Reason!

Mark Shea highlights a rejoinder to some atheist "reasoning":

I tend to skim my comboxes and can miss conversations, especially when they involve people who a) play well with others who are b) chatting about subjects that I've already hashed over with c) people who are saying the same tired stuff. I figure they've got things well in hand and don't need me to net.nanny them. The up side is: Less work for me. The down side is: you can sometimes miss wonderful replies like this one from reader Rosemarie to one of the dumbest atheist tropes out there:

Atheism is the default position!
Ever looked in on a hospital's maternity ward? All those little babies in plastic boxes? All atheists. They don't learn god-belief until they are indoctrinated into the religion by their parents and their environment.

This is not a strong argument. Just because something is characteristic of babies doesn't mean it's desirable for adults.

What would you say if someone seriously tried to argue the following:

"Incontinence is the default position!
"Ever looked in on a hospital's maternity ward? All those little babies in plastic boxes? All incontinent. They don't learn bowel or bladder control until they are indoctrinated into toilet-training by their parents and their environment."

or:

"Inability to speak is the default position!
"Ever looked in on a hospital's maternity ward? All those little babies in plastic boxes? All unable to speak. They don't learn speech until they are indoctrinated into a particular language by their parents and their environment."

Better yet, how about this one:

"Ignorance of science is the default position!
"Ever looked in on a hospital's maternity ward? All those little babies in plastic boxes? All know nothing about science. They don't learn it until they are indoctrinated into scientific training by their parents and their teachers."

You see? Just because babies don't know about science doesn't mean everyone should reject science. Even so, just because babies apparently know nothing about God doesn't mean everyone should reject God. It doesn't logically follow.

I scrolled up to see who Rosemarie was replying to and got as far as this mixture of parrot talk and "original thinking":

Just like you are a-zeus-ist, a-allah-ist, a-fairy-ist, a-invisible-pink-unicorn-ist... basically you are very similar to me, you're an atheist in almost everything but the religion you were indoctrinated into by your environment. I'm just atheistic in a few more things.

I still have to get to reading some of this Aquinas fellow, though I have the vague suspicion that he doesn't adress the Plantinga Disaster.

That last one is a good one. I'm sure an atheist would agree with my reasoning if I said, "Now I know that you reject spontaneous generation, perpetual motion, the luminiferous ether, and phlogiston. In rejecting Darwinism, I'm just rejecting one more theory than you!"

Right?