It's probably the unstated implication that because the argument may share some similarities to religious principals it can be straightforwardly dismissed as having no value.

This assumes that both religion has no value, and that things resembling religion, possibly in any way, have no value.

This is unrigorous, because a lot of things resemble religion generally or specific religious practice in various ways and have value despite or sometimes because of that resemblance. And annoying also because a lot of people find value in their religious beliefs and it's petty to dismiss that common experience.