Evidence for atheist claims

[Homeless Nutter]

Actually, Marx said that.

No wonder that the pseudo philosophy of that imbecile went bankrupt.  

He also said:

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."

[Mister Agenda]

Because what would be the point of explaining anything to a brick wall?

There are atheists who believe in reincarnation and/or ghosts, or that the universe is a computer simulation. Which refutes you, Rik.

You're on a forum that, despite the title, is mostly inhabited by atheists who hold the epistemological philosophy of scientific skepticism, but we don't represent all atheists by a long shot, it's just that we're not very welcoming to atheists who are into conspiracy theories and woo, so you won't find many here. Generalizing about atheism from a subset of atheists is likely to result in a high rate of inaccuracy. Beyond not believing in any God or gods, there is no view that all atheists hold.

Wait a couple of days mate.  
I go through all the threads of the forum to see if I find an atheist that say that he-she believe in reincarnation or ghosts because so far I haven't find any.  
Oh, hang on mate.
Now I know why atheists don't say that they believe in ghosts and reincarnation.
They are all very very shy.
Gee, I never thought about that mate.  

Judging by your near-complete misunderstanding of my post, I doubt thinking is your strong point. Stick to smilies, mate.

[Mister Agenda]

Actually, Marx said that.

No wonder that the pseudo philosophy of that imbecile went bankrupt.  

You really, really think it's Karl Marx being talked about? Wow.

[Angrboda]

Atheism is all about a myriad of dogmas (unproven so called truth taken as real truth ) and this is a reality

So you've taken to redefining the word dogma to hold to your claims. Why not, you redefine reality with little to no evidence.

so don't tell me what atheism is all about.
Right?  

You think you can win an argument by redefining atheism. How sad.

[Little Rik]

Judging by your near-complete misunderstanding of my post, I doubt thinking is your strong point.

All your post say is that there are a myriad of atheists with different ideas so I shouldn't generalize
and that atheism simply means a lack of belief in God.
Right?
Well well Mister here we got a big problem with your judgment.  

I do judge according what I see or hear not according what a particular term suppose to mean.
As far as the atheists on this forum keep on spouting dogma after dogma I judge talking in consideration
these dogmas.
Nothing more nothing less.  

[Little Rik]

Atheism is all about a myriad of dogmas (unproven so called truth taken as real truth ) and this is a reality

So you've taken to redefining the word dogma to hold to your claims.  Why not, you redefine reality with little to no evidence.

Nothing is real in this finite universe.
Take the time.
When you are happy the time goes very fast but when you are having problems the time goes very very slow but again according to your watch the time is also very different so where the reality is then?
The real reality doesn't exist in this finite universe that is why to define something within this physical reality as real people automatically enter the corral of dogma.  

so don't tell me what atheism is all about.
Right?  

You think you can win an argument by redefining atheism.  How sad.

Again all I do is to judge according to what I hear or see not according the definition of the word.  

[Mister Agenda]

Judging by your near-complete misunderstanding of my post, I doubt thinking is your strong point.

All your post say is that there are a myriad of atheists with different ideas so I shouldn't generalize
and that atheism simply means a lack of belief in God.
Right?
Well well Mister here we got a big problem with your judgment.  

I do judge according what I see or hear not according what a particular term suppose to mean.
As far as the atheists on this forum keep on spouting dogma after dogma I judge talking in consideration
these dogmas.
Nothing more nothing less.  

And my post pointed out that this forum isn't remotely representative of all atheists, which you completely ignored, because that's really inconvenient for your claim and you wouldn't know intellectual honesty if it bit you. Only an idiot generalizes from what they see and hear when they know what they see and hear isn't representative. It's like going to a yoga studio in Texas and judging Americans by what you see and hear there.

A dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Atheists don't have one of those. What you are calling 'multiple dogmas' are known to the rest of humanity as 'opinions'. What the majority of atheist members on this board have in common in the way of opinions is called 'consensus'. Consensus is arrived at by persuading people that your opinions are correct, hopefully (if you value such things) with evidence and sweet reason. 'Opinion' and 'consensus' are not synonyms for 'dogma'.

Your judgment is an opinion, and in your case, extremely poorly supported.

[Mister Agenda]

Again all I do is to judge according to what I hear or see not according the definition of the word.  

Maybe you should take up something you're better at.

For instance, did you mean to say that you judge according to what you hear and see, NOT according to the definition of the word? Not going by the definition of words would account for how little sense you sometimes make, certainly; but it's not conducive to actual communication.

A wise person judges according to what they see and hear and communicates using words as they are mutually understood to be defined; such as not using the word 'dogma' when they mean 'opinion'.

[Esquilax]

I do judge according what I see or hear not according what a particular term suppose to mean.

And do you believe that what you see and hear is all that could possibly be seen or heard? Or do you understand that you might not know everything?

[Little Rik]

All your post say is that there are a myriad of atheists with different ideas so I shouldn't generalize
and that atheism simply means a lack of belief in God.
Right?
Well well Mister here we got a big problem with your judgment.  

I do judge according what I see or hear not according what a particular term suppose to mean.
As far as the atheists on this forum keep on spouting dogma after dogma I judge talking in consideration
these dogmas.
Nothing more nothing less.  

And my post pointed out that this forum isn't remotely representative of all atheists, which you completely ignored, because that's really inconvenient for your claim and you wouldn't know intellectual honesty if it bit you. Only an idiot generalizes from what they see and hear when they know what they see and hear isn't representative. It's like going to a yoga studio in Texas and judging Americans by what you see and hear there.

I already did comment this point.
I did say that so far I never encountered (in this forum or elsewhere) a single atheist that believe in the  
ghosts or reincarnation.
Maybe there are some but I never came across one so far.
I have seen different types of atheists behaviour from the demented idiot with the F word on his mouth
all the time like the minimalist to other atheists that never swear and are quite good and intelligent but this is just the way that they express themselves which has nothing to do with the way they think about life issues.

A dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Wrong.
1) A dogma can be a single so called principle.
It doesn't have to be a set of principles.
2) It doesn't have to be laid down.
Anybody can express a dogma without such a dogma having to be laid down.
3) It doesn't have to be express by an authority.
Anybody can create a dogma.

Atheists don't have one of those. What you are calling 'multiple dogmas' are known to the rest of humanity as 'opinions'. What the majority of atheist members on this board have in common in the way of opinions is called 'consensus'. Consensus is arrived at by persuading people that your opinions are correct, hopefully (if you value such things) with evidence and sweet reason. 'Opinion' and 'consensus' are not synonyms for 'dogma'.

Wrong again son.  
An opinion is there for all to challenge.
A dogma is not.
A dogma as Sarkar said is an idea turned into total truth locked inside a corral in which nobody can enter to challenge.
When atheists say again and again that the consciousness is the product of the brain even without any solid evidence to back that idea then it become a dogma.  

Your judgment is an opinion, and in your case, extremely poorly supported.

The time will tell mate.