But they are delusional. Either they know this and they're lying (probably lying so well, they believe themselves) or they are suffering some form of mental illness: they are self deluded or just deluded.

What really irritates me is their claim, though. They say that religion deals with "other questions." What other questions? What is the method by which you answer those questions, and then verify the answers? To what level of certainty can one expect the "inerrant word of God" to be?

I don't have a problem with the idea that there is a god so much as the lazy, dishonest, and self aggrandizing methods used to make such a conclusion. If science were to discover a god, that is, if there was sufficient independently verifiable, testable, falsifiable, and logical evidence that there was a god, I would have no choice but to say, "Oh, well, there we are then, aren't we?"

Perhaps I speak only for myself. But it seems to me they think that when atheists attack religion, we are attacking the end product: God. What they do not seem to realize is that we are attacking the foundation of religion: the idea that one can know a truth independent of shared reality. I don't care if there is or is not a god, though I'm pretty certain there is not. What I do care about is religion pretending to be a useful method of thought. It is not. If I am wrong, then it should be easy enough to derive a valid and true claim, using only religion and not science, that can then be tested for accuracy.

Tell me, priests, ministers, rabbis, clerics, and shaman, what can we expect of H1N1 next season?