Name one generalization against religious people I have made. One.

"I'm not saying that black people bother me. I'm saying a particular type of black person..." Generalizations aren't helpful to meaningful conversation.

Logic used from illogic beginnings is illogical, no? Please provide an example the theological use of logical reasoning, even if you think I might not agree with the premise; it'd be helpful to me understanding your point.

How much more irritating do you find these particular atheists than the any-given massacre in the name of religion throughout history? Your issue sounds personal rather than global, which really limits the reach of your viewpoint. If I were to say, I don't like chocolate ice cream; the people that eat it bother me.…

Can you provide an example of the theological use of logical reasoning? Perhaps in the area of prayer, if that's something you have studied?

I only inferred that Philosophy might be bothersome to you because it is at its absolute core a person broadcasting their beliefs. If it truly doesn't bother you, I submit the possibility that your aversion to the declaration of belief is not actually as equal-opportunity as you suggest.

So what you're really interested in is encouraging others to keep their beliefs to themselves? That seems like strange dogma to me. Though in its practical and full application, organized religion would deteriorate to nothingness, so I suppose I might support that in some capacity. If only we could keep parents from…

Do you find Evangelical Christians as irritating? Surely their proselytizing goes much, much further than these supposed know-it-all kids' and is far more in your face, and I do mean YOUR face (in the streets, on the television, on the radio, etc.) than theirs. What about anyone who broadcasts their political…

Ignoring the curiosity of the fact that you inexplicably hang around a sizable number of atheist kids and know well their topics of conversation, do they really discuss (ad nauseam) how "smart" and "incredibly radical" they are? If so, why, furthermore, does this bother you such that it puts you off to the obvious…

Amen. (So to speak.)

Yeah, logical reasoning is really "edgy".

Look, if you have a really obvious typo in the first sentence of your professional blogpost, you are stupid. Sorry (not sorry).

But you actually answered the phone and didn't storm off the job when reprimanded.

Yeah, I don't really know what to say now. You created an entire story based on two words and accused me of not "getting it". Guilty, I guess.

Yeah, I understand that, and her situation was probably similar. But did you ever quit or were you ever seriously tempted to do so without notice because your boss was "mad" that he or she missed a call? That's pretty extreme.

Unless you have access to information I don't, that is a baseless assumption. Where did you get that idea? From "empty office"?

I think you're giving the author a little too much credit here.

Yes. That's a tautology.

You quit a job because the boss was mad that you missed a phone call? Your job wasn't to answer the phone, was it?

If you're not beautiful yourself, it's not "crazy," per se. Someone has to win the lottery. It's just unlikely to be you.