I recommend Heather (#27) and JSG (#22) as two simple statements written on behalf of reason, but even these may be addressing the religious problem rather than the problem of the article itself.

FIRST –
as stated many times, there is no such book written by Einstein. I need say no more.

SECOND –
the story is of the highest probability apocryphal as it purports to quote, verbatim, a dialogue that occurred in a pre-technological classroom when Einstein was a kid, before anyone knew there was anything special about this kid. But even if we say it was just an ordinary kid, why would this dialogue be of any memorable significance? Who took the dictation? Why would they do such a thing? If the entire dialogue was written from memory, who memorized it? And what motivation would they have for remembering an entire dialogue such as this? The story is obviously fabricated, the dialogue is invented.

Some of you might say, that doesn’t matter, it’s the TRUTH of the argument that matters (just like it doesn’t matter whether or not the Bible was dictated by God, it’s the truth of the content of those writings that matters. But even the content of the Bible doesn’t hold up under scrutiny — it does state that Pi = 3, for instance — which is something many of you will probably not permit yourself to consider.)

THIRD–
the argumentation is not even correct. That is, using the same given examples, the arguments can be reframed such that opposite conclusions are derived.

The logic is flawed: One claim is that cold doesn’t exist, only heat exists. Consider what takes place in the brain of someone who touches a hot or a cold object. The heat or the cold, respectively, is represented in the brain as a sensation — very real regions of the brain become active. The sensation exists in the brain in BOTH cases in different ways. From this perspective, both heat and cold EXIST as sensory perceptions in the brain, contradicting the conclusion drawn in the story that cold does not exist.

Additionally, one could think of heat as being a transfer of energy from a test object to a test apparatus. The transfer of energy increases the energy state of the test apparatus which, by definition, is called heat. But, if energy is transferred in the other direction, from the test apparatus to the test object, the energy state of the test apparatus decreases which, by definition, is called cold. In this example, then, it could be said that NEITHER heat nor cold exist, per se, because neither can be said to exist UNTIL a transfer of energy takes place in one or another direction. In the absence of that transfer, there is neither heat nor cold, merely the existent energy state of a resting test body and an existent energy state of a test apparatus.

If that isn’t clear:
Heat is energy transferred from one body to another.
Cold is energy transferred from one body to another.
They are the same thing, only the direction of transfer has changed.

All of the other arguments are similar to this one. They can all be reframed such that the ONLY conclusion the author wants you to see is contradicted.

Our understanding of the world is dependent upon our use of words, but visualizing what’s going on in a particular situation might help you see beyond the limitations of mere words. It’s possible to deceive one’s self with simple word logic such as is presented here.

In my experience, religious people are trained in how to “be obedient, even without the benefit of understanding.” I suggest that you violate your obedience orders and begin trying to understand. Learn to think and there’s no limit to what kinds of problems you will be able to resolve,