# Can America trust atheists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2006, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906 "2006-03-26T01:07:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Marcia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Marcia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marcia)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/221 "2006-03-28T15:03:52Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] I think the problem is that many (not all) people who have been religious since birth don’t think … [QUOTE] That’s just it, Rev, they don’t _ **think** _ 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/222 "2006-03-28T15:17:38Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You’re still not getting it. From an empirical standpoint the inherent plausibility of your sky god is still exactly the same as it is for the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Analogies like the IPU are not intended to ridicule or caricature the other side so much as they are intended to clarify the terms and parameters of debate. You still haven’t explained why your sky god deserves any more default plausibility than any other god or imaginary being. Dammit, stop saying “your sky god”! Okay, I get the idea: you’re going to use a goofy-ass modifier every time you refer to God so we know how ridiculous you find the idea of God. Do so if you want, I guess, but it’s not conducive to rational debate. > [@](#): > > Incidentally, it desn’t matter if you think God isn’t literally a bearded man in the sky. Defining him more abstractly does not make him any more plausible. Yeah, actually it does matter whether or not I think God is a literally (or even metaphorically) a bearded man in the sky. There’s a significant difference between “It is plausible that _X_ exists” and “It is plausible that a cartoony, symbolic, pictorial representation of _X_ literally exists.” If I thought Republicans and Democrats were literally elephants and donkeys wearing stars-n-stripes top hats, I wouldn’t believe in them either. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/223 "2006-03-28T15:25:50Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’ve seen these comparisons quite a few times on the SDMB. I understand the premise and see it in part as a valid comparison. In other ways I think it is not. To me the question of God or a god, is connected to some very basic questions that occur in many people. Was there something before this physical life? IS there something after? Does my life has a purpose greater than survival and acquisition? > Invisible Pink Unicorns, Pixie’s and such are not connected to those questions. Although Odin and other gods may have been at one time they are no longer. Actually, they’re somehow connected. My responses to your first to questions would be : no, and no, because there’s zero obhective reason to assume there’s something before and after life. Why should there be? Of course, it would be pleasant to believe in such a thing, but why even entertain such an idea? Now, how is this connected to pixies? Because to the questions you list, a number of people answer by assuming without any evidence the existence of a supernatural entity. As soon as you bring in the discussion your arbitrary supernatural entity of choice, I can bring in mine too. Or my “brain in a vat created and studied by ET” theory or anything else, regardless how apparently absurd. > [@](#): > > If you can’t entertain the possibility of God any more than pixies, can’t you acknowledge that there are still unanswered questions, mysteries yet unsolved, even if for you God is not the answer to any of them? Sure, though in many cases (like : is there something after death?) I think there’s absolutely no reason to assume the answer should be anything else than “no” and in many others (meaning of life?) that these questions are philosophical in nature and don’t have any objective answers. Finally, some others might have an objective, but yet undiscovered answer, but just making one up doesn’t cut it for me. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/224 "2006-03-28T15:33:50Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > I _don’t_ expect religious people to respect me or any other unbeliever, no matter what I do, nor do I expect to convince them. Then why even discuss religion with them at all? I mean, it’s not really one of those things that comes up often, generally. > [@](#): > > Sometimes it is. If nobody tells you that you are doing something wrong from fear of hurting your feelings, you likely won’t correct your mistakes; you won’t realize you’ve made any. But like you said, you don’t expect to convince them, and you don’t respect them, so there’s really no point in telling them they’re wrong. > [@](#): > > They aren’t going to _care_ how I act. I expect little difference in most believers reaction to me, regardless of my behavior ( short of pulling a gun on them, that is ). I’ve found that most people will judge you on your actions, not on what you believe or don’t believe. If you’re friendly, generous, keep your word, etc., most people aren’t going to care much about whether you believe in God or not. There are a few bigots out there, of course, but they hardly make up the majority. > [@](#): > > All my life I’ve heard the rhetoric about how it’s worse than murder to be an atheist, as long as you kill in the name of a god. All my life I’ve heard about how it’s better to be dead than atheist. All my life I’ve heard the speeches about how atheists are amoral monsters. I expect _nothing_ but hatred from any believer. All I can say is that I’ve never had those experiences. My parents and grandmother are religious, as is my brother, and while it bothers them a little that I’m an atheist, I know that it would bother them a lot more if I killed somebody or died. That’s really true with most of the people I know who believe in a god or gods. