My issues with Atheism, Lets talk :)

[objectivitees]

Show me how that argument was scientific in any way please.

Because your unstated premise is "Science leads to truth" therefore his claim was appealing to science as proof of Atheism, just as I said.

And yes, I have been hanging out with moronic Atheists.

Sorry, but the logic works without that premise, which is possibly why it was unstated (i.e. it didn't exist in the first place). Given the premise "A solid understanding of science and logic leads to an atheistic worldview.", if someone has a solid understanding of science and logic, they would be an atheist. It's a logical argument of the form:

If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore Q.

You can argue with the validity of the premise, since I think it's untrue (I wouldn't say science led to any conclusion about God, but I would say logic does), but you don't need any premise about science leading to truth.

My atheism isn't based on science at all. Even when I was a Christian, I believed in science. Nothing in science caused me to become an atheist.

Wow, you're kidding right? I claimed Atheists default to science to "prove" their Atheism is true. He said, a solid understanding leads to Atheism. Which part of that wasn't a defense of using science to defend Atheism? Simple English man. Your syllogism is (though a valid modus tollens), irrelevant. Are you familiar with fallacies of irrelevance, or do you just like saying things like "If 'P', then 'Q'. 'P'. Therefore 'Q'?