Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Big Les]

No, we don't. Assumptions in religious cases in particular will definitely lead to confusion and misunderstanding.

It seems to me you're the one making the assumption. Can you show that Deists don't claim the existence of their "god"?

Think about two Muslims. If one rams a plane into a building because of his religion, are you going to assume that the other believes the same way?

No. But I will assume that both believe that their god exists.

Not in the case of Deism, which we are discussing.

As you've settled upon Deism, and leaving aside the issue of whether or not other sceptical religious people are indeed Deists, let's see whether the Deists themselves agree with you;

Their chosen dictionary definition;

One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being

Or how about their own take?

Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason.

A bit more woolly, granted, and includes the lack of overt claims issue as follows...

...coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.

BUT. "Universal creative force"? "...designs in nature"? "personal observation"? Sounds like a claim for the existence of god to me. Quotes are from http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm by the way.

How does that leave us with something to deal with?

This is why your chosen methodology of line-by-line tit-for-tat question/statements, which you inflict on your opponents, is inadequate for meaningful debate. I simply don't understand your latest sentence.

Not undetectable elves. Just elves. You think that elves are just fairies dressed in green. Precisely the way you think that all god believers must believe their god exists.

I don't think elves and fairies are technically identical, nor do I think the same of the Christian god and the Deist god. But they are qualitatively very similar in the ways that matter to the question of belief in any of these things being rational or sceptical.

The mere fact that you have to resort to drawing parallels between the sceptic-compatible "god" and imaginary friends, elves and fairies highlights just how unsceptical god belief actually is. Well done on that one.

Will you tell the elf-believer that he really believes in fairies?

You will have to, if you want to be consistent. If you don't tell him, you treat the beliefs differently.

False dichotomy-a-go-go. I can recognise that he believes in a slightly different version of something, and the interesting implications that has for the history of folklore, whilst simultaneously recognising that belief in elves, fairies, imaginary friends, or god, are all equally irrational. The believer refrains from any "revealed" phenomena associated with them in order to remain otherwise compatible with the scientific method and scepticism - this just makes them better marketers than Christians and the others. The only possible benefit to holding what is on the face of it a pointless belief in an impotent and inconsequential god, is to keep a few people a little more happy and distracted than they might otherwise be. If that makes the world a happier place and doesn't affect anyone else in the way that revealed religion does, then I'm fine with it. But being fine with it or not wasn't the point of this thread, it was to establish whether or not one can be sceptical regarding belief in god.

But they don't try to exempt a belief from the process. The belief is outside the process by definition.

Not according to the dictionary definition, nor at least some Deists themselves. So who does hold to this definition? You? Anyone else?

 

[qayak]

In which case, everything we write about, "exists". I think that's taking it a bit too far...

Well, it would be taking it too far but that isn't what I said. In fact, it is just the opposite. Just because we write about or speak about something doesn't mean that something exists BUT it does mean that the IDEA of that something exists.

You are mistaking the idea for the object.

 

[Belz...]

Absolutely, yes.

"Are too!"

How does that follow?

How does what follow ? I asked you a question. Can you claim that people don't believe the things they believe in really exist ?

You can't force a claim on evidence on someone who doesn't claim evidence, just because you see it as a claim.

Claiming that something exists is not the same as claiming evidence, but in both cases it's claiming that something exists. If no evidence exists, then it is faith-based, and therefore unskeptical.

 

[Belz...]

A philosophical idea exists?

Of course it does. Just like a belief exists, but it might not represent something real.

That's you.

Really ? Then by all means, give us an example of someone who believes in something he knows doesn't exist.

 

[Lonewulf]

Jeez.

This has been nothing more than 34 pages of mindless repetitive head-meets-brick-wall-of-sky-daddy-believers.

What a waste of time.

 

[CFLarsen]

It seems to me you're the one making the assumption. Can you show that Deists don't claim the existence of their "god"?

Certainly:

Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe.
Source

No.

Why not? Because you have to ask them what their religion tells them - right?

As you've settled upon Deism, and leaving aside the issue of whether or not other sceptical religious people are indeed Deists, let's see whether the Deists themselves agree with you;

Their chosen dictionary definition;

Yes, let's take a look at Webster:

a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

Or how about their own take?


A bit more woolly, granted, and includes the lack of overt claims issue as follows...


BUT. "Universal creative force"? "...designs in nature"? "personal observation"? Sounds like a claim for the existence of god to me.

