Ok, the civil bits first.

You are right in that scientific methodology is not the best tool for debating the existence of God, as science is based on observing followed by quantifying, followed by revising followed by holding your breath till your thesis is again scrutinised. Scripture however is based on an absolute, to be refined but never refuted. So although Dawkin and others have demonstrated how genes conflict with scriptures in the same way as Darwin's discoveries did, (and refining Darwin in the process,) it must be frustrating trying to win an argument against intangible evidence.

Now back to the silly (ish) bits.

If you tie your shoe laces you can get out more and broaden your horizons.

You say you are shocked to be agreeing with me. Not quite as shocked as I am. But there again, whether you call it training or education, it seems to be working. Who knows, perhaps some day you may stop being so bitter about everything around you and stop looking for avarice and greed in every public endeavour. If you tend towards similar opinions as such atheists, you will know you only live once and so may as well start enjoying it more.