How many times to I have to say it? To be an atheist requires only that you don't believe any any god. You can believe in a soul, afterlife, etc. without also believing in a god. Hence, belief in a soul, afterlife, etc. is perfectly compatible with atheism.

You can change the definition of atheism to preclude that, just don't expect that anyone will accept it.

You're right. I can't find anyone who both espouses your definition of atheism and argues that the belief in a soul is compatible with it.

Why? For the same reason that I can't find a geologist who argues against the idea the center of the earth is made of pudding.

Atheism to you may include a whole bunch of other nonsense criteria, but here in reality all that is required is a belief that no gods exist.

Again, this is about YOUR argument and how ridiculous it is:

Again, you can be an atheist and believe in both a soul and reincarnation. Why? Because neither of those believes also require the believer to believe in any god.

Those things would ONLY be incompatible with atheism if either one required a belief in god. They, very obviously, do not. Therefore, both beliefs are compatible with atheism.

I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself here. What are you having trouble understanding?

As I've already stated: A god concept is unnecessary to explain a final judgement or a soul, hence, both are compatible with atheism.

There's no contradiction. You don't need a god concept for a judgement or an afterlife.

I'm going to guess that by "study" you mean "smoking pot" and not "reading books". Start with Whitehead and work your way forward.

Why do you believe that a god is required for a soul to be judged? Many people believe that such a judgement is done by themselves (as I stated earlier). If you don't like that, how about a judgement by a soul's peers? How about judgement by a lesser entity, like how a people might judge their king. Judgement, very obviously, does not require a deity.

Equally, why do you think that a soul only has purpose if a god exists? That seems like it would be a complicated argument to make, and I doubt that any such argument would be convincing.

Again, your argument was that "Hinduism" (by your definition) is incompatible with atheism:

None of those beliefs also require a belief in a god. Hence, they do not make "Hinduism" incompatible with atheism. Your argument is terrible.

No, it's right there in the summary: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."

You're confusing things. To be an atheist means that you don't believe in a god. How you justify that belief is irrelevant to your status as an atheist. An atheist need not justify their atheism with any argument, let alone whatever specific argument to which you want all atheists to agree.

Hence my reply to your original post where I contend that you can be an atheist and still believe in all of those things you list, as well as a multitude of similar things. My point was that your argument that "Hinduism" is incomparable with atheism is incoherent.

I'm going to stop you there. Your contention was that a " supernatural being" was necessary to attach a soul to a vessel and thus an atheist cannot believe in reincarnation. My point was that you need not posit a god as such an entity is not necessarily essential. Why shouldn't a soul be able to step in to a vessel as easily as I step in to my car? You seem to have VERY strong beliefs about things that you don't believe even exist. I find that puzzling.

Sorry, I assumed you were using the definition everyone else uses. In the future, it would help if you gave your own definition for terms if you've redefined them to suit your personal tastes.

Some people believe that they judge themselves during a life review.

I don't need a mechanic to get in my car, or a tailor to get dressed in the morning. Why should a supernatural being be necessary for a disembodied soul to possess a vessel?

Okay...

Why do think that a belief in a soul, judgement, etc. require a belief in a god?

Also, what makes you think that I'm making a statement about my beliefs?

Atheists don't believe any gods exist. You can be an atheist and believe in reincarnation, an afterlife, souls, and a host of other things.

No true scientist?

You've got that backward.

That's not what those words mean!

You sound like the guy who wrote FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition

Go ahead and say whatever you need to believe to maintain your ego. You're only deluding yourself.

Here in reality, it's nothing special.

Well, it doesn't appear to have improved...

Randi's trick is convincing you that that's what he does.

How he gets away with his nonsense when all his followers are (admittedly, self-described) skeptics is beyond me.

Speaking of ... why isn't he in jail? Why hasn't Pena been deported?

Yahweh, of course.

"Lol, watch this! I'm gonna put this bitchin' fruit out there, and then tell those jerks who don't even know right from wrong to not eat it. When they do, I'll totally fuck over their entire race from now until the end of time and blame them for it!"
-- Genesis 3:2, Standard Slashdot Translation