How will they prove that existence to you? Where's the evidence?

Quotes are from http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm by the way.

What does it matter what some say? How do you know they are Deists?

Would you call this site descriptive of what skepticism is?

This is why your chosen methodology of line-by-line tit-for-tat question/statements, which you inflict on your opponents, is inadequate for meaningful debate. I simply don't understand your latest sentence.

You do the exact same thing.

What is the evidence we are supposed to investigate?

I don't think elves and fairies are technically identical, nor do I think the same of the Christian god and the Deist god. But they are qualitatively very similar in the ways that matter to the question of belief in any of these things being rational or sceptical.

The mere fact that you have to resort to drawing parallels between the sceptic-compatible "god" and imaginary friends, elves and fairies highlights just how unsceptical god belief actually is. Well done on that one.

I said "Let's say". It's a hypothetical. If you thought elves and fairies were identical, save for the color of their attire.

False dichotomy-a-go-go. I can recognise that he believes in a slightly different version of something, and the interesting implications that has for the history of folklore, whilst simultaneously recognising that belief in elves, fairies, imaginary friends, or god, are all equally irrational. The believer refrains from any "revealed" phenomena associated with them in order to remain otherwise compatible with the scientific method and scepticism - this just makes them better marketers than Christians and the others. The only possible benefit to holding what is on the face of it a pointless belief in an impotent and inconsequential god, is to keep a few people a little more happy and distracted than they might otherwise be. If that makes the world a happier place and doesn't affect anyone else in the way that revealed religion does, then I'm fine with it. But being fine with it or not wasn't the point of this thread, it was to establish whether or not one can be sceptical regarding belief in god.

If you don't like this example, what about others? Can you think of two paranormal/supernatural phenomena/beliefs that are really the same?

Not according to the dictionary definition, nor at least some Deists themselves. So who does hold to this definition? You? Anyone else?

You better check the dictionary definition.

Well, it would be taking it too far but that isn't what I said. In fact, it is just the opposite. Just because we write about or speak about something doesn't mean that something exists BUT it does mean that the IDEA of that something exists.

You are mistaking the idea for the object.

Not me: That's precisely what skeptigirl, articulett, BigLes and others are doing.

"Are too!"

That was never five minutes!

How does what follow ? I asked you a question. Can you claim that people don't believe the things they believe in really exist ?

Anyone can claim anything. How do we determine if people don't believe the things they believe in really exist? We have to go with what they say themselves.

Claiming that something exists is not the same as claiming evidence

Come again?

Something can exist without evidence? As in tangible things?

Of course it does. Just like a belief exists, but it might not represent something real.

Precisely. Now, swap "philosophical idea" with "deist belief", and you're there.

Really ? Then by all means, give us an example of someone who believes in something he knows doesn't exist.

We can never know if people really believes. Does Sylvia Browne believe she can talk to dead people? Does the misguided cold reader in the Psychic Shoppe down the corner?

 

[Belz...]

Anyone can claim anything. How do we determine if people don't believe the things they believe in really exist? We have to go with what they say themselves.

Precisely. If they say they believe in something, then clearly they believe that thing exists. Anything else is nonsensical. Unless you can provide an example, that is.

Something can exist without evidence? As in tangible things?

No, that's exactly what I'm saying. Things that exist leave evidence, unless they exist in other universes, in which case no one can know that they exist, anyway.

Precisely. Now, swap "philosophical idea" with "deist belief", and you're there.

Er... "deist beliefs" exist. The thing they represent isn't real. What are you arguing, exactly ?

We can never know if people really believes. Does Sylvia Browne believe she can talk to dead people? Does the misguided cold reader in the Psychic Shoppe down the corner?

Who cares ? If they don't believe, then they don't believe. Either way, of course, they are making claims that can be tested.

 

[schlitt]

CFLarsen, I think we have reached a stage where we may be able to finally resolve our discussion.

You seem to be under the impression that i am stating "A skeptic should not believe in god" or that i am claiming the lack of any evidence is proof of non existance.

That is not what i am claiming.

I am coming from the standpoint of "It is possible for a god to exist, there is a probability that ranges from 0 to 100, knowing the correct probability is difficult".

The type of belief you describe, is void of skepticism, since skeptical scientific methodology cannot be applied. However, it does not mean the person as a whole is not a skeptic if they hold a belief such as your example. It simply means they have not applied skepticism to their god belief (it would be impossible to).

