Circular logic is also wrong, just like appeal to the masses.

Sorry, to quote your earlier statement: "Simply because you choose to interpret what is written...in your own way, doesn't mean that it's correct." Sections 1636.6(b) and 1636.6(c) are not circular reasoning, or do you think no one noticed while it was being passed by Congress and signed by the President? Glad to know you are smarter than everyone in government in Washington, D.C.

If you get to complain about the logical fallacy of "argumentum ad populum," then I get to complain about the logical fallacy of Gish Gallop:

The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time.

I make common knowledge statements that legislative history is used in legal analysis or American law distinguishes between "moral convictions" and "religious convictions." Even though you know very little about the law, you say that these statements are false and force me to prove them in a tedious manner.

Once I prove them, you just go back to throwing more questions at me. Sorry, this is classic Gish Gallop.

Under 1636.6(b) and 1636.6(c), American law recognizes a difference between a difference "moral convictions" and "religious convictions." If there is a difference, then my initial statement was correct: A you can hold a moral conviction not based on religious beliefs.

Game. Set. Match.

No more Gish Gallop from you. Your claims will be held to same standard of proof that you expect of me.

If you can disprove my initial statement by providing evidence about "moral convictions" and "religious convictions" being a literary tautology, then please do so. If you cannot, then you obviously lose. You made an assertion, and according to your own standards, "I hold you accountable for that burden of proof."

Likewise you have the burden of proof that it is "a bold statement and a faulty one." You have the burden of proof. Please remember that these are your words, not mine. I will close with your words once more:

No one has forced you to defend your statements [that atheists being moral without religion is bold and faulty].... If you want to back down and not defend your arguments that's your decision. Know, though, that if you do, then what you said was meaningless.