Atheism is self-delusional

Keeping the focus on the question of the debate, and my opponents responsibility to post arguments showing how atheism is not self-delusional, has been a difficult task. My opponent is not offering any rational counter to the main points of my argument which are: 1) Nothing but the atheist"s existence while alive has any objective value, and 2)Atheists delude themselves into thinkning they have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell. Nobody has the right to be alive, or we would not have to die. If we have the right to be alive, then we die, who do we sue for causing our death? The truth is that we do not have the right to live. The self-deluding aspect of atheism is that they deny their own existence in death thinking God is not there to Judge them and punish them in Hell. There is no need in this debate to prove Hell is real or that God is real. The point of this debate is that atheism is a self-deluding belief system in which a person makes themselves think they have the right to live outside of the fire of Hell. There is no need to claim any special understanding of what an Atheist is, or what Atheism is. My opponents repeated attemtps to derail the discussion by trying to make rulings of semantics is one way he gives evidence of the self-delusional aspect of atheism. He seems to think thay by denying or changing or claiming special understanding of the word Atheist (or atheist, both of which my opponent says he is not, whatever he means by that) he is making an argument that atheism is not self-delusional. Playing semantics is not making an argument in the debate. Also, his attempts to change the debte into proving God and Hell are real rather than proving that belief in the right to exist outisde of Hell shows some self-delusional aspects. Those things are not the topic of the debate. The debate is about my assertion that atheism is a self-deluding belief (or non-belief, whatever semantic approach is preferred). I am having great difficulty finding coherence in my opponents analysis of my assertions. In his Point A, he asserts my arguments are fallacious but does not explain why. The beliefs of Christians, Jews, or Muslims are not part of this debate. If my opponent is aguiing that everybody is delusional, except for atheists, he is not explaining how atheism is not self-delusional, he is not addressing my points of argument. If my opponent is arguing that atheists are self-deluded the same as everybody else, then he is agreeing with me that atheism is self-delusional. I really don't know what my opponent is trying to say. In his Pont B, again my opponent is incoherent. I think he is saying that muons and particles we are made of have no objeciive value, so we as humans have no objective value. This would be in agreement with my assertion that in atheism, a person's exixtence has no objective value and is therefore self-delusional. Every individual has objective and undeniable value which is not given by themselves or by other people. That is why life is worth the living even when it hurts. If we question our own value and our value is not defined by God, then we have no certain value and life is only a time of confusioin ending in death. If my opponent is trying to disagree with me in his Point B, I wish he would be more clear about it. In his Point C, he states " God can love them. And also, you have ho hope other than to prove in death that you are right." Now my opponent is using the name of God after he says you have to prove God is there before you can say atheism is self-delusional. This is more evidence of the confusing nature of Atheism's self delusional belief (or non-belief, or non-observance of evidence, or whatever) The love of God is not the subject of this debate, though i would wholehearedly agree with my opponent that God can, and even more that He does, love them. "Subjective Idealism" is an oxymoron....again, incoherent.