We done?

 

[Bri]

schlitt,

Would you also say that the belief that no gods exist is void of skepticism, since skeptical scientific methodology cannot be applied?

-Bri

 

[schlitt]

schlitt,

Would you also say that the belief that no gods exist is void of skepticism, since skeptical scientific methodology cannot be applied?

-Bri

No, only in the case where skepticism cannot possibly applied, like in CFLarsen's example.

For a god that is evidential, e.g christianity, islam etc the fact that he is claimed to exist, yet there is no evidence is reason enough to state through skepticism there is no reason to believe.

Skepticism requires evidence, simple.

 

[Bri]

Wouldn't the claim that no gods exist also include non-evidential gods? It would seem un-skeptical to claim that no gods exist unless you have evidence that all gods don't exist.

-Bri

 

[danielk]

I am coming from the standpoint of "It is possible for a god to exist, there is a probability that ranges from 0 to 100, knowing the correct probability is difficult".

The type of belief you describe, is void of skepticism, since skeptical scientific methodology cannot be applied. However, it does not mean the person as a whole is not a skeptic if they hold a belief such as your example. It simply means they have not applied skepticism to their god belief (it would be impossible to).

We done?

Obviously I don't speak for CFLarsen, but as far as I am concerned, we're done. Well put.

 

[schlitt]

Wouldn't the claim that no gods exist also include non-evidential gods? It would seem un-skeptical to claim that no gods exist unless you have evidence that all gods don't exist.

-Bri

Look at is this way;
"I have no reason to believe any gods exist, because there is no evidence".

 

[CFLarsen]

Precisely. If they say they believe in something, then clearly they believe that thing exists. Anything else is nonsensical.

It may be nonsensical to you. It isn't to them.

Unless you can provide an example, that is.

I already did: The imaginary friend.

No, that's exactly what I'm saying. Things that exist leave evidence, unless they exist in other universes, in which case no one can know that they exist, anyway.

See my last question.

Er... "deist beliefs" exist. The thing they represent isn't real. What are you arguing, exactly ?

So do philosophical ideas. If you can grant believers in philosophy (of which some find immense comfort in!) their beliefs, why not believers in a non-evidential god?

Who cares ? If they don't believe, then they don't believe. Either way, of course, they are making claims that can be tested.

How can you test the Deist god?

 

[Big Les]

Why not? Because you have to ask them what their religion tells them - right?

Keep the red herring, I'm full.

Yes, let's take a look at Webster:

"Denying the interference of the creator". Not the creator itself. Which implies that they believe in the creator, i.e. god. If they believe in the creator, they are claiming it exists. If a definition does not spell out that Deists believe that their god exists, I tend to assume that's because it's TAKEN AS READ.

How will they prove that existence to you? Where's the evidence?

They won't be able to. That's rather the point.

What does it matter what some say? How do you know they are Deists? Would you call this site descriptive of what skepticism is?

For the love of monkeys, Larsen, the site I linked to is ww bleedin' w.DEISM.com. The website of the World Union of Deists, and the oldest website pertaining to the religion (1996). If you're looking for a rule of thumb on what Deists believe, it's going to appear there! Clearly anyone can call their site "Deist", just like ghosthunters can appropriate the word "sceptical" for theirs. But you have to assess the quality of the source, and from where I'm standing, Deism.com is a good one, and you are in denial. I could just as easily respond to you in kind - "what does it matter what some Deists that happen to leave out specific reference to their god, say"? Not very productive, though, is it?

You do the exact same thing.

Because, like the other responders, I'm forced into it by your own style. Especially because every time I resort to prose, it allows you to tease out more non-sequiturs to chase down. It drives me absolutely batty, because I have serious trouble following multiple threads of inquiry (for that's what they are) all at once, and am forced to refer back and forth between my original post, your reply, and the actual reply form.

What is the evidence we are supposed to investigate?

There. Isn't. Any. Evidence. But there is a claim. Bingo! The null hypothesis of non-belief should apply. The sceptical conclusion is "no god", which happens to coincide with the (strong) atheist conclusion, though the former is notionally more open to evidence than the latter. If strong atheism is in its own way unsceptical because it decides that there cannot be a god, then it is at the very least AS unsceptical as the person who chooses to believe. As the latter is done in the absence of evidence, I would say more so.

