(April 2, 2014 at 3:35 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: I'm sure Esquilax posted some really nice points and raised quite a few issues. You however stil haven't confronted any of the points you so spectacularly missed regarding parody and what atheism actually is (no, not a religion like you keep regurgitating from your favourite apologist website, but rather a lack of belief in a deity or deities).
So, going to humour us pumpkin? Or are you going to take us on a non-stop tour of 'make a point, Dodge all replies, and then trollolololol'?
You also didn't answer whether English was your first language. I'm going to assume it isn't as you said you understood what a fallacy of composition was and then proceeded to post another fallacy of composition in support of your erroneous 'argument' (if one could call it that).
are you sure you even know what "fallacy of composition" even means? I clearly showed you that atheists can be religious.
Want more evidence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WexKRzPqKs#t=74
Atheist 'Megachurches' Crop Up around the World
Atheist Church 'Sunday Assembly' Is First Of Its Kind In Britain
Sunday Assembly 'Atheist Church' Provokes Criticism