A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[Angrboda]

I never claimed that I could differentiate between what is and is not a religion. You on the other hand, claimed that you could demonstrate that atheism is a religion. The burden of proof lies entirely on your shoulders. You've implicitly claimed that you can tell religion from that which it is not by claiming that you can show that atheism is one.

I must have ruffled your feathers a bit when I said I didn't agree with your post, sorry about that.

Hmm, so you have no idea how to determine if something is or is not a religion? Well with all due respect, you really have no logical basis for stating I did not already demonstrate atheism was a religion. If you do not know how to do the math problem, you certainly can't logically tell someone they did it incorrectly. So unless you can figure out how to determine what is and is not a religion I see no point in adding to my argument because it still stands.

First, you need to learn how to read English. I said that I never claimed to know how to differentiate the two, not that I had no idea how. Even if I had an iron-clad method of differentiating the two, it would be irrelevant to your claim and your proof, unless your proof and mine were the same. If I were to accept your analogy, then a person who can't understand plain English has no business claiming their words make sense. But the truth is your analogy about mathematical proof was little more than a stalking horse for an ad hominem argument. As a mathematician I can tell you there are many more ways to go wrong than to go right, and it is easier to see what's wrong than what's right. Falsification is easy, if the theory is faulty; it's dreaming up valid theory that takes brains. If you feel my analysis was incompetent, show, don't tell. Your silly allusions to my incompetence are tiresome. I stand by my analysis, and you've yet to give anyone here a reason to doubt it, aside from your, "you're obviously too stupid to appreciate the brilliance of my argument" argument above, which as noted is entirely beside the point as it was based on a misreading of my text.
(Not that I'm going to be impressed by an ad hominem argument even if based on an accurate reading, but stooping to an ad hominem based on a misreading just makes you look stupid.)

Now you're welcome to engage my arguments more substantially, and I'll be more than happy to reply in kind. But your current behavior all too closely follows the comical theist habit of chanting victory as you make a hasty retreat from the field of battle.