Here’s a very obvious special pleading fallacy from Sherloc:
One assumes he has a good reason to imply a) there is any objective evidence (since he failed over many months to offer any, but also b) why would we need a special method for god claims? Obviously here again he failed to ever address this assumption that his beliefs unlike all others, are beyond understanding, one assumes he thinks he understands the evidence, yet again failed to explain his method, demonstrating only irrational argument and subjective bias.
Moreover he goes on to claim that the only group who don’t / can’t understand the evidence for a deity, are those who don’t believe in one, so another very obvious and hilarious No true Scotsman fallacy as well.
Here we see Sherlock again using a false equivalence, it is the same tired old canard, but in a nutshell, atheists make claims and hold beliefs, thus their lack of belief in any deity or deities is a belief. He the tries to expand that flawed and irrational claim into a “belief system”. Again the irrational and flawed reasoning equates atheism with atheists or what some atheisms say or claim. When @Old_man_shouts_at_cl points out that the definition is in any dictionary, he uses rhetoric by claiming there are many contradictory definitions, which is another false equivalence, as those do not reflect common usage, it is also very disingenuous as they are not contradictory, but just offer a less complete definition that unsurprisingly only defines atheism in the narrow way Sherlock wants to dishonestly label all atheists, the definition in common usage would include all atheists in any of the definitions he offered, a fact he never honestly addressed, and again quelle surprise.
Note the emboldened opening, so we are almost warned right out of the gate that what we are about to get is subjective rhetoric, he doesn’t disappoint, and again produces a false equivalence fallacy, this time between naturalism and atheism.