Atheist FAIL and PWND on ad hominem fallacy

I decided to post a lecture I presented in segments beginning with “Atheism: Explained and Exposed – intro.”
Within the YouTube info section I included the following info:

Learn more about atheism here:
https://truefreethinker.com/atheism

http://www.creation.com/atheism

http://www.conservapedia.com/atheism

This, alone, was enough to have an Atheist comment thusly:

I decided to post a lecture I presented in segments beginning with “Atheism: Explained and Exposed – intro.”
Within the YouTube info section I included the following info:

Learn more about atheism here:
https://truefreethinker.com/atheism

http://www.creation.com/atheism

http://www.conservapedia.com/atheism

This, alone, was enough to have an Atheist comment thusly:
Just by looking at the websites you recommend in your description is enough to know you have nothing intelligent to say about atheism.

Now, the discerning reader will instantly recognize this as an absolutely classic example of a logical fallacy known as the ad hominem or genetic fallacy which which refers to aiming one’s replies at the man or the source of the original argument whilst ignoring the substance.

So, what could I logically reply but with:
Your comment is a logical fallacy known as the ad hominem or genetic fallacy. May I recommend that you reconsider, make comments commensurate with reasoned discourse and not judge a book by its cover, as it were.
It may make you feel emotionally better to dismiss such thing without exercising true and honest skepticism and considering the actual claims but then you are simply engaging in feeling your way into a worldview and not thinking your way to it.

Rather than taking my advice, the Atheist decided to literally double down on the ad hominem / genetic fallacy:
Only people of incredibly low intelligence would recommend using conservapedia for information of any kind. If you had recommended an unbiased site, I would have come to a different conclusion.

Note that he is setting the standard of acceptability to a site that is unbiased. Firstly, there is no logical requirement to do so and it is an arbitrary standard. Secondly, show me an unbiased site. Some claim that, for example, dictionaries or encyclopedias are unbiased and yet, I have also read Atheist complaints about these: there are produced in Christian countries and are thus biased, etc.

Well, what could I say besides:
“Only people of incredibly low intelligence would recommend using conservapedia for information of any kind” is utterly generic and yet another ad hominem / genetic fallacy.

Well, leave it to Atheistic evolutionary reactions that often, when an Atheist has clearly committed fallacies, of whatever sort, another Atheist will come along not to tell their fellow Atheists to straighten up but to defend the indefensible.
Thus, another Atheist chimed in with:
Also it is not an ad hom or generic fallacy to determine someone is false or wrong based on the content of their arguments – which is what we do with you. We are not judging the book by its cover, we are judging it by its contents – we just happen to be aware of its contents due to its cover. It is not incorrect to point out you have failed to present anything substantive or new about atheism, given the source you provide and the arguments you raise as they have been refuted already.

But just when was “the content” of my argument addressed? Also, the video was a mere intro and contained no arguments but that is another issue. Here is my reply:
Friend, I made that comment to reply to a comment which stated, “Just by looking at the websites you recommend in your description is enough to know you have nothing intelligent to say about at atheism” period.
Thus, it was determined that I “have nothing intelligent to say about atheism” not based on my statements but based on “Just…looking at the websites you recommend.”
[pseudonym of first Atheist] did not assert that I was wrong “based on the content of” my “arguments” rather, based on url titles. Considering that the video title tells you that it is a mere “intro” then of course, I “failed to present anything substantive or new about atheism” since the lecture is merely being introduced.

Now, of course, many people who have been proved wrong merely redouble their efforts and this Atheist did just that with:
Ken, we’ve gone through this merry-go-round too often. I am fully aware of your dishonest tactics and dishonest content of your arguments. [pseudonym of first Atheist] is pointing out that conservapedia is an extremely biased source and is not valid in this discussion. This is, again, not merely based on url itself – not the cover of the book – but on the content of the arguments found at the website you linked. We are well aware of its contents as I am well aware of your tactics and character.

To that end, your mislabeling of fallacies and failure to prove your case has led me to conclude your are dishonest a well as simply wrong in your assertions. You do not care about truth, you merely want to be thought of as “winning”. I assume at this point you will label this response as an ad hom, but it is not. I have evaluated your arguments, have repeatedly pointed out their failings and yet you continue to use them.

Have a good day, just note that your misapplication of fallacies won’t actually win this argument – that atheism is in no way deterred by fallacies or by any arguments alone. You will need PROOF of your assertions, not merely more of them, in order to win.

Oh, I am muting this thread now. I really don’t care about anything you have to say Ken. You have lost that privilege. You have every right to your speech, I also have every right to ignore you.

Can you say emotively taking it personally? Well, just for the sake of whomever was keeping up with our little chat, I decided to leave what turned out to be one last reply as Atheist One and Atheist Two ceased to reply:
You may think that I am in error but you could only know if I am being dishonest if you could read my mind so please do not jump to such illogical conclusions.

[pseudonym of first Atheist] claims to be only interested in unbiased sources which is a nice sounding thing but he/she only seems to reject those sources which argue against Atheism and this amounts to a bias.

Moreover, you and he/she cannot simply authoritatively declare that Conservapedia is not valid in this discussion. You have, understandably, come to the rescue of your comrade after he/she made logically fallacious assertions but you have invented that he/she made them “not merely based on url itself – not the cover of the book – but on the content of the arguments found at the website you linked.”
Now, how do you actually know that? Have you asked or did you read his/her mind as well? He/she merely stated, “Just by looking at the websites you recommend in your description is enough to know you have nothing intelligent to say about atheism” and “Only people of incredibly low intelligence would recommend using conservapedia for information of any kind. If you had recommended an unbiased site, I would have come to a different conclusion.”

I do not know who the “We” is as in those who “are well aware of its contents,” etc. but Conservapedia states, for example, that Richard Dawkins is an African by birth: please provide information that refutes this.

Just because you do not recognize fallacies because you want to engage in in-group Darwinian altruism does not mean that they are not fallacies. His/her statements are classic examples of logical fallacies. He/she merely made assertions without arguments and failed to prove his/her case yet, you give him/her a pass, protect him/her and excuse him/her.

Now, perhaps we can bypass all of the fracas above and focus on the following:
You claim that “atheism is in no way deterred by fallacies or by any arguments alone”: please define “atheism.”
Please elucidate what would constitute “PROOF” of my assertions and what my assertions are.
Finally, you will apparently ignore my replies and will not even see this and all of this is based, in large part, on the mere intro to a lecture—why are you and others so afraid of the actual lecture to come?