Anybody who says that God does not exist.
I think that you are confusing atheism with skepticism.
We have a couple of brilliant skeptics who are Christians. They are usually the first to criticize creationists or faith healers whenever they rear their ugly heads. Randi is an atheist, but he was adamant that the JREF was a skeptics organization, not an atheist one.
But I agree if what you are saying is that rookies may confuse atheism with skepticism.
you can usually spot the most recent convert to anything because they will be the most zealous.
If you're saying that zeal isn't skepticism but may be confused with skepticism, I agree. (So what does a zealous rookie think skepticism is?)
What are some of the habits of a rookie skeptic?
Does he call out every logical fallacy he sees?
No, mostly only when it's relevant to do so. And he (or she) also doesn't call out every spelling mistake ... I think you can be a skeptic without calling
anything out at all - but not a
practicing one, of course.
Is he reflexively anti-government and does he frequently spit uncompelling truisms about government corruption?
If it's a reflex, it's anything but skeptical, be it anti- or pro-government. But I don't know if a rookie would be aware of that.
Does he think nobody can say for sure if a falling tree in some remote island makes a sound?
They
know that falling trees make sound waves (unless they are falling in a vaccuum, which would be weird since trees wouldn't be able to grow in one). They are able to distinguish between these audible waves and human perception of them:
In physics, sound is a vibration that typically propagates as an audible wave of pressure, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid.
In human physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain.
Sound (Wikipedia)
- But does a tree make a sound if nobody is around to hear it?
- Yes, of course it bloody does!
- But nobody hears it?
- Hears what? Do you notice what's implied with your "it"?
(I think that there are major differences between rookie philosophers, rookie one-hand-clapping Buddhists and rookie skeptics)
I would say that (maybe not yet a rookie skeptic but) a
pre-skeptic usually doesn't accept answers unless they make some kind of sense. I remember asking my mother why we don't fly off into space, what makes us stick to the surface of the Earth. Her answer,
"Because the Earth spins so fast," was contradicted my experience with carousels. But I knew better than to openly question her nonsensical answer and later got a satisfactory answer from a physics teacher.
One essential thing makes skepticism different - and difficult, probably: The willing suspension of disbelief that is required in many other groups, i.e. trying to find out what are the right things to say or do in order to
belong, learning the phrases that go with the territory. In a Marxist group I once belonged to, we called it
Stalinism, the willingness to
adapt, even when it had nothing to do with the stuff Stalin had said: It was a way of describing an
attitude that you can find in political organizations of all persuasions. Unfortunately children often learn it in school: to comply with rules and regulations and teachers who
grade you! 'What do I have to do in order to please the teacher and get higher grades?'
That is probably an obstacle that rookies, some more than others, have to learn to overcome - or maybe even learn to enjoy overcoming!
- only joking.
