Believers in atheist Dogma Are Exactly as Dumb as Animals (Shanor Is an Example)

It has once been said that some can speak as many lies in a sentence as there are words in that sentence, and I believe that what happened here with my opponents Gish gallop of arguments, someone who is completely irrelevant to the resolution. Pond ScumMy opponent just asserts that my reductio ad absurdum rebuttal to his argument is a red herring, without displaying any evidence that is. Therefore they still stand. I could say a belief in fairies are exclusive to humanity, and only pond scum, feces, and afairiests deny their existence. The logic in this is horrendous, but so is his argument.MoralsAgain, my opponent moves the goalposts, asking me to deal with the moral argument as well, and then saying I lost the debate before I even had a chance to respond.I must ask why God is the only source of objective morality. Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God? If whatever that is commanded by God is good, then God could order genocide and then that would be good. Under God, anything could be permissible. However, if morality is separate from God, then God is powerless to change it. And if that sense of morality is separate, what is to prevent us from finding it out ourselves.I must also ask, how did you discover that God is good and Lucifer is evil? If you made this decision yourself, where does this secular sense of morality come from? If you didn't make it of your own moral code, and rather the one God wrote on your heart, how did you find that God was good? If the devil wrote his moral code on your heart, wouldn't he come out like sunshine and rainbows?I fail to see why objective morals are always better than subjective ones. An objective moral system could include divinely mandated rape, torture, genocide, and child abuse being the epidemy of morality.Godwin's LawNow I could just invoke Godwin's Law, saying you lost the debate for a mere Hitler comparison, yet I think I'll continue on his argumentum ad Hitlerum. Why do you think he was an atheist, when repeatedly he mentioned words like creator, lord, god, and such in his speeches. In the closing of Chapter 1 of Mein Kampf he says, "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Does this sound like a nonbeliever to you? And Hitler was not the one that did the killing blow, rather a country primarily protestant and catholic. This is not to say Hitler was a Christian since we have some contradicting evidence in Hitler's Table Talks, but it seems he enjoyed the idea.To add, why does it even matter. If Hitler was an atheist, I could just cite Alan Turing or such. If he was a Christian, you could cite Mother Teresa. The arguments about whose camp he was in makes no real difference since this is a false comparison. Former dictators had no hope to make body counts as large as Hitler before the 20th century. Imagine a modern Crusade, with guns, explosives, planes, gas chambers, and tanks. The comparison is like comparing currency from 2 different centuries, it isn't equal.My opponent merely asserts that without God there could be no science. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed for the same reason.ConclusionMy opponent has propagated the argument, asserting that nonbelievers are pond scum without any reasonable argument. His line of reasoning could be used to dehumanize nontruthers, alepurcanists, and such. He brings up the moral argument, something irrelevant to the discussion, as well as a comparison between Hitler and atheists. Thank you for your time.