Please don't be ofended but there is a lot of emotions among any organized self labeled group. I don't care about my crooked eye and I have never associated myself with my equals and the two eye people do not suffocate me they simply see better (they percive the three dimensions and I don't). Please notice that I said I don't. I did not associated myself with the group.

And I have again verified that I find the group of mortals that call themselves atheists very prone to proselitism.

I don't think it is proselitism that you are witnessing from athiests. I think many athiests are merely defending themselves against an onslaught of religious dogma that they often find thrown their way despite the fact they in no way seek it out. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but I would say the majority of athiests strive to make the public sphere a secular environment. I identify as an atheist and I have no interest in converting anyone. What I personally strive for is a secular government so that no person is caused pain, suffering or segregation due to religiously influenced bigotry intruding on government policy making. Freedom of religion is key civil liberty so I seek to keep government and religion separate so that theists have the right to practice their own beliefs in private without fear of negative ramifications.

And I have again verified that I find the group of mortals that call themselves atheists very prone to proselitism.

Jose - I think you overstate the case. It is true that if you visit an atheist forum you will find plenty of people who staunchly advocate the position. It doesn't mean that we all go out preaching the word, unless of course the theist assumptions of others prevent us from expressing our own philosophies.

Really, I felt compelled because after reading the article about Mother Teresa's crisis of faith was intersting. More interesting were ya'lls (^) comments. After reading ya'lls comments, I forgot who the real saint was, Mother Teresa or Christopher Hitchens? Haha...go count your dick.

Okay, I think it's time for you to go back to your GI Joes...

Also, while you are judging and citing articles, search articles on PRIMARY CARE GIVERS who NEGLECT patients, TURN AWAY PATIENTS who lack means of payment, and PUT PATIENTS ON WAITING LISTS FOR MONTHS.

Those things are all terrible, I agree. What does that have to do with the demonstrated evidence that Mother Teresa neglected her patients, permitted them to suffer unnecessarily, and deliberately withheld all but the most rudimentary medical care? Does it excuse her if other people do bad things too?

Who knows if The Lancet article was actually correct or if you weren't just referencing The Lancet article as did Hitchens?

If you have evidence that it is incorrect, then you should publish it. Either way, referencing the article does not invalidate the article.

It's almost impossible to argue about this and come to the truth...

Except for the fact that these things are documented. Your obstinate refusal to look at the facts is what makes it impossible for you to "come to the truth."

What are you great views which help give hope to people suffering, or, do you have a greater gift than hope?

Yes. It's called medical care.

She gave millions hope and helped ease their inevitable suffering.

No, she didn't. That's the whole point. She didn't ease suffering, she revelled in it, thinking it was a gift from god.

Show me an atheist who has given people hope and I'll show you a snobish fuck who is obsessed with grant money and publishing articles for peer review journals.

I'm sure that atheist doctors who participate in doctors without borders would not agree with you for just one example.

What I meant is, I remember that some fuck up once wrote on another blog, "We are all born atheists..." and that in effect, we were just "indoctrinated to believe in religion. If that is true, then why is it that in early times, before great science, people looked up to the stars to find the answers about life.

Steve Bowen answered pretty well. Although I would say that we (AFAIK) are not born believing in god. We may have a natural tendency to attribute intelligence to things, but not to specific gods.

By Dawkins you have found your truth!

Many of us were atheists before we read Dawkins. But, I see what you are doing here. You're trying to make atheism into just another dogmatic belief, with high priests, etc. You are wrong, of course.

"We are all born atheists..." and that in effect, we were just "indoctrinated to believe in religion. If that is true, then why is it that in early times, before great science, people looked up to the stars to find the answers about life. People seek a god.

Not really. People tend to see intentionality in all sorts of things that actually have natural causes. Yes it's a human condition but doesn't imply there actually is an intelligence behind any of the things that happen. We have better explanations now.

"Pascal's wager? Really?" No that was a joke. Not meant to be taken as "You better believe in God or else...what if he exists?"

What I meant is, I remember that some fuck up once wrote on another blog, "We are all born atheists..." and that in effect, we were just "indoctrinated to believe in religion. If that is true, then why is it that in early times, before great science, people looked up to the stars to find the answers about life. People seek a god. All people have seeked a god or gods. Even those of you, you weary quitter, you weary student of atheism. By Dawkins you have found your truth! Once you lost your security blanket as a kid, you tried to find god, but it wasn't there. You were lost! But then you found TRUTH. That's right, scientifically verifiable TRUTH! You can argue for truth! You can turn your nose up at those who cling to their fantasies. In your palms, you hold the casket to every theological argument for god. Your scientific truth will defeat the "faithful's" ideas on god. They have faith. You have truth. You win. If their faith is "deep" enough, they win.

Really, I felt compelled because after reading the article about Mother Teresa's crisis of faith was intersting. More interesting were ya'lls (^) comments. After reading ya'lls comments, I forgot who the real saint was, Mother Teresa or Christopher Hitchens? Haha...go count your dick.

First, Soren Kierkegaard, Christian Theologian/Philosopher discussed the concept, Leap of Faith, in which he holds that Faith is not something which is easy to come by and must be pursued and sought after every day.

So, you're saying you have to try to keep up your fantasies? Cognitive dissonance anyone?

Second, to all of you SO incredibly secure in your atheism, remember Karl Popper and falsification. Theories cannot be proven, they can only be falsified.

And, what about it?

Go home and light a candle for Dawkins and pray that he is right, you wonderfully egotistical atheist internet bloggers :)

Pascal's wager? Really?