It seems that you are determined to ignore the argument, so it is worth repeating.  Atheism is a rejection of a positive claim--the claim that gods exist.  It has no supernatural origin.  Indeed, atheism has originated spontaneously in many places at many times, as one would expect.  It has not always been spread by word of mouth, as all religions have.

You say "not always" yet, that concedes that it does indeed spread the same way. Just "not always". And again you face the dilema that many concepts are shared amoungst religions, that undermines you on this arguement at least. I know you sight them often enough when you turn to the plagarism arguement.

Your brand of theism is based on an immanent spiritual being that is not bound by space or time.  Hence, it appears unlikely that the origin of the belief would be confined to single points in time and space.  Why would the creator of the universe treat an ancient tribe of semites any more specially than any other group of human beings?

What would restrict Him from doing so? Seems you can't get past the fact that if a being is not bound by time or space, that doesn't impede Him from restricting His interaction when it's His perogative.

The fact remains that atheism has arisen spontaneously in many societies around the world.

And the fact remains theistic/supernatural belief has been in many societies around the world. And you willfully ignore the fact that under your standard this would make them more credible than atheism as atheism depended on their being first, and thus the origin can not so easily be attributed to simple human "reaction".

It is not really a doctrine of beliefs, but rather the rejection of a doctrine of beliefs.

False. It has no unifying doctrine, but it is indeed a doctrine. The fact that it has no central basis just makes it easier for atheist's to make it's definition more ambiguous.

Skepticism is quite natural and quite ubiquitous in human society.  Your counterclaim here rests on the flawed assumption that it is a specific set of doctrines.  Your religion is a specific set of doctrines, and it does have only a single point of origin.  It has not emerged spontaneously in any other place or time.

"Based on" is not quite the same as "is", is it?

And it occurs to me you are simply talking threw the other side of your mouth given your past plagarism objections. You criticize for it's lack of being unique to other places and beliefs, now turn around and criticize for it's uniqueness to a specific area. Utter hypocrisy.

OK, I'll be very happy to apply the same level of skepticism to Christianity, although I would have expected you to make a different request.    This is pure psychological projection on your part.  If you applied "standard types of reasoning" to Christianity, I do not think that you would be defending it as vigorously as you do.  For example, standard reasoning is that the burden of proof lie with the person who makes a positive assertion, not the one who doubts it.

Given your past objections to the evidence that, at bare minimum, shows Jesus Christ actually existed, I'd have to disagree that you do indeed approach this issue with the "skepticism" so much as "cynicism". Of course now you are indeed taking the route of those who say "I don't believe God doesn't exist, I disbelieve His existence." I thought you objected to that kind of tact to avoid the burden of proof. Or do you only object when it doesn't suit you?

Why is it that evangelicals are so obsessed with homo-erotic images?  Oh, well, I guess we'll have to leave that one to the therapists. 

We think it'll appeal to you heathens, as steeped in sin as you are. 

But, of course, you once again pretend that you didn't get the point.  My argument has consistently been that the shoe wasn't on the other foot, because your analogy failed pretty badly.  And I've reiterated the argument again in this post.

We know. That you challenge us to treat everything equally, then turn around and make an arguement that atheism is not to be treated equally, is a fact that only seems to be lost to you Cop. Unsuprisingly at that.

Actually, I have gone beyond tolerating the notion of talking about it.  I have talked at length about it many times in this forum.  What you mean is that I cannot abide teaching children that ID is a reasonable scientific theory.  That is true.

So you rebut the claim by confirming it? That's a new one.

And I don't think that fanatics of any stripe are idiots.  I agree with Michael Shermer that smart people believe bad ideas because they are better than others at defending them.  And I have never claimed you were stupid, sntjohnny.  Indeed, you are very, very smart, and far more accomplished than I at defending bad ideas. 

It's the fact that they can be defended that would seem to indicate them as good ideas. If you can't...well don't feel bad. Shermer seemed to have missed the implication as well.