I think I now understand our main point of disagreement. Claims backed only by personal opinion are still assertions. (I should add that there's nothing wrong with posts in the discussion session relying on personal feelings and results, as long as you avoid generalizing from one example and other-optimizing.)

For an article predicated so heavily on the assumption that religion is necessary and inevitable, a failure to explain how you reached that conclusion is confusing. Presenting a controversial premise without explaining how you arrived at it is likely to result in downvotes, which I urge you not to take personally. The rest of the downvotes likely come from the lack of clarity, which (I think) just makes it harder for people to realize that your article was "at least semi-jest". You seem a little shell-shocked at the reaction to this post; downvoting just means "I want less of this", not "I hate this" and certainly not "what an idiot".

I hope this is helpful for understanding the LessWrong reaction to your post.