Safran's argument is based on the curious idea that in order to claim to be an atheist, you must understand "The Big Bang" theory and be able to defend your understanding versus the competing theory of Genesis.

This is, of course, not true. Every thinking person should, by default, assume that a thing does not exist until they have evidence it does. Everyone should be an atheist, by default, until someone can show you that god exists.

Back to Safran's Liberal Arts Major. She may not understand the physics behind the Big Bang theory, but until someone can prove to her of the existance of God, she should assume the neutral position of atheism.

gorgonheap i don't mind the downvote, i just don't think you got the point.
if you downvoted in error because you didn't get the point, that's still valid, it's maybe john safran's fault for not explaining himself clearly. i was just like "damn, i only need one vote!" that's all. if you actually did get the point, then your comment doesn't make sense, so i just misunderstood your comment, and I am sorry.

jon safran vs god!! great series!! hang on...more exclamation marks required!!..