Atheism is for morons

Ave.1: Perhaps weak force is needed for water to exist. The important part is that water is not needed for life. Scientists have already found life living in anoxic conditions, which means that no dissolved oxygen exists.[1] http://phys.org...2: I don't know that? Obviously my world view is not impossibly to live by if I'm living by it right now. And so what if I can't live by my world view? What relevance would that have to the resolution at all?3: No, being wrong does not make you a lunatic. That is the assumption of the trillema. He can believe himself to be the son of god without being insane.4: It's not a good reason. It's a logical fallacy called an argument from popularity.5: There was no supernatural entity that 'inserted' morality into us, as other primates show a general intolerance towards murder and other immoral acts. I think that Sam Harris, philosopher and neuroscientist, wrote well on this point.'What if mice show greater distress at the suffering of familiar mice over unfamiliar ones (They do)? What if monkeys will starve themselves to prevent their cage mate from receiving painful shocks (They will)? What if chimps have a demonstrable sense of fairness when receiving food awards (They have)? What if dogs do too (Ditto)? Wouldn't these be precisely the findings one would expect if our morality were the product of evolution?'[1] Harris, Sam. "Religion." The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values I. N.p.: Free, 2010. 170-71. Print.6: I provided an argument for why we should care about other people if they're just molecules. Pro's response was a mere 'nope'. I extend this point.7: Pro will have to forgive my slip of the tongue. What I meant to say was that the 'die for a lie' argument is false, and I posted a link to a New Testament scholar and theologian who debunked the argument as lacking any basis in scripture. This remains unrefuted at this point.8: Pro does not answer my points here. He simply refers to me his opening statement, without quoting the relevant parts.9: Pro skips this point.10: Pro skips this point.11: Pro's response to this is simply to say 'yes'. I have no idea why he said this, because I didn't even ask a question. I'll just extend this point as well.12: Pro asserted irreducible complexity. Therefore, the burden of proof is on him. Yet, he has not proved it to be true. This point remains on my side.13: Entropy is increasing, but only in the universe, not nessecarily on our planet. 14: Pro skips this point.15: Pro skips this point.16: No. Claiming you saw someone does not mean they exist. You are not making an accurate paradoy of my argument.17: No, that's simply not true.18: It shows absolutely nothing. You have not proved atheists are more likely to kill themselves, and you have not proved that this matters to the resolution.19: I don't have to give an explanation of why the universe same to exist. It's an open question, and there is no actual answer to it. I won't take Pro's position and claim to know things I absolutely cannot know.20: This point is ignored.Pro skilled 5 out of 20 points. Many times, he simply gave one word responses to my points. This should be noted when it is time to vote on conduct.Vale.