I wonder how long she practiced that for? She argues with a sense of pent up rage and open indignation, resulting in a clear hope to present some measure of authority on this subject. However, her argument is not balanced, because she leaves options off the table that are inconvenient to her personally biased assertions. For example, she may not agree with the concept of Free Will, but it is a core principle in relation to any discussion on the existence of God. Additionally, she completely ignores the fact that she COULD be wrong. Instead, she argues from a narcissist’s pulpit that she is blameless in her actions for God is at fault or simply cannot exist. My critique of her argument is not to favor whether God does or does not exist, but rather to point out her horribly flawed exposition of her philosophy. A very flawed philosophy at that. My gosh, she doesn’t even mention Pascal’s Wager.