If you really want me to demonstrate it, I'll start with the idea that this atheist worships the state. How do we know this? Because from the get-go, he presumes the state owns everything.

But I'm an atheist that does not worship the state, nor to I believe the state owns everything.

Furthermore, most of my friends are atheists, and none of them believe anything close to these ideas regarding state ownership. What the state owns, or does not own, actually has absolutely zero to do with atheism. Zero. Zilch. Nada. And no atheist I've ever met believes otherwise. Nor will you find a stance on state ownership of property in any definition of atheism in any book on the subject, because it does not exist.

I just wanted to clear that up since your premise regarding atheists is immediately and obviously flawed.

I think it's actually unreasonable to say that someone is justified to take another person's money just because they wear a badge or sit on a seat of authority. Really, how do you justify it?

It's called being part of society. This has nothing to do with my stance on religion mind you, but I do believe as a social creature born into a community, that it is eminently fair and just that all members that want to be a part of that society must contribute if they want to stay in it, and that the levying of taxes and the spending of such taxes at the hands of elected representatives is probably a better system than any alternative. I think this position is the very definition of reasonable. I think you can have an honest debate as to the amount of taxation, and how that money should be utilized, but the premise is sound. But I do believe people should have the right to leave the society/nation/community that they were born into and go somewhere else without owing anything back if they so choose.