How to Destroy an Athiests in a argument! (Updated with poll)

[SlayerRondo]

SxyxS said:

people should believe or not in whatever they want,but it is pretty simple.

If you take a look how complex the dna is_this could never happen by coincidence.And even if this happen by coincidence,this dna structure would't evolve and reproduce itself,because the structure would never know what it is and never know how or why to reproduce itself.As soon as the first life started it already had the code for reproduction.how could both things happen at the same time and why,and where does the urge came from to live and reproduce and the selforganizing and selfrecognizing knowledge to analyze the own structure and to built a code for reproduction,a code that is not just reproducing but recognizing what is good and not for improvement of its own structure and the ability to recognice mutations eliminate the bad and reproduce the good ones?
life would be the same ad a computer programm,with no one to code and start the programm nothing would ever happen.a primitive binary code would remain primitive for all time without being able to analize itself ,to improve itself,to reproduce even if it is a complex binary code nothing would happened because there would be no need for the programm.

While most people (including myself) believe that people should be able to believe in what they want but what i object to is:

Teaching religion to children as though its the unquestionable truth while there most vulnerable to adult influence. This is why religion is almost universally an incident of birth rather than people being convinced by the threadbare arguments that all religions have on offer.

The idea that religion should be held to a lower standard of scrutiny than say politics. Given how important religion is to some people should it not be held to the highest standard of scrutiny to determine its validity?

People saying that because a religion says something or someone did something in the name of religion it should be imune from criticism. Similar to the point made above if a religion says to do something that is objectionable to today's current standards of morality than it should be treated no differently than if it were just someone's point of view.