It was a generalization that fits. You can't point out specifics to counter a generalization.

But maybe it was a little off.

Religion took root as a form of social ethics that allowed for people to live by a non-enforceable code of laws. Many religious codes are enforced by punishments and rewards (either extrinsic or intrinsic) provided by the imaginary creations of the religion.

How's that?

Before religion:

If someone does something wrong, they are bad. We will punish the person who does something wrong. We will thank the person who does something good.

After religion:

Even if the person who does something wrong is not caught, he will feel the repurcussions of it in some way.
and the opposite "even if this person is thankless, he will benefit from his good deed somehow".

Not really, maybe in the beginning of the first societies it played an important role, but now? No, I think we've evolved past it. And many of the laws that are said to have come from religion, ultimately didn't, because we already saw those things as detrimental to society, each other and ourselves.

And over the years we've come to change our views and societies based on our knowledge and understanding of each other and how we can work together, not based on religion.

E.g. abolishing slavery, equal rights for everyone, giving and receiving aid to and from other nations etc. (the list goes on) would have happened with or without religion. Religion has definitely had an effect on the speed at which progress is made, for better or for worse, but we live in a time where religion is no longer needed for anything on a societal level. (Atleast in the developed world). Is religion relevant in your personal life? If you want it to be, and that's absolutely fine as long as it doesn't negatively affect those around you.

it's funny...because there are no inherent 'fallacies' in Atheism.  There are questions left unanswered,  yes, but the whole point of atheism is to accept these questions are unanswered and subsequently seek the truth about them rather than fill in the blanks as you deem fit.  Therein lies the fallacy of religion: Assumptions of truth rather than proof of it.  

Your crusade against atheism is frustrating to witness, that's for sure.   Your assumptions about me are equally frustrating. 

Padib, what are the fallacies of atheism? Or more specifically, my agnostic atheism? 

QFT

Aaand you just officially lost the game.  Can we get a judge in here to call it? 

that didn't work so well.

Religion has an answer for everything.

God works in mysterious ways, right? Faith is the frog dna used to complete the dino dna in jurassic park. It's a big pile of nothing that keeps you from questioning the ridiculous plotline.

No padib, just no.  
fallacy of atheism: Assumptions of truth rather than proof of it.    No, atheism isn't an assumption of anything, it's a lack of an assumption really. Atheism is the default position until evidence of the existance of god(s) is given. I'm not claiming there is no god, I'm just at my default position of not believing in one until someone gives me a reason to. You are the one making the claim that there is a god, therefore the burden of proof is on you. 

there are no inherent 'fallacies' in Religion. No comment.

We killed god almost 300 years ago...

But padib, I don't postulate that there is no god, I don't know, the part that makes me atheist is where I say I don't think there is one (if you want to know why, you can ask). But I'm not asserting this, as I said, I don't know. And I will think there is one when I'm given evidence of it. You assert that a god exists (based on past conversations with you). You got any evidence? And furthermore, any evidence that this god is the god described in the bible?

To the part in bold: No I don't, I simply say I don't know what happened before the big bang (assuming that's what you're talking about) and don't make any assumptions as to what did happen or if anything happened.