Well, I've finally got through to reading your blog. (I'll leave aside the fact that you still seem to rest many of your beliefs on the failures and limitations of other theories, as we've been over that). While I agree with and share many of the feelings you seem to have, what I don't really get is how you ascribe them to God. I'm sorry to tell you this but you're flat-out wrong when you say:
The atheist believes, simply because he has no choice but to believe as such, that "purpose", aside from our biological "purpose" in perpetuating the survival our species, is irrelevant.
I'm an atheist and I do believe in "purpose". I simply call it morality, and I do think it is objective and universal. It's just that I don't see how you determine it to be given to us from the outside, when it's clearly something that I feel inside me. i.e. why can't this purpose be inherent in our being
, rather than inscribed in our becoming
We seem to share similar feelings, except that you see God in them and I don't. I'm not trying to negate your argument or anything, but this clearly relates to the faith-is-a-choice argument; as I was saying, I simply don't see
God in them, not by "choice", but because I don't see anything which encourages me to believe in the transcendental.
(also, sorry for nitpicking but another sentence I had some trouble with was: "We've seen that people who amass great material wealth and power are often lonely, depressed, and unhappy." It's a bit of a useless generalisation, since there isn't any real category of human beings for whom you cannot say that they aren't "often lonely, depressed and unhappy").