I actually think he might be on to something here.

I rejected the arguments of atheism because they are unsound and/or invalid and so I gave up atheism and became agnostic.

Then through first-hand experience of God I became a Christian.

In the same way this guy tells me "when you light a fire, you needlessly poison the air" I can tell you that I'm poor, there's wood outside I can gather for free, that wood could stop me from suffering in the cold. People need heat to survive colder climatic regions. Yes, his magic "just use gas" is great - presumably he will pay the bill?

Also, if I'm using a rocket burner (uses primary burning to heat a secondary chamber for re-burn) then it seems much of the objection is invalid?

It seems the author has assumed a homogeneity of situation and a self-omniscience which are neither present. That perhaps speaks to his point in an manner he wasn't intending.

That said it does seem quite likely the public at large isn't aware of the health problems inherent in casual [ie unconsidered] use of open wood burning.

Belief in provably true: science Belief in provably false: willful ignorance Belief in things not provably true or false: religion

Atheism - or at least the evangelical sort - seems to be the belief that others should not believe in something if it isn't provably true.

Sometimes it is useful to believe in conjectures, for pragmatic reasons. Sometimes it is useful to believe in religion, for emotional reasons.

It's true that some of what is ascribed to "religion" is actually willful ignorance. That is appropriate to combat, in my view. However, I don't believe it's appropriate to combat the belief in things not provably true or false. And that is a common reason that religious people reject the arguments of atheism.