I read about one third of the way through before realizing it was Yet Another Pseudo-Intellectual (YAPI) argument that basically “carefully defines its terms” (by redefining them away from conventional meanings), then argues with a straw man. Oh, and that carefully overlooks its own counter-arguments as people who ostensibly share the writer’s stance are so carefully overlooked it practically calls attention to the absence.

You’ve introduced nothing new nor interesting to the debate about religion. You’re Hitchens without the style. You’ve got the hypocrisy of Harris, but without the personal charm. You bring nothing to the table but hollow platitudes and the typical intellectual dishonesty of the YAPI crowd.