Her first and only point that I'm going to address is this:
I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.Then why did she even bother writing the article at all? What was the point other than a sorry excuse of pathetic bigotry? Her points did not even make any sense and contradicted each other, as in these examples on a few scant paragraphs apart.
My problem with atheists is their tiresome -- and way old -- insistence that they are being oppressed and their fixation with the fine points of Christianity.and
The problem with atheists -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes -- is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering.So Ms. Allen which is it? Are atheists too interested in debating the finer points of religion, or not interested in it at all? You can't have it both ways. If this is what passes for writing in the LA Times, I'm thankful that I have not wasted any money on a subscription.
My favorite takedown from the Young Australian Skeptics:
Charlotte’s opinion is noted, and stupid. Presumably she won’t spend the entire article talking about how boring we are then - after all, that wouldn’t be particularly interesting, would it?