Unconvincing is right. The only point I can see in Mehta posting such a challenge is for free thinkers to test our debate skills, to see how easily and well we can refute her points. The problem is it seems not even worth the effort. Her first two points are clearly false, but because she has not defined her terms "science" or "case for Jeebus," (wtf is her "legal" case, anyway?), Bothering to argue with it is like trying to catch air with a butterfly net....total waste of time. Her last three points are purely about her own subjective feelings, and again she conveniently fails to define her claims for "evil," "hope," or what it is she cherishes. I am confident she is delusional on all counts, but without explanations for her claims, there is literally nothing concrete to argue. Her methodology shows her to be anything but scientific.

There; that was my morning time-wasting rhetorical flex. I feel much better now. Meh.

The first two statements are not consistent with anything I have read. The next three are consistent with what she believes, which cannot be argued.

Okay, she immediately lost me with "Genesis is consistent with science." WTAF? Seven day creation. Light before the sun was created. A talking fucking serpent....just to name three nonsensical, non scientific, things in Genesis.

Well then she's not an astrophysicist in my book anymore.

WFT, has she just suffered a very severe case of Cerebral Anoxia or what?

Maybe she will change her mind with a good slap up side the head.

OMG! I read her 5 reasons and it is all so damned lame! Who could possibly believe the reasons? It makes little sense. What it means to me is that she was raised without god belief (even though she calls it atheist) then later on she discovered religion for the first time and took off with it. Religion seemed to satisfy the "hunger" that she had inside. OK for her but not OK for me, and I have also been there.

She needs to get out more

Education and intelligence are not always mutually inclusive.