Should Atheism proper include scepticism?

[TruthWorthy]

There is no god.
Sceptical? If so:
1. What is the use of assigning an element of doubt based on a so-called possibility?
2. Is this some sort of friendly acceptance to those who believe?
3. How can you trully call yourself an atheist?

[leo-rcc]

There is no god.
Sceptical? If so:
1. What is the use of assigning an element of doubt based on a so-called possibility?

It's called intellectual honesty. I am as sure a god doesn't exist as I am sure pixies do not exist, or the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, but I cannot 100% disprove any of these claims.

2. Is this some sort of friendly acceptance to those who believe?

No, see 1.

3. How can you trully call yourself an atheist?

Because disbelief <> Belief in the negative.

[TruthWorthy]

1.
It's called intellectual honesty. I am as sure a god doesn't exist as I am sure pixies do not exist, or the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, but I cannot 100% disprove any of these claims.

2.
No, see 1.

3.
Because disbelief <> Belief in the negative.

That reasoning sounds more like skepticism than it does atheism to me.

If there were an acceptable method for proving something's nonexistance, And that method proved the non existance of "god", would you still be skeptical and doubt the reliability of the method?
Or would that evidence compel you to change your stance on the topic?

[leo-rcc]

Where do you get the idea that atheism is not skepticism?

Should evidence present itself one way or the other, then yes I would dismiss with the uncertainty. Can you provide such evidence?

[TruthWorthy]

Where do you get the idea that atheism is not skepticism?

Should evidence present itself one way or the other, then yes I would dismiss with the uncertainty. Can you provide such evidence?

I would be willing to oblige 'such evidence' in provisional content, if you're willing to endure the dialogue.

[leo-rcc]

Go right ahead.

[Tiberius]

By definition, any possibility should have an element of doubt attached. Just because somethings are possible doesn't mean they are all true, hence skepticism is needed.

[TruthWorthy]

Cool.
I'll try to keep the posts in a manageable length to idea ratio.
Lets start by narrowing down the concept of "god".
Completely discluding religious based god, religion of any kind and stick to the one main argument, that of the existance of an intelligent force called "god".

Next is the false belief that humans have some sort of central importance.

I want to elliminate additional problems by containing the argument, that's all.

---

By definition, any possibility should have an element of doubt attached. Just because somethings are possible doesn't mean they are all true, hence skepticism is needed.

Possibilty varies so widely.
Possibilities are invented to explain the cause of something else when that cause is unknown.
Theorists use possibilties when attempting to form hypothesis and those hypothesis are tested out in different contexts. If the hypothesis withstands the testing process it becomes a working hypothesis.
This is where the element of doubt comes into play.
Because the theory has been invented it can also be falsified by an improved theory, or better way of seeing the original problem, if you like.

[leo-rcc]

Cool.
I'll try to keep the posts in a manageable length to idea ratio.
Lets start by narrowing down the concept of "god".

Completely discluding religious based god, religion of any kind and stick to the one main argument, that of the existance of an intelligent force called "god".

Okay, let's go with that one.

Next is the false belief that humans have some sort of central importance.

How do you know this is false, what evidence do you have of that?

I want to elliminate additional problems by containing the argument, that's all.

Agreed.

[Tiberius]

I echo Leo's objection. How do you know we don't have a central importance?