Haha…
If only… 
Cats quite notably couldn’t care less of anything but their own want.
Note that you’ve still yet to explicate for me your argument, so your claim amounts to the classical theistic assertion: “to know god, you have to feel god, no argument will suffice.” Or, in your case: “to understand my logic, you have to ‘see’ my logic.” And it is very much so your logic, for many of us have disagreed vehemently (see: Silhouette’s Take on Rationality thread). Please, save me the counter of “you only disagree because you are blind”; this is a philosophy website.
Sounds like another species I know about.
Not that I accept your analysis in any regard, but;
Do you agree that people must be able to think on a high enough level to be able to ascertain many things as believable?
A logician or scientist might think through an issue and then explain it to the world causing the world to believe it.
If you accept what you are told by others, you believe whatever they thought, not what you thought (faith in others).
The whole point regarding a cat was that due to its inability to think on high enough level, it can’t believe in an Internet. And given merely speech, most likely a cat would freely argue that human’s are insane for believing in something so invisible.
Sound like every species ive heard about, even wanting to help others is a “want”.
How unforuntate for the cat that it will now suffer an eternity in kitty hell for not being able to understand the complexities of a just and vengeful world wide network.
Oh man…that had me tearing up.
Thanks for the laugh.
I agree with the humor of it =D> , but…
…it wouldn’t be so humorous when the cat(s) decided to overthrow the humans thinking that humans were not “magically” connected and remotely aware of the cat’s activities (security cameras). 
BUWAHAHA!
YES IT WOULD!
I would be rolling if that happened!
Yeah, but you actually have an ounce of discipline and think with a degree of rationality.
You don’t qualify for the subset. 
The dogs you think it hilarious.
LOL, my wife would disagree on the discipline. eyeballs the slowly piling stack of dishes 
I didn’t mention to what discipline you hold. 
The basic answer is that the existence of God is not inconsistent with the existence of atheists, and there are many possibilities for why a being such as God, if real, would allow atheists to exist.
But clearly you are directing this question towards Christians specifically. As a Christian, I will give you an answer:
God allows atheists to exist because human beings are free to make their own decisions. God would rather create a world in which people freely accepted him instead of one where people are programmed to accept him.
Hell is a natural consequence for sin, just as lung cancer is a natural consequence of smoking. God sends us to Hell not because we don’t believe–for if that were the case, then mentally ill people would all be condemned–but because we break his law. There really is a limit to which you can use your personal history as an excuse for the fact that you lie, steal, lust, and what have you; you are a rational adult morally responsible for your actions. If you commit moral transgressions, then God by virtue of his righteous nature will not accept you into his Kingdom.
To answer your other (polemic) questions: I have no idea why not everyone is a Christian, but that has no bearing on whether the Christian God exists; people suffer because God has morally permissible reasons for allowing it; God does prove his existence, but proof is not the same thing as persuasion–not everyone will accept the evidence.