. If i make any wrong statements please correct me since you must be more knowledgable of science and atheism than me. So if you could answer these, they would make Atheism sound more rational that it does right now to me. 2. Your saying claiming ignorance is more rational. Well if you dont know these things you shouldnt have a firm grip on atheism. It should be better to stay an agnostic. And you also said I would rather you believe in a deity to somehow be responsible. I'm just saying it sounds more rational, more probable, and the idea has nothing going against it. I agree other religions contradict science. Such as Christianity contradicts the age of the world, it contradicts the space time continuum through omnipresence etc. Many religions do this. But there is nothing going against islam. 3. You said there had been a profound lack of scientific discovery prior to the Qu"ran"s writing. Not even close to what I said. Quran isnt even a science book. The scientific things in there arent even meant to teach us about science, they were just included through gods words to support other things. Quran is mainly a book about spirituality not science. The science stuff just exists in it, which is why I use it as a basis of my argument because its accurate. And the ideas already being speculated, 1 is not necessarily true i will find examples hold on, and 2 even if you say they were why isnt there a SINGLE unnacurate one. Surely if they were all from speculation something had to be wrong. Alot of the scientific miracles have also been discovered by others near that time but others have not. For example, the Quran cleverly says exactly how much percent of the earth is land and how much is sea. Down to the percent. Also if you take the golden ratio of the world, it points to mecca. Also it says in the quran, http://www.youtube.com... . Pharaoh Ramses II was also unusually preserved in a miracle http://islamgreatreligion.wordpress.com... 4. Another argument i would like to bring up is the perfectness of the text. Many words have perfect symmetry with others. Like the word heaven comes up as much as hell. Also the word land comes up 28.8888 percent of the time and the word sea comes up 71.12222 percent which is perfectly the ratio of the worlds land and sea. Also there isnt a single contradiction compared to all the other holy books. Every single letter is preserved, there is only one version not 10000000 thousand versions like the bible. Its just perfect. In conclusion all im saying is. From an unbiased point of view it seems more rational to go with a belief that is completely logical. It may not be proven but its not illogical. Where on the other-hand atheism has many ideas that cant be explained. Again im taking atheism and science as a whole.