I said "Let's say". It's a hypothetical. If you thought elves and fairies were identical, save for the color of their attire.

And I played along regardless. Where's my prize for taking part?

If you don't like this example, what about others? Can you think of two paranormal/supernatural phenomena/beliefs that are really the same?

I can think of any number that are qualitatively the same, but it entirely depends upon the level of detail you're talking about. At the highest level, Vampires are quite distinct from succubi, and both are distinct from god. At the lowest, all of these beliefs are the same in that they have no evidence and are either the result of misinterpretations of sensory inputs, or a total fabrication of imagination. Just like god. Seriously, where are you going with this?

You better check the dictionary definition.

I did, and I checked yours too. As well as the definition put forth by the World Deist Union which specifies the existence of their god. Let's try the Oxford English Dictionary - pretty definitive, I think you'll agree (actually, I think you'll come up with some specular bit of semantic gymnastics, but here goes anyway):

deism

/deeiz’m, day-/

• noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Compare with THEISM.

 

[CFLarsen]

Keep the red herring, I'm full.

Not a red herring at all. You would have to ask them.

"Denying the interference of the creator". Not the creator itself. Which implies that they believe in the creator, i.e. god. If they believe in the creator, they are claiming it exists. If a definition does not spell out that Deists believe that their god exists, I tend to assume that's because it's TAKEN AS READ.

You can't do that. Look at how theism is described:

belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

They won't be able to. That's rather the point.

See later.

For the love of monkeys, Larsen, the site I linked to is ww bleedin' w.DEISM.com. The website of the World Union of Deists, and the oldest website pertaining to the religion (1996). If you're looking for a rule of thumb on what Deists believe, it's going to appear there! Clearly anyone can call their site "Deist", just like ghosthunters can appropriate the word "sceptical" for theirs. But you have to assess the quality of the source, and from where I'm standing, Deism.com is a good one, and you are in denial. I could just as easily respond to you in kind - "what does it matter what some Deists that happen to leave out specific reference to their god, say"? Not very productive, though, is it?

Would you call the site I linked to descriptive of what skepticism is? Just read the page I linked to, it's a quick read.

Because, like the other responders, I'm forced into it by your own style. Especially because every time I resort to prose, it allows you to tease out more non-sequiturs to chase down. It drives me absolutely batty, because I have serious trouble following multiple threads of inquiry (for that's what they are) all at once, and am forced to refer back and forth between my original post, your reply, and the actual reply form.

I am not forcing you to respond in any style. You are free to argue your own case as you see fit.

There. Isn't. Any. Evidence. But there is a claim. Bingo! The null hypothesis of non-belief should apply. The sceptical conclusion is "no god", which happens to coincide with the (strong) atheist conclusion, though the former is notionally more open to evidence than the latter. If strong atheism is in its own way unsceptical because it decides that there cannot be a god, then it is at the very least AS unsceptical as the person who chooses to believe. As the latter is done in the absence of evidence, I would say more so.

You miss the point: It is not if the evidence really exists, but what evidence they claim to exist.

What is that? What do they claim that we can test?

I can think of any number that are qualitatively the same, but it entirely depends upon the level of detail you're talking about. At the highest level, Vampires are quite distinct from succubi, and both are distinct from god. At the lowest, all of these beliefs are the same in that they have no evidence and are either the result of misinterpretations of sensory inputs, or a total fabrication of imagination. Just like god. Seriously, where are you going with this?

I want to see if you treat different claims as one.

Can you not think of any two specific supernatural/paranormal beliefs which you think are the same?

I did, and I checked yours too. As well as the definition put forth by the World Deist Union which specifies the existence of their god. Let's try the Oxford English Dictionary - pretty definitive, I think you'll agree (actually, I think you'll come up with some specular bit of semantic gymnastics, but here goes anyway):

What evidence do they claim?

 

[Mobyseven]

Yet, you have no problems with someone calling himself a Bergsonian, or any of the other philosophical schools of thought. Why can't you extend the same to those who say they believe in a non-evidential god - which could be an imaginary friend?

If the person is claiming that god is their 'friend', who we know is imaginary but they don't, then they are claiming that their 'friend' exists.

If they are claiming that god is their 'imaginary friend', then they are making a claim that god is imaginary - and they are therefore not theists.

When someone identifys with a school of philosophical thought, they are not making an existential claim about an object. When one proclaims a belief in god, they are making an existential claim about the universe.

