Becoming an angry atheist

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sticks and stones…see how easily you conform to the stereotype of the angry atheist, making false and hypocritical accusations, railing against rational arguments you clearly do not understand, and falsely assuming that everyone shares your unrepentant libertine proclivities and obsessions.

Wrong. If you don't understand the difference between "angry" and "contemptuous", I'd suggest you purchase a dictionary, posthaste.

As for hypocrisy, feel free to point it out in me.

I understand your arguments, and reject them based on flaws that have been rationally pointed out.

And -- if you're going to call me immoral, you'll need to present examples, or withdraw the personal attack.

So I’ve been told. Most atheists are; however, ontological naturalists and/or physical reductionists. The logical consequences of these particular philosophies undermine both meaning and rationality.

No, they don't. Your unnquestioned premise leading you to your false conclusion is that meaning must be supplied from an outside agency.

…… assuming that only your religion provides your morals is both a gross misunderstanding of normal human psychology

I make no such assumption. I only say that the formulations of secular morality tacitly accept the role of conscience, which is providentially supplied, even if by means of natural selection.

You're supporting my point, that you are making an assumption, by repeating the assumption.

No such implication has been made. Even without a belief in god, people still have a providentially supplied conscience. What is expressly stated by the Christian religion is that people must recognize there evils as sins and repent before they can be regenerated into the life everlasting. None of this is possible without being born again in the Lord.

"Providentially", again. You're full of circumlocutions which beggar your premises. I'd suggest you abandon logic as the "support" for your faith, and go with a simple raw exclamation of faith, because in no way are you supporting any claim you're making here. You're simply piling on assumption bereft of support, and demonstrating that though you have a command of the vocabulary of philosophy, you have little practice in exercising cogency of thought.

Long story short: I'm unimpressed. Revise and resubmit.