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/225 "2006-03-28T15:33:59Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Actually, they’re somehow connected. My responses to your first to questions would be : no, and no, because there’s zero obhective reason to assume there’s something before and after life. Why should there be? Of course, it would be pleasant to believe in such a thing, but why even entertain such an idea? > > Now, how is this connected to pixies? Because to the questions you list, a number of people answer by assuming without any evidence the existence of a supernatural entity. As soon as you bring in the discussion your arbitrary supernatural entity of choice, I can bring in mine too. Or my “brain in a vat created and studied by ET” theory or anything else, regardless how apparently absurd. Um…fair enough. > [@](#): > > Sure, though in many cases (like : is there something after death?) I think there’s absolutely no reason to assume the answer should be anything else than “no” and in many others (meaning of life?) that these questions are philosophical in nature and don’t have any objective answers. Finally, some others might have an objective, but yet undiscovered answer, but just making one up doesn’t cut it for me. Also pretty reasonable. If the question is “Don’t you wonder about X?” then “No I don’t” is a reasonable response. My own sister is a wonderful generous loving person who honestly says “I don’t believe in anything” meaning an after life. Her belief or lack of it, doesn’t matter at all. She remains a wonderful generous loving person ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/226 "2006-03-28T15:37:03Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > But note that this isn’t some sort of moral stance; it’s not that we’re saying the supporters of “under God” in the Pledge (or “In God we trust” as the national motto) are in any way in the right, only that it’s more convenient to leave those issues for later. Sure, you and I are in agreement. I’m not saying to concede the moral ground on these matters…just to postpone it while we work for change on more important issues. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/227 "2006-03-28T15:44:58Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > Thank you. But the inequality sign I requested is showing up as an exclamation point followed by an equal sign. Is that because I’m on a Mac? Or can you not show inequality signs on SDMB? > > !=" _means_ “is not equal to”. It’s convenient symbolism for those who don’t know their Alt+ four digit shortcuts by heart. I have encountered too many cases where different browsers display either/both ≠ and ¬ as hollow boxes rather than the characters intended. The convention of “!=” is pretty widely recognized and the characters appear under ALL browsers and fonts, so I went with that. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/228 "2006-03-28T15:54:05Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > I’ve found that most people will judge you on your actions, not on what you believe or don’t believe. If you’re friendly, generous, keep your word, etc., most people aren’t going to care much about whether you believe in God or not. There are a few bigots out there, of course, but they hardly make up the majority. Incorrect; that’s the starting point of this thread. As an atheist, I can be confident that most people despise me, despite having no knowledge of me. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/229 "2006-03-28T16:01:36Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Incorrect; that’s the starting point of this thread. As an atheist, I can be confident that most people despise me, despite having no knowledge of me. No. The poll says they don’t like atheists as a group…that doesn’t mean they don’t like you or wouldn’t like you. It’s easy to answer survey questions. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/230 "2006-03-28T16:07:29Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > Yeah, actually it does matter whether or not I think God is a literally (or even metaphorically) a bearded man in the sky. No, it doesn’t. An actual bearbed man creator god provides an equally adequate answer to questions people answer to with a more elaborate conception of god. Many theists have been content with a very simple conception of god/gods, and actually many still are. > [@](#): > > There’s a significant difference between “It is plausible that _X_ exists” and “It is plausible that a cartoony, symbolic, pictorial representation of _X_ literally exists.” No, there isn’t. Since there isn’t any evidence for the existence of the supernatural creature X, it isn’t more plausible than another randomly picked supernatural creature. A “complex” god, a bearbed human-like creator, Odin, an elaborate belief in river spirits in a shamanistic culture, a fairy-tale-like river-spirit are all equally plausible, because there’s exactly as much evidence for all of them. The already mentionned “invisible dragon in the garage” doesn’t become more plausible just because I provide to you a detailled description of its anatomy, or give it some complex and difficult to grasp attribute. The IPU isn’t more plausible because it’s invisible and pink. Similarily, making your god more abtract doesn’t make it more plausible than a simple, basic concept of a very powerful bearbed man. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/231 "2006-03-28T16:10:59Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > No. The poll says they don’t like atheists as a group…that doesn’t mean they don’t like you or wouldn’t like you. It’s easy to answer survey questions. Since they _don’t_ know me, they _do_ hate me without knowing me. