Argument against atheism

[Perhaps]

Since: "Assumption is the root of everything. There is nothing objective, nothing true. We simply assume. Once this base assumption is made then we can 'prove' 'truths' to ourselves by means of reason and science. This does nothing but further validate these original assumptions as we can understand them. " didn't make sense to you, let's try a different method...

Oh jesus fucking christ. Nothing I've said is true if I don't exist or if reason is not the source of truth? Except that even if I didn't exist, and reason were not the source of truth, I (as a phantom) still produce results through it's application (though the true credit may lie elsewhere).

Why?

To you, assumption may be the root of everything, to me, it is not. Science does not "prove" anything, it offers explanations that fit the information available, even if that information is illusory, and even if existence is illusory, it offers an explanation which is useful in producing results.

Why?

Of course it doesn't, because it's a product of our minds. The things which it describe do, even if all is an illusion, as they are a separate illusion from ourselves (as best as we can determine, by "gasp"...evidence) though a part of the same overall illusion.

Why?

Of course there are limits, but none even approaching anything that you've suggested.

Why?

You may be happy to assume that arrogance is part of an assumed humans assumed nature...I prefer evidence. Well, look at that, we've reached the same conclusions by different methods. What do you think the difference between your method of simply assuming all of this and my method of demanding evidence might be?

Why?

Ive had someone else try and tell me what my assumptions were before, by the analogy of a car. Claiming that I "assumed the uniformity of nature" when I got into my car. Lemme tell you the same thing I told him. I don't assume that my car will work. I don't assume that based upon the fact that I've gotten in my car, turned the key, and nothings happened. I know that my car should work, as long as nothing has changed, because it worked once before (at least). Every time I turn the key and my car starts it gives me yet another instance to refer to which relieves me of requiring any assumptions. It may not start tomorrow, I acknowledge that. Thing is, it just keeps starting. The same is true with science. What was once a set of assumptions has become a statement of facts, by simple repetition and production of results.

Why?

Assumptions are an impediment to science, not a requirement.

Why?

---

Simply stated, there is either ignorance or assumption.
Either 'I don't know' or 'because'.