One concept that I have held is that a reason for atheists to maintain their belief in no god is that once God is acknowledged, there is a natural drive to know/acknowledge behaviors and expectations relative to the personality and worth of God.  The ultimate authority for those not acknowledging a supreme being is reduced to self, society, or government.  Once one acknowledges God, one’s behavior has a comparative point and one’s behavior can be evaluated.  I found a comment on a blog describing this phenomenon in the political sense:

“The problem is the bits about “motivation” and “political goals.” If you define something as terrorism, by definition you have to identify the motivation and the goals, and everyone is loathe to point to Islam. The follow-on implication is that once you identify it, you’re bound to do something about it.

Ever notice that no one identifies mass killings as genocide until after the fact? Same rationale. if you call it what it is, you’re then somewhat obliged to follow through and do something about it. Soeveryone drags their feet until well after the event. (I’m not saying that makes it right)”

We go to the doctor for a word.  This word is called diagnosis and it determines what happens next.  Without the diagnosis, there is no treatment.  There is the reason certain political so-in-so’s are loath to speak a word.  What we call a malady may be their desired illness (for the country).