Probably not the best place to ask since it's off topic; but why is evidence sufficient to support a theory but proof is required to support faith? Is there a difference between being an atheist and an anti-theist? Are atheists' criticisms directed towards the actions of organized religion or the concept of religion itself?
As an athiest if I were presented with real scientific evidence of the existence of a god I would admit my error. Atheism is not faith.
Faith means that you will believe in the tenants of your religion no matter what. No evidence will sway you. People may say they allow their faith to be questioned but if they refuse to allow for the possibility that it is entirely fabricated then they are not being honest with themselves.
Evidence = Proof There is no real evidence of religion in any form being anything more than the creation of man to explain what he does not understand and comfort him with his mortality. Perhaps I would have more respect for religion if it did not have such an outstanding track record of attacking any scientific discovery disproved any tenants of their faith. God has been pushed further and further back with each passing century. He used to be in the clouds making rain, the fields making wheat. He caused the sun to revolve around the earth, the moon to eclipse the sun and winter to turn into spring. As each step was taken forward in science, showing the real actions of the universe and why these things happenned, the uniform response from religion has always been denial, resentment and persecution.
With that now said perhaps you can see why I have issues with a man whose sworn his life to the service of a religion as an ordained minister. Looking at Huckabee I see nothing more than this gentleman:
Doctor Zaius: Minister of Science and Chief Protector of the Faith
Of course we could ammend the title to Chief Law Enforcer and Protector of the Faith for Huckabee... No thanks. You want to be a minister then I would hope that most Americans would be smart enough to keep you out of government. Sadly that has failed to happen already. If enough people here are short sighted enough to actually make a minister, with a vested interest in the protection of his faith, President then we are well on the way to having a nation run by religion. This nation was set up with religion firmly separated from government. Of course in a democracy the greates threat to the people is the people. There is no stopping it if enough rightously religious people believe their solution is the one true way. Putting a priest in charge of government is that path.