And, clearly, breasts are the only possible source of food for infants.

Offensive is such an interesting word, don't you think? Completely subjective. If facebook considers something to be offensive, then their code of conduct disallows it. And, to make it even more fun, what facebook considers to be offensive can change from day to day.

Pumping waste chemical weapons into the subsurface under Rock Flats = Pumping stuff underground = Increases pressure.

Kindly read what you are insulting before insulting it, it leaves innocent bystanders like me with less of a headache. Or, if you still argue that it's not the same thing, use an argument which makes sense with the thing you're insulting, okay?

It also has sharp edges, so it will cut blood vessels and then turn into cement. In your lungs. Fun, right?

(l)Users don't want to have to think about what they're doing, they just want to be able to do it. Sad but true.

Well, that may be true, but here are some numbers with little or no basis in reality which represent a few moments of random speculation:

Internet Explorer $RANDOM% Mozilla Firefox $RANDOM% Safari $RANDOM% Opera $RANDOM% Netscape $RANDOM% Google Chrome $RANDOM% Other $RANDOM%

However, the IPs are already known, as they were logged in wikipedia edits. The issue is what offices those IPs belong to, which is necessary for the lawsuit to target the right people.

I guess it depends on how vague or specific you are on the word "appear". I know a lot of people would find a god appearing (becoming visible in a visual sense or coming before the public according to the dictionary) More than enough scientific proof to stop questioning the existence. I'm just saying this to show that, especially in the United States, the word atheism has evolved in a much darker definition.

More dependent on the definition of waiting; it's the difference from actively waiting (eg, "I really hope that a god appears soon so that I will know which religion to join") and inactively waiting (eg, "I suppose that, if a god appeared, I would have to join a religion"). I would argue that most atheists are inactively waiting (or just not waiting, as they don't want to subscribe to a belief system which involves worship).

So, atheism means that, even though you can go through the motions of theism, you don't really need to? (As asexuality means that, while you can go through the motions of sex if you need to, or are pressured into doing so, you have no mental need for it). That fits; if I had to choose between not practicing a religion and death (or at least social ostracism - although, considering the crusades and other religious wars, death works) I would probably be willing to go through the motions of belief.

As I understood that, it meant that assuming that all religious (or non-religious) people will argue the same thing is ignorant, not that being religious (or not) is ignorant (as you seem to have read it). Also, I think that you may have confusing Atheism with Agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods (or an absence of belief in them), Agnosticism is the belief that metaphysical things (including gods) are either unknown to exist, or cannot be proven to exist - but they still might exist. I suppose that most atheists would probably be willing to become theists if they were presented proof of a god, but that's not the same thing as waiting for a god or gods to appear.