It wasn't an argument, it was an analogy; used in an attempt to highlight the merit of taking actual action to affect positive change in one's own life, rather than simply having "faith" that one's life will improve. This logic of this claim stands alone, regardless of my own convictions on the topic.

I actually thought the point of my (admittedly flippant) rebuttal was pretty clear. The theists, having relied on faith instead of practicality, are left thirsty. The atheist, on the other hand, chose his actions based on the empirical evidence of objective reality (i.e. you have to do things yourself, not have faith…

But not a thirsty one.

A rabbi, a priest and mullah walk into a bar the bartender says what do you guys want? the rabbi says he has faith that a whiskey will be bought for him, the priest says he has faith that a beer will be bought for him and the mullah says he has faith that a soda will be bought for him.

Regardless of who said it, "faith is faith is faith" is not an argument. It's not even really a statement. It seems more to be a passive admission that there is no rational reason to follow the dogmatic claims of any of these institutional cults. The claim that followed it "Believing in something greater than yourself…