Why does atheism so often include skepticism ...

[floppit]

Again I think it comes down to confusing the destination with the mode of transport. Skepticism is about a way of thinking not dismissing things but suspending belief until there is enough evidence to support whatever theory is being put forward, something which perhaps string theory adherents might have been wise to hold onto.

There's middle ground, two examples spring to mind, one would be 'mindfulness' something which falls outside of strictly traditional medicine but which I think is gathering some good evidence - I just wait and watch, I don't think (yet) it has proven clinical application, but if I wanted to make a bet for the future, I'd consider a punt for mindfulness. There's also tree called the moringa tree which currently is being claimed to do all sorts of things, the new herbal fad, yet there are some interesting facts about it, less so than 'mindfulness' which I began to watch some years ago, I wouldn't lay even a longshot bet on it - but I do watch out of interest. Then there's stuff I dismiss, like amber teething necklaces - they simply fall into the 'stupid' category, there's no mechanism for them to work, no evidence and no measurable outcomes!

Atheism is a destination, an end point of view reached via a way of thinking, skepticism is one of many ways of thinking that can lead to atheism, so is liking a comedian that takes the piss out of religion, or believing that it is a sound conclusion because a respected thinker has arrived at it. Skepticism and atheism aren't necessarily connected.

Skepticism is often used to mean just doubt, but that's a tabloid approach. Wiki says it really succinctly:
This:

Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude,[1] or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.

Compared to:

Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by argument or evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

I don't think I manage skepticism, but I try at it and in no way does it mean I 'should' doubt everything, far from it.

[Elessarina]

In the cases I mentioned above the phenomena were attributed to the supernatural by people involved until they were investigated and it turned out they weren't supernatural after all. I think you'll find the sun, the moon and the wind were also attributed to supernatural forces at one time (ie God) and like-wise turned out not to be.

Exactly.. I am not saying anything has a "supernatural" reason for it happening.. you are missing my point - my point was could things that people consider supernatural be things that are real just that we don't fully understand them yet?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I sometimes get a little perturbed that we tend to practice our attack mode on ourselves when there's no one else around.

[Elessarina]

possession?

No, no not possession.. that can always be attributed to mental illness..

[Animavore]

In the cases I mentioned above the phenomena were attributed to the supernatural by people involved until they were investigated and it turned out they weren't supernatural after all. I think you'll find the sun, the moon and the wind were also attributed to supernatural forces at one time (ie God) and like-wise turned out not to be.

Exactly.. I am not saying anything has a "supernatural" reason for it happening.. you are missing my point - my point was could things that people consider supernatural be things that are real just that we don't fully understand them yet?

Yes I get that - now - but I was still wondering of what type of things that are considered supernatural that could be things we don't yet understand (and aren't already in the process of trying to) are you speaking of? I'm just interested to know.

[Azathoth]

I sometimes get a little perturbed that we tend to practice our attack mode on ourselves when there's no one else around.

Don't be. It's just healthy sparring to keep our skills honed.

[Animavore]

I sometimes get a little perturbed that we tend to practice our attack mode on ourselves when there's no one else around.

Don't be. It's just healthy sparring to keep our skills honed.

Shadow boxing of the mind.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I sometimes get a little perturbed that we tend to practice our attack mode on ourselves when there's no one else around.

Don't be. It's just healthy sparring to keep our skills honed.

Shadow boxing of the mind.

As long as it stays that way, please.

[floppit]

Smeg - I forgot it was the Pub! 'Scuse the serious answer!

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...I just wondered why so many atheists seem certain that almost anything that would fall under the category of, say, "unexplained" is automatically considered "woo" and completely dismissed?..

Sceptics have no problems at all with "unexplained" things. It's when someone claims they can explain these things, and their "explanations" turn out be unsubstantiated, half-baked crap that they've pulled off the top of their heads, or based on old myths, and which have no basis at all in our current understanding of reality - that's when it's "woo".

For example, I have no objection in principle to people talking about UFO's. My problem is that far too many of the people who do so seem to have completely forgotten what the "U" stands for.

...I have seen the film and in truth I found it creepy.. but I do find things like that creepy.. unexplainable and unseen "evil" forces (I don't like using the word evil.. but it will suffice for now).. I know it's a film and stuff like that doesn't generally happen but many people have reported strange things happening at times.. and although it may have nothing to so with anything like "demons" or "ghosts".. how can we be certain that there isn't something happening that we just don't understand...

We can't be certain, but we can apply Occam's razor. In the absence of any other evidence, what's a more parsimonious explanation for "creepy" feelings - actual unknown sources of fear in the real world, or pre-programmed evolutionary prejudices in the way or brains interpret sensory input?

...I don't believe in a God but why does that have to mean I can't be open-minded about the existence of some "unexplainable" things...

Sceptics are quite open to the possibility that some things might be in principle "unexplainable". They just don't assume that to be the case based purely on the fact that we don't know yet. And even if you could prove something was "unexplainable", that wouldn't be acceptable reason to just insert whatever supernatural hokum you like to fill the gap.

...and accept that there is a possibility that some "unexplained" things might be due to gaps in knowledge?...

Any unexplained thing is by definition due to gaps in or knowledge. I somehow suspect that wasn't actually what you were trying to say there.

[FBM]

If something 'paranormal' were to be discovered to be true, we'd just adapt our scientific model of the world to include it, then it'd be as normal and natural as everything else.

[Don't Panic]

I don't dismiss anything, I just ask for proof. No proof, I'm not interested.

I'm pretty much the same, if it can't be proven then it isn't relevant.

[Red Katie]

Paranormal and supernatural occurrences used to give me the creeps, too. So I got involved with a skeptical outfit. Even edited their paper for a while. The conclusion I finally came to was, the closer you get to these events, the more they disappear. When I had satisfied myself that they weren't really there, I dropped the skeptics and forgot about it.

In plain English, I investigated and educated myself, then dismissed the supernatural knowledgeably.

[Red Katie]

Woah. That wasn't plain English at all, was it?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Woah. That wasn't plain English at all, was it?

Made perfect sense to me, Katie.