Yes, Atheism is a Religion

[Delicate]

Apparently you don't even know what fallacies mean.

Not to mention Plantinga being an ID supporter has no bearing on what he says in the paper.

Not to mention Plantinga is not an ID supporter:


Not to mention bald assertions without substantiation are worthless. 

It didn't take long to find where you poached your quote without attribution (Wiki). Curious, why did you neglect to omit the preceding paragraphs?

In the past, Plantinga has lent support to the intelligent design movement.[51] He was a member of the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' that supported Philip E. Johnson's 1991 book Darwin on Trial against palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould's high-profile scathing review in Scientific American in 1992.[52][53] Plantinga also provided a back-cover endorsement of Johnson's book.[54] He was a Fellow of the (now moribund) pro-intelligent design International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design,[55] and has presented at a number of intelligent design conferences.[56]

In a March 2010 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, philosopher of science Michael Ruse labeled Plantinga as an "open enthusiast of intelligent design".[57] In a letter to the editor, Plantinga made the following response:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga

The more curious omission was the continuation of Plantinga's rebuttal in which he is clearly adopts the ID position of accepting evolution, but claiming it is divinely guided:

...As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God.

Here's an article penned by Plantinga himself criticizing the decision in the Dover trial; i.e., supporting ID:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/902/

Yet again, you are simply wrong; although, you have seemingly added insufferably disingenuous to your CV.

Actually, I "poached" the quote from a Chronicle article by Michael Ruse. Sue me.

And ID is not theistic evolution. (link)

And criticizing the legal decision does not entail supporting ID. It's entirely possible for bad legal decisions to do something good, like ban ID in the classroom.

You're clearly one crayon short of a box in this discussion, Cato.

Leave this to the big boys if you can't manage.