Quite a lot, actually. Arms, legs, eyes, genitals... Lots of external bits..
organs would include the gallbladder, the spleen, one lung, quite a lot of intestine, the appendix, one kidney (both if you can do constant dialysis) the internal reproductive organs....

could someone link me to a article that expresses this concept to the full extent or give me a topic that is a prime example
Thanks in advance.

Yup inner freedom within yourself and freedom without earthly restrictions. You can't be asking this question because of the words within and without right?

Perhaps they're unfamiliar with your foreign qualifications. Can you get your foot in the door with a lower-level job in your field, and then prove that you really are well qualified?

I think you could use an opinion from someone who knows you personally, and won't sugar-coat what they tell you. Maybe there's just one thing in your appearance or approach that gives people a negative impression.

You bring up a valid point! There are three unprovable assumptions that are taken on faith in order to practice science because those assumptions cannot be objectively proven:

1. The physical universe actually exists and is not a simulation or projection...

2. The the laws of the universe are constant over time and space.

3. Our five senses give is an accurate picture of the word without filters or alterations..

A fourth assumption that is not necessary to the practice of science is also commonly maintained and that is there is only matter and all phenomena, including consciousness are the product of material interactions.

If an atheist really only believes what can be proven scientifically, then he must prove these four assumptions. So far not a single atheist has stepped up to the challenge of providing objective evidence proving these assumptions to be true.

L refers to these FAITH BASED ASSUMPTIONS as "axioms".

Of course the logical direction this takes is. If science cannot even prove the physical universe exists, on what basis do you demand theist present scientific proof God exists?

This bring us to the limitations of science. There are certain truths that are outside the legitimate scope of science:

1) Existential Truth: Science cannot prove that you aren't merely a brain in a jar being manipulated to think this is all actually happening. (Think of something like in "The Matrix".) It also cannot prove that the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age (and with fake memories in your head, and half-digested food in your stomach, etc). It does not mean that it is irrational to to believe that our memories are true and that the world is real.It just means that you can't objectivley prove that our memories are true and the world is real.

2) Moral Truth: Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an "oughtness" (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.

3) Logical Truth: Consider the statement "Science is the only way to really know truth." How could you prove that statement by science? It is actually self-refuting because there is no scientific test you could use to prove that it is true! Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.

4) Historical Truth: Science cannot prove that Barack Obama won the 2008 United States presidential election. There is no scientific test we could perform to prove it. We could have an investigation if we wanted to confirm that he did actually win, but the method for proving historical truths is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable.

5) Experiential Truth: Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you. When asked why so-and-so loves you, you may cite precedent (times when their behavior demonstrates their love for you) but this is a particular type of historical truth. There is no scientific test that can confirm a lifetime of experience of knowing a person.

So when an atheist asks for proof (The unsaid part of that is "scientific proof") he either does not understand science, or is being dishonest.