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

Thank you for your response, FogFail. To respond to your points in order...1) My opponent has combined the atheist and the scientist into one person in his mind, and has kindly asked me to correct him if he is wrong in doing this. Well, FogFail, you are wrong in doing this. An atheist is, most inclusively, one who does not believe a deity exists. [1]. An atheist is not necessarily someone who believes in the Big Bang theory, or evolution, or anything of the sort. An atheist isn't even necessariy someone who believes deities do not exist. Atheists like myself are simply those who have not been convinced a deity exists.2) My opponent says, "I'm just saying [Islam] sounds more rational, more probable, and the idea has nothing going against it. [...] 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."The thing that Islam has going against it is a lack of evidence in its favor. It's simply not enough for some of the claims in the Qu'ran to be true. The vaidity of those claims do not bleed over to give the claim that God exists validity as well. It is a separate claim on its own and deserving of its own evidence, but so far, we have been given none.3) My opponent claims there is not a single scientific error in the Qu'ran and this is why we shoud believe God exists. Firstly, as previously mentioned, that is non-sequitor. He will have to provide evidence of God's existence before we should take this claim seriously, regardless of what scientific claims the Qu'ran make, true or not.And secondly, that's not even true. Let me give you a couple examples:"And verily, it is We Who give life, and Who give death: it is We Who remain inheritors (after all else passes away). To Us are known those of you who hasten forward, and those who lag behind. Assuredly it is thy Lord Who will gather them together: for He is perfect in Wisdom and Knowledge. We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape; And the Jinn race, We had created before, from the fire of a scorching wind." [15:23-27] [2]Needless to say, the notion that man was created in its current form from clay instead of having evolved from lower species of apes is a glaring scientific error."Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds." [41:9] [3]According to the Qu'ran, Allah created the entire universe in just six days, the Earth taking two of them. I would like my opponent to expain to us how this is not a scientific error.4) Before responding to my opponent's theory on the water/land ratio, I'd like for him to provide evidence that what he says is true. I've researched multiple translations of the Qu'ran, searching for the words "sea", "water", "ocean", "land", "ground", and "acre" and couldn't get the perfect ratio he did. So I assume this supposed miracle only applies to the original text and seeing as I can't read Arabic, I'd like my opponent to provide an unbiased source on the matter.I propose that it is far more likely that the number of times "land" and "water" are mentioned happen to coincide with the ratio of actual land and water on the Earth's surface is nothing more than a coincidence, not a revelation from God, because there is no evidence God exists. Also, I wonder how many other word mentionings have a perfect ratio like that, seeing as how the Qu'ran was apparantly written with such care to detail. Is the word "star" mentioned in the Qu'ran billions of more times than the word "Earth"?My opponent says, in conclusion, "[Islam] may not be proven but its not illogical." That's the thing, though. The fact that Islam has yet to be proven to be true makes it illogical for one to believe in it. Until then, atheism is the far more rational position.Sources:[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[2] http://www.searchtruth.com... [3] http://www.searchtruth.com...=