You're not getting it.

I have to say I love your crusade against Neetzan. I think of your descriptor "listless prose" every time I have the displeasure of accidentally clicking on one of his posts.

You don't actually think that your threat of lecturing and name-calling is intimidating, right? I mean, that's a joke, right? Please? Because honey, I promise I WOULD enjoy it if it's anywhere close to as hilarious as this is, so please send some my way!

Phew, that's a relief. You could always tuck a spicy sausage in your trousers too.

What was your sampling method and how was the data quantified such that you were able to determine that *almost* everyone believes weddings to be terrible?

http://bitchmagazine.org

I mean this in the most genuine, non-snarky way possible: consider therapy if you're not currently treated. It could really help you to enjoy life more. Also, be a better sister.

This article is really offensive.

So what you're saying is that you're a very picky eater and others should cater to your specific preferences when providing you with a free meal and party. Got it.

I read all of the entries of your old blog and I see now that you are, in fact, very well acquainted with the Christian Right. You've undergone quite a transformation, and I applaud you for seeking out your own lot in life.

I'm surprised I struck such a nerve. I feel at a loss for words, really. You don't appear myopic, so I'll have to assume you are well-acquainted with that of which I speak. Horrible, horrible things are happening all around us in the name of something you have difficulty defining and an admitted no means of coming…

Are you genuinely contending that there isn't a strong proportion of believers in gods that hold what you deem childish viewpoints? Are you familiar with the Christian Right at all?

Do you not feel as though you're in a constant process of splitting hairs?

Have you ever actively sought out texts on atheistic philosophy? Or is your experience limited to comments on the internet? Because if we were to judge schools of thought by their followers, I don't think many rational people would be calling out the atheists as the worst offenders.

But you said that Ockham used logic to support his theological beliefs. That's what this entire thread of discussion has been about.

Your example of an Evangelical who does not proselytize in people's faces is a published author and speaker who appears frequently on television? Come now...

Hate to threaten my "Internet Atheist" status with quotes, but here first is Aquinas with both argument and counter-argument for the sake of fairness:

I carefully used the phrase "in your face" because in order to proselytize you have to be in someone's face, and I then gave concrete examples to support that notion: they are in the streets, on the television, on the radio, etc. I submit that if a person is not proselytizing in another's face, he or she is not an…

Forgive me for speaking colloquially. False premises cannot yield sound results. Both Aquinas and Ockham, if I remember correctly, believed that science chips away at the necessity of a god. Is that not right? And speaking of Ockham's Razor, with it in mind, doesn't the existence of a god become less and less likely…

That's not a generalization. Evangelical Christians by definition, proselytize. Their religion is built on it.