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/232 "2006-03-28T16:25:11Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I disagree. We have the little problem of the beginnings of everything. It sounds like your reason for believing in God is the standard First Cause argument, which goes something like “everything has a cause that happened before it, so logically there must have been a Prime Mover who caused that first event to happen.” It seems to me that this argument is completely, utterly destroyed by the simple observation that if a God is required to kick-start the universe, then you can use the exact same argument about God, and get stuck in a recursive loop. The argument _cannot_ be valid. Plus, the whole event chain that everything has a cause is contradicted by our current understanding of quantum physics. If this argument underpins your belief in God, I’m thinking you should reconsider. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/233 "2006-03-28T16:31:48Z")
But that doesn’t mean you have to hate them, and if they knew you, they might like you. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/234 "2006-03-28T16:38:32Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > It’s not about respecting the belief, though. It’s about respecting the person who holds the belief. If you know your term is going trivialize something they think is important and hurt their feelings, you shouldn’t do it if you can help it. In addition to it not being nice, it’s counter productive, because it’s bullying and makes you look bad. Unfortunately, the _mere fact_ of someone’s privately held and barely discussed atheism is taken as a mortal insult by many, many people of faith. I wrote this in a previous thread over three years ago: > [@me](#): > > An atheist simply cannot defend his position without simultaneously coming across as attacking the faith of a believer. When I say I think that these deities have basically been invented to fill in the gaps of what is not yet understood, when I give the example of, say, lightning, which primitive peoples in their ignorance of large-scale electrical phenomenon automatically ascribe to supernatural powers by psychological default, it’s only natural for the believer to bristle and respond, Are you calling me primitive and ignorant? [See here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=158832). The excerpt above comes from post 110, but I’m linking to the beginning because I think it’s a good read, and material to the current discussion. The point is, a requirement that atheism be defended respectfully is disingenuous and basically pointless, because for many people, atheism itself is disrespectful and insulting. I wrote several long posts in the thread linked above that explain carefully why I personally have no faith but that do not attempt to talk anyone else out of _their_ faith; and yet I am confident that my explanation of my own faithlessness will feel like a frontal assault on faith to a believer. It’s an impossible thing you ask for, **Cap** , and while I will not be snide or smug or intentionally derisive as I argue for my position, I will not hold back in those arguments, because I take zero responsibility for how other people choose to perceive insults or disrespect. God = Odin = Zeus = Quetzalcoatl = Vishnu, and if somebody wants to be offended by that, too bad. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/235 "2006-03-28T16:39:17Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > Dammit, stop saying “your sky god”! Okay, I get the idea: you’re going to use a goofy-ass modifier every time you refer to God so we know how ridiculous you find the idea of God. Do so if you want, I guess, but it’s not conducive to rational debate. That’s not why I’m doing it. I’m doing it to try to illustrate the uselessness of “god” hypotheses as an answer for questions you don’t know the answer to. It is a simple, objective fact that Western theistic constructs have no more empirical support behind them than do tribal gods, Norse gods or pixies. They are all equally speculative, equally plausible and equally unnecessary. > [@](#): > > Yeah, actually it does matter whether or not I think God is a literally (or even metaphorically) a bearded man in the sky. There’s a significant difference between “It is plausible that _X_ exists” and “It is plausible that a cartoony, symbolic, pictorial representation of _X_ literally exists.” Um…no dude, there is no difference at all. The evidence is the same for both. > [@](#): > > If I thought Republicans and Democrats were literally elephants and donkeys wearing stars-n-stripes top hats, I wouldn’t believe in them either. FDude, who do you think you’re talking to? Do you really think I don’t understand theological abstracts or that I think you literally worship a bearded man in the sky? That’s not where I’m coming from at all. My point is not that the symbolic cartoon is ridiculous, therefore the abstract doesn’t exist, my point is that the abstract has no more going for it than the cartoon. “God” (no matter how sophisticated your definition may be) still has no more explanatory power, no more evidence and no more necessity than ghosts or elves or a super-intelligent council of telepathic aardvarks living in the center of Pluto. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/236 "2006-03-28T16:47:53Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’ve seen these comparisons quite a few times on the SDMB. I understand the premise and see it in part as a valid comparison. In other ways I think it is not. To me the question of God or a god, is connected to some very basic questions that occur in many people. Was there something before this physical life? IS there something after? Does my life has a purpose greater than survival and acquisition? > Invisible Pink Unicorns, Pixie’s and such are not connected to those questions. Although Odin and other gods may have been at one time they are no longer. How do you know? What makes you so sure you can rule out the IPU and Odin but not Yahweh or Christ? What’s the difference in evidence? > [@](#): > > That’s why I don’t think the comparison is completely valid. I accept that you are completely sincere in your responses to people. If you can’t entertain the possibility of God any more than pixies, can’t you acknowledge that there are still unanswered questions, mysteries yet unsolved, even if for you God is not the answer to any of them? My problem isn’t the questions, my problem is that we have never discovered a reason to hypothesize magic to answer them. I am an empiricist. I see no reason to speculate about supernatural explanations as long as those questions can be answered without them. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/237 "2006-03-28T16:56:52Z")
