Should Atheism proper include scepticism?

[Tiberius]

So we come backwards once again to argumenting over something which is of an intangible nature.

Just because something is intangible to our minds doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I get the impression that you're not as unbiased on this topic as you claim to be.

I never claimed to be unbiased. Indeed, I made sure you knew I disagreed with you.

I also get the impression that you're not listening and thereby preventing the discussion from developing naturally.

Funny, I get the exact same impression from you. Whereas I've actually challenged you and your claim, you've continually said contradicting things, skipped around our requests for evidence, and have been caught moving the goalposts.

What good is any argument that has nothing supporting it, like "god", for instance, where there is entirely no evidence in support of the claim!

An argument doesn't have to have anything supporting it. An argument is something used to support a claim. You are mixing up definitions.

An argument may be wrong, it may have bad logic, but just because an argument is wrong doesn't mean the thing it supports doesn't exist. Even if all the arguments for God were wrong (and I believe they are), it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, merely that no arguments have so far given evidence for God's existence.

[TruthWorthy]

I'd already established that I wanted to isolate the argument with another forum member before you posted to this thread. I have learned a good lesson on the established argument, however, regarding the existance of "god, thankyou.
I am new to the site, and I'm grateful that I'm awake to this 'proving wrong scenario' and can drop the whole thing.
Yes, believe in "god, if you like. I can't see a good reason to; however, I accept "god is a possible explanation.