You wrote that I shared “a few essays that reduce religion to Christianity and Atheism.” That doesn’t make sense. To be an atheist is to be an a-theist, a person who is not a theist. That’s not “reducing” anything. It’s simply a stance: to be an a-theist is to be a person who does not believe in God and therefore is not religious.

I’m not targeting “groups”; I am targeting ideas. Note the distinction.

Yes, that meme I supplied about atheism requires no research. To be an atheist is to implicitly or explicitly say “I don’t believe you” when confronted with supernatural claims.

There is no evidence for the existence of ethereal entities (“souls”).

What moral imperative? I didn’t discuss any imperative. I simply noted, with accuracy, that our moral impulses don’t have a supernatural cause or basis. No contradiction was made in pointing this out. The issue always comes back to this: Is there evidence that our capacity to be moral comes from some Unseen God? There is no evidence to support that proposition.

I place no “faith” in science. I accept findings made by scientists or I do not. “Faith” has nothing to do with it. No religious faith and no religious tradition in the world by any tribe, group, or community has been able to take on Sam Harris’s challenge with any success.

With regard to Native Americans and their religious traditions, there is no evidence that such evidence is rooted in anything beyond tradition. All sorts of religious groups have their traditions. Many of them clash (see: India), but none of them have any evidence to support the supernatural aspects that form the basis of these many traditions.

Your bringing in International Law (!) has nothing to do with anything. Your attempt to haul in other ideas that have nothing to do with what I raised is weird and perplexing. People believe in “angels.” There is no evidence that these alleged invisible flying entities exist. That is all.

“Take care not to wound with words as they do form ideas that fill the minds of many and empower some to carry through with atrocity.” I have wounded no one. I have attacked ideas. However, if people hold an emotional bond to these ideas and feel insulted or slighted (“wounded”) because I say without hesitation that I think these ideas are foolish and nutty, that’s their problem.

You started off your piece with “I took a moment and found some answers.” You did not. You went off onto many bizarre side roads, but none of your comments addressed the thrust of my essay, which can be boiled downed to a single question: What is the evidence for the many supernatural claims — the existence of souls, angels, etc. — that religious people embrace?” There isn’t any. Hint: Discussing the traditions of what people believe is never an answer to that question.