I just wish you would contribute something other than (1) arrogant insults of all atheists and (2) repeated overconfident assertions without argument of the obvious truth of what you happen to believe.

Specifically, I am dealing with the Atheism of the sort of Dawkins, Hitchens and rejectors of religions in favor of Atheism.

I don’t believe you. Nothing you have said remotely resembles what any of these authors think, or argue in their books.

And by the way, apparently, you don’t believe there are overwhelming evidences in favor of belief in God.

Nope.

I assume you take it to mean that there are some evidences but it is reasonable for an atheist to reject these evidences as insufficient.

Yep.

You cannot have someone fervently and zealously trusting that there was something called “primordial soup” that gave rise to simple and complex life on this Earth through evolution, of which no single eye testimony to this phenomenon, yet you have the same person denying fervently and zealously that Jesus Christ did not exist nor was he resurrected, of which there are dozens of people testifying to have seen the phenomenon with their own eyes. This person is not a disciplined one. He is neither a responsible one.

I can’t even follow the argument, let alone the grammar, of this paragraph. This combined with your confidence is obnoxious. Please go comment somewhere else, or make your own blog or something. Nobody “trusts” some statement about “primordial soup” and so on. What are you talking about? Recently there have been several excellent books graciously explaining the theory of evolution to those who are 150 years behind. Try reading Kenneth Miller’s book Only a Theory. Anyway virtually no one denies the existence of Jesus, which reveals further that you have no grasp of atheists or their arguments. Also no one saw the resurrection, or claimed to.

I don’t like your comments. I find them distasteful, unintelligent, and distracting. Please go comment somewhere else, perhaps on some apologetics blog.

Actually you kind of remind me of John Loftus, just on the other side of things. Spend more time on his blog, perhaps.

If it makes you feel better to condescend and insult, fine. But please go do it somewhere else. Here I’d rather talk about real topics.

I assume you take it to mean that there are some evidences but it is reasonable for an atheist to reject these evidences as insufficient.

It isn’t reasonable. It is being irresponsible and undisciplined.

You cannot have someone fervently and zealously trusting that there was something called “primordial soup” that gave rise to simple and complex life on this Earth through evolution, of which no single eye testimony to this phenomenon, yet you have the same person denying fervently and zealously that Jesus Christ did not exist nor was he resurrected, of which there are dozens of people testifying to have seen the phenomenon with their own eyes. This person is not a disciplined one. He is neither a responsible one.

Solacing with this sort of Atheism is equally being irresponsible. I know there are various sorts of Atheism. There is something as honest Atheism, in which an adherent isn’t even conscious of it. He believes what he has been taught to believe since he was born. Now that is a different case.

Specifically, I am dealing with the Atheism of the sort of Dawkins, Hitchens and rejectors of religions in favor of Atheism. These, must have had time to think about the issues with Religions for sometimes before making a decision to be Atheists.
They thought about it, critically, and they resolved, there is no God. To these, I say, they are being irresponsible to reach that conclusion.