But that's what you are doing! You are treating their belief in a non-evidential god as if they had claimed it was evidential.

If there is no evidence for god, then god is no different from any other woo belief - regardless of whether or not the believer admits to the absence of evidence. You wouldn't accept that same argument from anyone else - can you imagine the following scenario occuring in real life?

The Rockupuncherist's Clinic...​

Rockupuncherist: Right, your AIDS is caused by a misalignment of you right-autrial jingo. You need to punch this rock, as hard as you can, and then you'll get better.

Patient: I don't know. What evidence is there for this?

Rockupuncherist: There is no evidence. This is a non-evidential claim.

Patient: Oh, well that's okay then. Perfectly rational. [Breaks knuckles]

Fin​

Extend the same to Deists as you do with the Monkees' fan and the philosopher, and you're there.

Monkees' Fan: Subjective opinion.
Deist: Objective existential claim.

Your analogy is bunk. Give it up.

I am referring to your argument that the question of evidence is pointless. It isn't - the question of evidence is pivotal.

You know what? You really are no more than a troll - I specifically pointed out to you that my argument is the opposite of what you claim it is, and you just repeat yourself.

I wouldn't, because evidence is claimed in homeopathy.

Claimed - but the evidence claimed is bunk. Actual evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy is non-existent: Which puts it on equal footing with your non-evidential god.

You seem to be saying that a belief is rational if the believer realises that their belief is irrational (that there is no evidence for the belief). There's a word for that: Dumb.

You call the question of evidence pointless.

Your specific question of evidence, yes. Not evidence in general. Your 'question of evidence' was essentially that a belief was rational as long as the person knows that there is no evidence supporting their belief. That's what my judge analogy was for - to point out how incredibly stupid that claim is. Stop equivocating my demolition of your argument with an argument against evidence in general.

It is supposedly a heavy creature, the size of a small bear, with a row of spines reaching from the neck to the base of the tail.

What is supernatural/paranormal about that?

The fact that we have no evidence, whatsoever, for the existence of the Chupacabra.

I am comparing Chupacabra with a blood-sucking bat, because both suck blood and are elusive creatures. But none are supernatural/paranormal.

The Chupacabra is a little bit more than 'elusive' - it's non-existant. Bats may be elusive, but they are well known to exist - they have been observed and documented, we know much about their biology and behaviour. The Chupacabra is supernatural because it is not a real animal.

Oh? Ever heard of Dracula and his ever-present bloodsucking bats?

I'm trying to figure out whether you are suggesting that Dracula is not a supernatural belief, or if you're suggesting that vampire bats are supernatural.

Either way, you're wrong. Nice try though.

Chupacapra is a cryptozoological phenomenon. Not a supernatural/paranormal one.

Cryptozoology is a subset of supernatural beliefs, specifically relating to belief in imaginary, legendary and mythical animals.

Back to ignore for you. Should never have taken you off in the first place - you're just an annoying little man who immediately contradicts whatever anyone says for your own trolling pleasure.

 

[Mobyseven]

Anyway I think you might find some people are still arguing a believer cannot be a skeptic. i for one find it difficult to resolve.

Really? Who? Honest question, by the way - I pointed out a long time ago the a believer can still be a skeptic, provided we allow skeptics to have a blind spot. I would argue that having a blind spot is a feature of being human, and that provided that skepticism is applied consistently in all other areas, a blind spot is not too big a deal. I'm reasonably sure that Skeptigirl and articulett agree with that (though they'll correct me if I'm wrong).

Also, the topic has moved on from whether skeptics should by definition be atheists - I pointed out a while ago that for someone to be a skeptic they simply need to engage in skepticism. There is no other precondition. I'm reasonably sure, again, that this is a view shared by others.

The question has now moved on to whether a skeptic should be an atheist - not by definition, but through application of skepticism. That is the question to which I believe the answer is yes.

 

[Big Les]

Not a red herring at all. You would have to ask them.

No more so than you would have to. We aren't dealing in the specifics of belief or the permutations that can spring from it. We're talking about belief in a higher creator being. You're trying to say that there are multiple definitions of belief, and that "Deists" choose the one that does not equate to believing in the existance" of a creator god.

