Even Christians don't want to be responsible for "Acts of God". It's why the term was invented so that companies will pay.
Or do you mean atheists WANT it in contracts? And "Oh, gee, golly. Why would they want to buy what they dn't believe in? Har har har!!!"
Yeah. That's a brilliant point.
It's not a matter of insistence. It's a matter of buying insurance for a reasonable anticipation (disaster). Just because it's called "Acts of God" shouldn't mean atheists want to lose their homes to floods.
BUT WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT!!! :D ...
Why do churches not INSIST on "Acts of God" insurance exemptions on religious grounds? Why would they want the unfair expense? Right? Does it mean they don't have faith? Would it mean if they had an "Act of God" (as they would actually believe it to be, unlike atheists) and then claim insurance, wouldn't that be defying what their God did?
"God, we know you destroyed our church. But we disapprove and won't listen to the message you're sending us. So we're going to have the insurance company pay to rebuild. And we're going to carry on, hater!"
So disobedient! :D
ps. I responded to your anecdotal evidence comment.