Atheism is a sound position

The only thing he touched from tne last round was the fact that I cussed (f*ck sh*t damm hell a** b*tch. Suck it up princess), and the fact that I called him stupid (which is clearly the truth) and asked for a free win. If cussing and insults were cause for a loss, people's W/L records would be so different. At most, this is worthy of a conduct violation, but let's be frank: he deserves it. A loss because of this is borderline idiotic. Since he's dropped all three of my arguments, I ask that you extend my three arguments (Paradox of the Stone, Problem off Evil, Extraordinary Evidence). This proves that because atheism is correct and that God cannot exist, that atheism is a viable position. That means that the resolution is automatically affirmed. With that in mind, let's go to refute my opponent's three new arguments. "Glue. How does it work? "Seems like a basic kindergarten question, so I'll just post a few sources that explain how glue works. . http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...This source explains how glue works and sticks things together on a more basic level. It doesn't go into depth with the forces it uses, but rather goes in depth explaining the process of glue sticking together from start to finish. . http://www.straightdope.com...This one goes in further to the specific forces that make glue works (such as the Van der Waal forces). Moreover, this doesn't actually refute atheism. You're basically just saying that because we have no evidence (hypothetically, since I just posted two sources explaining how it works), that God has to be behind it, but absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Just because we don't have an explanation for it scientifically right now doesn't mean that God was behind it. Argument = refuted. "Where'd the moon come from? "I'm going to let go that this is another one of those absense of evidence =/= evidence of absense. Even if we don't know how to explain it, it doesn't mean God caused it. But furthermore, scientists already have plausible to slightly-confirmed theories as to where the moon came from. . http://physicsworld.com...Argument = refuted. "In embryo the baby has been proven to know there is something else out there. With babys they aren't atheists, they are believers in Jesus. babys have been proven to pick pictures of Jesus and the Bible out of any other book or picture. This is because when a baby dies it goes to heaven. As said in the Bible! "For one, my opponent doesn't cite the study that he says happened, so we have no reason to believe him. Don't let him come back in the last round and cite it because that's insanely abusive to me since I can't respond to it. But for two, babies pointing to the Bible does not believe that they believe in God. Even if I start pointing at pictures of Jesus and the Bible more often than any other book, that doesn't mean I suddenly believe in God. He's missing the necessary link between the two to explain why pointing at ;pictures mean they suddenly believe in God. Don't let him try to make some random link in the last round since I can't respond to it. "You cannot refute these. "1. Lolfail2. Says the person who was unable to refute my arguments. The resolution is easily affirmed.