I would certainly hope so!
Being skeptical is a logical way to conduct one's life. Too many con artists just looking
for a gullible rube to take advantage of. Never take anything at face value.

I'm wary of the responses to this post…

Honestly, I have no idea. Maybe it's less about degree of trust so much as what or whom people trust. I wonder whether there's ever been a scientific survey of trust behavior across various demographics.

What a great question! I think we look at things more carefully before accepting them. I guess that's being skeptical, but would you consider it less trusting?

I know, personally, I waffle in this area. I've always been fairly trusting and still am at times, but I also examine and question more closely than I ever did before. So, would you consider that less trusting?

No I think non believers are more trustworthy than sheep, non believers can see outside the box albeit a self imposed box but a box none the less. This world would have burned long ago if God was real as it's corrupt and decadent

No, I think depends from individual to individual.I tend to be distrustful of some things (i.e., information from distrustful sources, homeopathic cures are better over medical one, people that constantly lie). But I probably overtrust my neighbors. I think why I am a skeptic is more of a logical reason. My default position is to trust people until proven otherwise.

My guess is that, yes, non-believers are less trusting. This comes from a more self-directed thought process. I try to operate under the MO of giving others the benefit of the doubt until they give me reason not to.

I agree with you. My trust is earned. Never thought of the religious aspect of that. Interesting question

Faith in the colloquial, non-religious sense, is trust based on experience. Its opposite is faith in the theological, religious sense, unearned belief or trust based on asserted truth with no requirement of substantiation.

I don't afford belief to the unsubstantiated, so I don't have religious faith -- which, I repeat, is NOT trust.

I do trust where appropriate / earned based on evidence / experience / argument, so I am "trusting" in that sense.

I would say I am LESS trusting than theists on average, because theists tend to believe in the unsupportable and untrustworthy, even outside of their belief-system, because of bad thought habits. I am extremely trusting when it is appropriate, but far more discriminating than many people in my experience. So whether that is "more" or "less" trusting is somewhat debatable, but I think it's probably leaning to "less", and appropriately so.

I am a skeptic by default also because there are so many cultural factors that influence the trustworthiness of a person. One factor is the value systems that a person follows. For example i will trust a non-beleiver over a Christian because they believe in absolution which is just their god's license to be a horrible person. In contrast Buddhism teaches the precept that personal conduct is paramount to having a successful afterlife. So I could trust a Buddhist as much as a non believer. But other factors are important in deeper relationships like how a person was raised, what are their parents like, and what are the intrinsic dysfunctions in their life. I need to know these things before I trust on a deep level.

I'm naturally curious and look for truth, if it is to be found, so perhaps I am a natural skeptic. As I went through life, I discovered a disproportionate number of people who turned out not to be trustworthy in the long-run, most were non-practicing believers. Alternatively, I've certainly learned non-believers are not necessarily more trustworthy, either.

Could it be not the level of trust, but the things trusted that is the main issue? Like yourself, I tend to cast a narrow eye. I grew up in the protestant church, but I also was born with one of those invisible birth defects that children are expected to stoically carry from day to day. It didn't take long in a large group of believers for my child's mind to realize that "Faith," "Healing," and being "Born Again" were not effective in the treatment of actual medical conditions, lol. Pretty sure my skepticism rooted there, as did my eternal search for answers. From what I hear this is pretty common with people who have dealt with chronic medical issues.

However, if my "faith" was never challenged (or, hit rock-bottom in religion, whichever. Religion can be a addiction like anything else.) who's to say where my journey would have taken me? I do think that the trust issue you speak of has been used to excuse every sort of crime and deviance. This ability to excuse any, ahem, sin, for the sake of God and religion just reeks of what is considered aberrant in the mind of an atheist. When that aberrance combines with a group of weak thinkers looking for a herd to align with, freely-given trust, blind faith and poor decisions are sure to follow.

I think once we start asking questions (which got most of us away from religion in the first place) the more skeptical we become. We need to be less trusting especially in today's world and with the number of industries trying to sell us more and more crap.

By necessity, they are less trusting or they would believe at least one set of religious dogma that they were exposed to for so much of their life.

Not at all, i believe the level of trust that is given freely is on an individual basis . I tend to be a little more trusting than I should be . It's definitely caused me grief before , but I don't assume or even look for the worst of people.

No I don't. From my experience religious people are the ones that gossip behind your back, much more than unbelievers. Mind you, I find it very hard to trust anyone.

We are just real. why would you trust a fool?

My gut reaction is to believe there is no significant difference.
People tend to live in areas of commonality which affects how they are truthful. Outliers from a community often lie to "belong" or lie to stay "unnoticed."

More "skeptical," I think.. They tend to think things through and ask a few more questions before taking someone's word for something.

No, I think all atheist are individuals and each one is different. I am a very trusting person, unless I am asked to trust in an imaginary being.
When I first meet someone, the impression they make is also improtant, I seem to be able to sense the good ones and bad ones ( not always but usually) So it depends on the leve of trust I have to give.
I trust most people until I have a reason not to - again depends on what kind of trust

Would I trust someone I didnt know to come into my home when I was away for 3 months and take vare of my house and pets - NO.
Would I trust my grandsons teacher if she told me hw was having problems with being soical? - Yes
Would I trust a stranger to retunr $10,000 to me if I told him to repay it - NO
Would I trust most people to helpo me bring groceries into my house? - Yes
Would I trust mose people to be telling me the truth when they tell me about their experiences witha compnay? Yes.

It is the person's character which I repond to - not their political or non-religious/religious persuasion. Those things often muck up my trust factor.

I can't believe you are asking us this!

Yes, we don't trust churches for one.

If they spent the whole day studying about something they don't believe on... ummhh!

The case for the believer is that 'god is always watching them, and judging them', however, an athiest is someone (for most of Americans) who has had to openly question what they are told by parents/teachers, and to come to the decision that there is no god (or unlikely for there to be a god) when society is pretty much saying that you are not a good person, shows not just great honesty and courage, but someone who is capable of thinking for themselves, and also someone who is able to work out for themselves what is likely to be right or wrong. In all, I don't think this is a question that could be measured accurately