To All It May Concern, PLease, please, please, please, please, please, please, PLEASE stop arguing FOR Atheism by arguing AGAINST religious beliefs and a particular version of God. It is intellectually dishonest. The Initial Question is purely philosphical: How did all this, including us, get here. Answers fall into three _philosophical_ camps; Theist: there is a supreme being who started it all off Atheist: there is not a supreme being who started it all off Agnostic: I do not and cannot know if a supreme being started it all off Three philosophical positions. Adherents to the first two believe thay have an answer to the question. Those who do not fall into the third category. Yes, there are sub-categories to all three. To demonstrate that the first is not a religious position, consider that a person can adhere to it, yet believe that his god (small "g’, as in supreme being) his no interest in the lives of men, that man is not made in his image, that paying homage to Him is unneccesary or ridiculous, that we are not the point of His creation. He may simply have satisfied his curiosity with an an answer and never give it a moment’s thought for the rest of his life. This person is simply forming an opinion on “what started it all?” It is a philosophical position. Was there a Prime Mover, a First Cause? Now, of the people who share a “Yes” answer to the Initial Question, some, none, many, or all, may choose to then make _additional_ decisions regarding what they should do about the existence of this god. They may claim that he is benevolent, good, or loving. They may decide that they look like him. They may decide to worship him—in myriad ways. They may choose to believe that his existence requires—or prohibits—some action on their part. They may choose to formailize their beliefs and turn it into doctrine. They may believe that their doctrine represents the will of God, even that is divinely inspired by him. Or, they may not. The number of people who decide to take these further steps and the number of people who do not bears no weight on the validity of each position. The fact that at this point in time on earth that there are groups who have chosen/built a doctrine called Christianity, or Judaism, Muhammad, Hindism, Buddhism, or any other -ism does not negate the possibility that a person can share their answer to the Initial Question and stop right there. Fully stop. When we are discussing Atheism, its opposing choice in the decision tree is Theism. Insisting that Atheism be argued for by contrastiing it with a particular strain of Theism is faulty and unfair. If you are going to argue for Atheism you must be willing to defend it against Theism in it’s purest form, not one of it’s subsets. It is quite possible to that Theism is correct and every religion that has ever entered the mind of man is 100% incorrect. Some of you realize this and continue to do it. You do so because it is an easy way to validate your own position. If you are that intent on validating what you \*_want_ to be the case that you are willing to use flawed logic, there is no point in a debate. Ironic that you make the same mistake that you abhor in blindly rabid religious people. So, please, argue Atheism by contrasting it with the purest version of what is it at odds with. By doing so you will eliminate wriggle room in your opposition. Because every time you argue against a particular version of Theism, you leave open the possibility that another version might be valid. If you’d like to argue against Christianity or some other strain of Theism, that is another discussion. A religious one, not a philosophical one. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/238 "2006-03-28T17:02:18Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The convention of “!=” is pretty widely recognized and the characters appear under ALL browsers and fonts, so I went with that. I was unaware of that. Thanks again. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/239 "2006-03-28T17:09:31Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > It seems to me that this argument is completely, utterly destroyed by the simple observation that if a God is required to kick-start the universe, then you can use the exact same argument about God, and get stuck in a recursive loop. No. It makes logical sense to say that all things are subject to causality, except that which is extra-natural. That would make god eternal. And that is certainly no more outlandish than claiming the matter and ebergy, in some form have been around for eternity, with no beginning. > [@CurtC](#): > > The argument _cannot_ be valid. Oh? Please elaborate. > [@CurtC](#): > > Plus, the whole event chain that everything has a cause is contradicted by our current understanding of quantum physics. If this argument underpins your belief in God, I’m thinking you should reconsider. I am willing to. Present the explanation. From what I’ve read, QM attempts to explain the random appearance of matter in a particular place/time, not it’s creation. But please, present a the QM theory that accounts for the beginning of everything. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/240 "2006-03-28T17:18:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If you are going to argue for Atheism you must be willing to defend it against Theism in it’s purest form, not one of it’s subsets… I do not need to defend it. Theists are those making the claim. Let’s them bring evidences to support it. I don’t believe in a supreme being starting everything because I’ve no reason to. It’s quite simple. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906.md?page=13)