Which is badly flawed, since morality tends to vary widely between cultures and even within them. The fact that you have to claim that demons are responsible for this is a dead giveaway of just how badly flawed an argument it is.
Which is also badly flawed, given the sheer number of problems that humans (and other animals in their own turn) have to deal with, and the various things that point to evolutionary development of humans from preceding animals. I suppose you blame this on demons, or sin, or something?
This depends utterly on the premise that a god is necessary for knowledge to exist. However, there is no reason to accept the premise to begin with, since there is no reason to assume that knowledge could not exist without a god to provide it. So there's no reason to treat this as a valid argument.
first cause argument
There's a fatal flaw in this that no theist has ever been able to explain. If you have an uncaused cause, why then complicate it by assuming it must be an actual being, since the existence of such a being implies prior causes?
atheists believing in things that can't be empirically proven, but denying God exists by claiming it's not empirically proven.
The fact that no amount of "logic and reason" can convince me to unsee writing in blood appearing and reappearing on my friend's wall. I saw it. It happened. No argument can change this.
More accurately, no amount of logic and reason can convince you of anything you aren't already prepared to believe.