And did ya happen to notice the category that piece was under?

No, but no doubt somehow that will completely (in your mind) dispense w/the commentary of the medical professional.

Oh, ok, then could ya further explain what obviously conscious entity you were referring to as “the universe” in this sentence?:

Play context games all you like – go back & read the entire sentence.

Oh, ok, then could ya further explain how an inanimate, impersonal material universe can “speak for itself”?

Must be nice to cherry pick your meanings. I won’t explain, because that was not the inference. Learn to read.

Given that you attempted to defend your ludicrous assertion about an inanimate, unconscious universe giving rise to conscious beings indicates that I “wrangled” your intended meaning…

It’s not a ludicrous assertion. It’s what happened.
Let’s skip to the chase – I demand evidence, you provide some, I point out where it doesn’t fit and/or is illogical, you make various untrue accusations (that you fancy are witticisms) about my comprehension, intellect, etc., I get pissed & call you a name, you then become a whiny bitch who complains weepily that he’s being picked on (poor St. Lazarus among the [intellectual] lepers), I then try to explain how your ‘evidence’ is no damn good, you level more false accusations at my character, & the whole damn discussion becomes a pissing contest.
I think I’ve won, you think you’ve won, & there, I saved us a whole load of time.

Psst…misuse of the apostrophe.

Pssst. Sue me.

there ARE instances where there’s no choice

Oh PUH-LEEEZE!!!

And did ya happen to notice the category that piece was under?

no, I’m not distorting it via animism.

Oh, ok, then could ya further explain what obviously conscious entity you were referring to as “the universe” in this sentence?: the universe not only cares for 1, but that it reserves a special cozy little womb for oneself.

yes, we ARE the product of AIIMU. Res ipsa loquitor.

Oh, ok, then could ya further explain how an inanimate, impersonal material universe can “speak for itself”?

please do stop wrangling meanings out of my words that aren’t there.

Given that you attempted to defend your ludicrous assertion about an inanimate, unconscious universe giving rise to conscious beings indicates that I “wrangled” your intended meaning…

It takes bravery to abandon all hope?; to succumb to the ultimate intellectual self-indulgence and go pout in the corner of one’s life because life failed to meet one’s expectations?; to deny the purpose for the universal, intrinsic desire for self-preservation? You and I have an all-together different concept of “bravery.”

Who’s abandoning all hope? Denying the supernatural becomes all that? You are kidding, right? Is there a buried ad hominem in there somewhere? (That’s a rhetorical question: you’d not admit it if there was.)

Oh? So there have been cases where individual’s had no choice in committing suicide?—What a crock…

Psst…misuse of the apostrophe. & there ARE instances where there’s no choice – suicide, like religion, is an emotional choice, usually not a logical one.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/22/opinion/when-suicide-is-not-a-choice.html
“The tragedy, however, is not that people get depressed. Clinical depressions are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain and are no more an aberration than insulin shock is to the diabetic. Rather, “the tragedy of depression-related suicide,” as Dr. Jan Fawcett of Chicago’s Rush Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center has said, “is that hopelessness can be reversed.”"

Would that be because in order to be one, one must religiously adhere to that tenet?

Ah, no. Not a real qualification. I’d look it up, but there’s no ‘holy text’, so that’s SOL.

and that argument could only be made by someone who is either unclear on the concept of an omnipotent and gracious Creator, or who is deliberately trying to distort the argument with animism; we are not the product of an inanimate, impersonal, material universe.

Umm…I’m making that argument, but no, I am clear on your allegedly ‘gracious creator’, & no, I’m not distorting it via animism.
& yes, we ARE the product of AIIMU. Res ipsa loquitor.
& please do stop wrangling meanings out of my words that aren’t there.

Living for one’s own sake is the embodiment of narcissism; doing good with no transcendent, objective standard of what “good” is, is an exercise in futility.

Let’s be clear about what is being written here. JCC is telling us that in the absence of his theism he would not be compelled to “do good”. Every atheist here is telling him that they are compelled to “do good” without theism. So JCC is telling us what he lacks. And that which he lacks is an innate impulse to “do good”.

Scary. No?

So perhaps – perhaps – it is a good thing that JCC in particular is a believer. But without doubt – without doubt – he is an innately deficient human by his own standard.