Atheism Vs. Skepticism

I watched the same video a few days ago... >_>

On topic: I dont think skepticism leads to atheism necessarily. By far. Not that it was implied, just felt like making an irrelevant point as I usually do. =P

Ugh and that means I am off topic. D:

Anyway, judging by what I remember from the video, yes its true that many times people do not become atheists because they are really skeptical (which is something important to atheism) but rather for other reasons.

I see skepticism as an approach to evaluating belief. My atheism as a constantly re-tested interim belief that I hold as a result of my on-going skeptical approach.

So in one way, I think skepticism is more important than atheism, since it is a proven way of getting the most accurate information. But on its own, just being skeptical and suspending judgement will never lead to any conclusions.

I see skepticism as an approach to evaluating belief. My atheism as a constantly re-tested interim belief that I hold as a result of my on-going skeptical approach.

So in one way, I think skepticism is more important than atheism, since it is a proven way of getting the most accurate information. But on its own, just being skeptical and suspending judgement will never lead to any conclusions.RationalAtheist

Pretty much. I think of it this way: Skepticism is how we affirm truth, but skepticism itself should never be the truth. Skepticism is not the goal; rather, it is the means by which we reach the goal, with the goal being truth.

The originial question was that to many people focus on spreading the goal rather then the means. For example, whats the point of teaching people the answers to mathematical questions when there far better off knowing the methods of achieveing the answer. The point is not everyone becomes an Atheist for the same reasons. This is one of the reasons why you see many atheists believing in delusional principles. Atheists should spread the means and not focus so much on the goal.Uxal

I think education plays an important role in allowing people to discriminate between judgements. For example, science is typically taught in a methodical and deductive way, with new principle building upon preceding principle. The benefits of experiment and observation are commonplace in school science labs. Education policy should be that all religious and non-religious views should be made available to students, so they can access unbiased information on beliefs outside their families' views.

Atheists believe such for a variety of reasons and have a many different explanations for their beliefs. It is mostly a belief that people arrive at in their own terms and without being cajoled. Atheists also have various feelings towards their belief; everything from apathetic atheism to God-hating reactionism. I don't know what "delusional principles" you refer to, but atheists must be allowed to act irrationally sometimes!

I also don't know if it is a "goal" to convert people to atheism, or to stop them thinking in a certain way. Isn't expressing views in a suitable arena enough? It may be useful to talk about skepticism being a basis for an atheist view, or to excuse yourself from a religious argument by calling yourself a "skeptic", but "spreading the means" of atheism sounds a bit creepy.

If I were myself from 2 years ago I'd heartily agree with your thesis, but I've done more research and have found skepticism as an enterprise EXTREMELY wanting. 

Also I think you dont need to promote skepticism because its accepted by most. Though you could stress that people need to apply skepticism more often than they do.