[Campion]

The atheist argument almost always rests on a series of logical fallacies. Atheists will argue that "religion" is wrong, because "religion" is bad (this is a subtle form of ad hominem), because specific religions killed people (this is category error/false generalization), and killing people is bad (why? -- begging the question).

When pressed on the millions of people killed by avowedly atheist regimes in the USSR, China, and elsewhere, they will attempt to claim that those regimes in fact practiced a "religion"! (Evidently militant atheistic socialism qualifies as a "religion", if atheists think they can use it to score points.)

That last tack is beyond logical fallacy and into insane territory.

The glaring fallacy is the category error. Nobody has ever been killed in the name of religion, just as nobody has ever painted a house "color". Religion and color are categories, not entities.

People have been killed in the name of specific religions, just as houses can be painted specific colors. However, if 1, 10, or a million people have been killed in the name of religion "A", that proves absolutely nothing about the truth or falsehood of religion "B". (Strictly speaking, it's not a slam-dunk that it proves anything about the truth or falsehood of religion "A", either.)

[Soliton]

The atheist argument almost always rests on a series of logical fallacies

The problem is mainly with definitions. If something is said to exist, it will have characteristics and properties. The first place to start a debate on the existance of God is with defining what we mean by "God".