I'm not entirely sure I understand your meaning here.
Even though it uses a very Secular Humanist/Skeptical definition of Atheism (no love for the Existentialists and Absurdists), his analysis shows not even the slightest use of the "pillars of Atheism" he ascribes to in describing the views of Mr. Terrific.
It would have been better argued if he stated that his definition of Atheism could not be found within Mr. Terrifics analysis of the situations he found himself in.
As for the rest, it appears you missed what I was saying entirely. What I am talking about is the difference between the observed phenomena and the stated conclusions. In other words: "The Gods Are Liars" is an option in play that people do not readily recognize.
Take the "Gog cannot hear people who do not believe in him." being taken as proof of his Godliness. There's another much simpler option that can just as readily explain the viewed results and via Occam's Razor, is more likely to occur: Gog is just ignoring him.
Frankly, I'd blame a writer over a non-existent character for failing to understand the philosophy he is writing about.
But for every person, the truth is relative.
...
And you want to argue about scientific analsys? Ya know, where Objective Truth is paramount?