I don't know. There've been a few folks who come in and proclaim, "RRS is a bunch of rude cultish bastards! You should be more like those of us over at richarddawkins.net. All hail Dawkins!"

I'm not sure it's in the same category, but I think there is a tendency to prove they are a "better" non-believer, or at least "better" for the cause.

It's definitely less-prevelent, though.

I was researching wikipedia on what beyond reasonable doubt means and found some paper references...got one that wasnt that good but summarized some others...its kinda disturbing....

one paper in the 70's said jurors were repsonding with what ended up being probabilities between 70% and 74% of guilt....Another study when outright asking people what the probabilities of guilt should be 33% said 100 (which is impossible)....I assume the average was in the 90's....seems "reasonable" to me....

This paper was trying to say there should be a probability number that is given by law so we all will agree more and it will be more fair....but it is "probably" best that there isnt...its actually illegal for a judge to specify the probability of "certainty"...people are so bad at probabilities it would probably sway them in the wrong direction anyway....

And I dont think you can even estimate your "belief" number correctly even if you did know what the standard is....it would be more helpful to see a bunch of cases that were overturned...and some that were not....

in california it is defined as not mere possible doubt because everything relating to human affairs and depending on moral evidence is open to possible doubt...It is that state ofthe case which after the entire comparision and consideration ofall evidence leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge.

Nebraska adds that a reasonable doubt is an actual and substantial doubt reasonably arising from evidence from the facts or circumstances shown by the evidence or from the lack of evidence on the part of the state as distinguished from doubt arising from mere possibility from bare imagination or from fanciful conjecture....

remember...in science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

Now, do we really "know" anything???

I don't think atheism is against irrational belief, it's just non belief in supernatural deities/god(s). However one an atheist and still have irrational beliefs, like superstitions, walking under ladders, friday 13th, even many new agers, those dealing with positive thinking and positive energies etc, etc, etc to me are irrational beliefs, because there is no evidence that all of that works at all. However they can be atheists still. Atheism just simply a non belief in theism, many have shown to have irratoinal beliefs. Now a rational thinker goes against irrational beliefs

An atheist who won't walk under ladders is just a person who has yet to extend the logic of his or her opposition to deity into other areas of superstition. But as you say, it doesn't invalidate their atheism in any way - though it does raise an interesting question regarding how on earth they managed to overcome their obvious potential to be irrational, draw the correct conclusions regarding that other big nest of irrational vipers, religion, and yet still buy into the little ones.

You're right too to say that atheism is simply an absence of belief in supernatural deities etc. But, and this website is one of the proofs of this, in the real world that means often taking an anti-establishment stance. In vocalising that stance the need arises to adopt from the beginning an anti-irrationality argument. It is unavoidable. In a perfect world atheism, being rational, would not even need to have a name. But as long as it does, and people describe themselves as such, it will be identified with an argument against the status quo where irrationality still reigns supreme.

There are also atheists that buy into non-superstitious pseudoscientific garbage - such as psychics and bad pseudo-medical scams.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that atheists are at least as competitive as theists.  If anything, I would expect more competition because there are theists who believe they don't have to do anything because God will give them everything they need.  Atheists know it's all up to them.

 {EDIT:  Whoops... forgot to finish my point.  I think there are definitely atheists who try to be "more atheist" than the other guy.  Just like theism, I think it's not so much about the belief or lack of belief, but the personality of the person holding or not holding the belief.}

Maybe that's why so many theists spell it "athiest?"

I guess what I was originally saying is that I'm the unbelieverest, and all y'all can only be pretenderating. 

I said it first therefore I am more of an unbeliever than u

You are all lowly apostates; I am not.

However, you did at one time commit the unpardonable wickedness of lasping into a state of belief.

 Therefore I am the atheistest

There is an excellent movie called 'Twelve Angry Men' (there are two versions, original and remake) that focuses on the concept of reasonable doubt. Basically it is about 12 jurors in the jury room trying to come to a unaminous verdict, it starts with 11 of them voting guilty and the remaining 1 voting not guilty.

It also shows how some jurors will base their decisions on their beliefs, racism, just getting it over and done with, etc.

It is a very thought provoking movie.