You can't do that. Look at how theism is described:

Your example simply neglects to mention that they believe their believed god actually exists. Mine do not. Any objective assessment of the evidence shows that my assertion is correct - to "believe in god" means to believe that god exists. To believe that god exists means that you claim such. If you claim existence, you are open to sceptical enquiry. The fact that the evidence is utterly lacking does not mean that a sceptic is not able to draw a conclusion. And that conclusion is that there is no evidence of a god, therefore the adoption of a belief in its existence is irrational and unsceptical.

Would you call the site I linked to descriptive of what skepticism is? Just read the page I linked to, it's a quick read.

I bloody well did. Did you read my response, or not? I said the fact that people can co-opt the term "scepticism" for their non-sceptical website does is no reflection whatever on the source I quoted, which is as representative of Deist beliefs as any one site is likely to get. You always cry "evidence" - try assessing the source I linked to for its reliability.

I am not forcing you to respond in any style. You are free to argue your own case as you see fit.

True, although if I cease responding to the bulk of your one-liner question/statements, I can be accused of ignoring your points, as you have done to other posters on this thread, who you then hound with cut'n'paste versions of the same series of non-sequiturs. It's nothing personal Claus, I just get frustrated with that style. I'm learning to manage that though.

You miss the point: It is not if the evidence really exists, but what evidence they claim to exist.

What is that? What do they claim that we can test?

They don't claim anything that we can test - there is no evidence for what they claim. Until any comes along, the sceptical position is to assume that the god they claim does not exist. If they were to apply scepticism to their belief as they do to the claims of others, they would come to the same conclusion. I simply don't accept that "non-evidential" gods should be afforded a position of belief.

I want to see if you treat different claims as one.

And I told you. In this context, I treat supernatural claims as one. In another. I would differentiate based on the specifics. This being Deism though, there are no specifics, just the watered-down notional belief in a creator god.

Can you not think of any two specific supernatural/paranormal beliefs which you think are the same?

No two are 100% identical, needless to say, but most can be grouped by the misinterpretation of natural phenomena that inspired them. Belief in a creator god originally was inspired as such, but once stripped of most of its claims, it becomes more like your imaginary friend analogy, or any one of the other supernatural claims if the proviso of intangibility is claimed.

Phenomena for which testable claims are made hide in the gaps created by the moving of the testing goalposts. The next step, when and if one has chosen to retreat to an intangible claim, is the god of the gaps. That is where the Deist god hides, and also where many other former tangible claimants choose to place their treasured but flimsy beliefs.

For example, many homoeopaths now claim that science cannot meaningfully test their treatments, that something else, currently intangible and untestable, is at play. This is no different to the claim of an intangible and untestable god, and sceptics should assume the same default position of non-belief for both, until and unless some evidence is made available.

What evidence do they claim?

Please stop asking this, ad infinitum. THEY DON'T CLAIM EVIDENCE. They claim existence. This does not exclude their claim from sceptical scrutiny - it just makes it easier and quicker to, for the time being, discount it.

 

[Mobyseven]

If you want to claim that there is a definition for "skeptical" that would objectively determine whether proposition P is skeptical, there are only a limited number of answers that your definition must clearly and objectively point to given a proposition P:

• both P and ~P are skeptical
• neither P or ~P are skeptical (i.e. it is skeptical only to have no opinion whatsoever)
• only P is skeptical
• only ~P is skeptical

If your definition cannot provide a clear answer then I will stand by my original point, which is that you cannot come up with a definition by which such assessments can be made objectively.

The problem is that you're trying to make a sweeping generalisation, without specifying important factors: For example, what is our state of knowledge about the proposition P? If we have all possible information and evidence in regards to P then we will have our answer - through skeptical analysis of the evidence we will arrive at either P or (exclusive or) ~P as the correct answer.

Unfortunately our knowledge about the world is almost never entirely complete. As such, our incomplete view of the 'big picture' will often mean that a skeptical argument can be framed for P and ~P. However, that is not the case where the argument is about the very existence of an object or phenomenon - in that case either there is evidence that P is true, or there is no evidence at all. If there is evidence that P is true, there is a fair degree of certainty that P is true (though never 100%). If there is no evidence, the default state of belief is in the non-existence of an object - I have previously covered why this is the case in a number of posts.

Again, I will use the evolution analogy: We are as certain as it is possible to be that evolution is a real phenomenon. There are still, however, questions as to exactly how evolution occurs - arguments can be made for both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, for example.

So, once again I will point out that there is indeed a system by which such assessments can be made objectively, and that your criticisms are baseless.