Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Also, religion seems to get some kind of special pass when it comes to evaluating its supernatural claims. (from some people)

Can we stop with this BS straw man? I don't see any of the atheists here who suggest we should be more accepting religious skeptics saying they should get "some kind of special pass".

That's just a BS straw man by those who would equate skepticism with strong atheism.

 

[-Fran-]

I know but sometimes something sounds different. In this case there was that idea of not having evidence for every belief. It has been discussed but I can see where the thought process was going there.

Yeah, and I guess since people keep asking and making the same sort of objections, it's nice that others have the patience to keep answering and explaining Sometimes you wish people would just read the whole thread though, but it really isn't easy when it is this long and you're dying to say something. I guess I've been quilty of that too a few times.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

How that person can call themselves a real skeptic is just surprising to me.
Can be skeptical when reviewing claims of psychics, but wait a minute,
don't dare to be skeptical against religion.

There it is again... the BS straw man.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I find it fascinating that so many people think they have the authority to decide who is and isn't a Skeptic (tm, apparently).

Speaking as unofficial representative for the skeptics who dare to harbor a belief in God, I will only say that we neither seek nor require your approval. You will still see us at TAM, you will still us working to promote the JREF and its goals--to say nothing of the Skeptics Society, CSI, NCSE, and the countless other organizations (foreign and domestic) that promote science, reason, and critical thinking.

What I find interesting is the join dates of most of the people demanding atheist orthodoxy. At lot seem to be post TAM 3 or 4. I wonder, given some of the conversations us long time members/attendees have had about some of the things said at those TAMs, if the image has developed that JREF is an atheist organization and part of our mission statement is to tell any religious believer they're a woo.

I've met you several times Cleon and I, for one, know that you are no woo.

Sincirely,
US the apologist

 

[-Fran-]

What I find interesting is the join dates of most of the people demanding atheist orthodoxy. At lot seem to be post TAM 3 or 4.

That sounds a bit as my little village here where I was born and raised and now have moved back to. If your family hasn't lived here since like 1352, you haven't much say in things around here

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can we stop with this BS straw man? I don't see any of the atheists here who suggest we should be more accepting religious skeptics saying they should get "some kind of special pass".

That's just a BS straw man by those who would equate skepticism with strong atheism.

Actually US, that is the issue. Certain religious beliefs are given a pass by many skeptics. Maybe one of us is misinterpreting DrZ?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There it is again... the BS straw man.

Sinner, I really don't get your reply here. Who do you think DrZ is talking about?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What I find interesting is the join dates of most of the people demanding atheist orthodoxy. At lot seem to be post TAM 3 or 4. I wonder, given some of the conversations us long time members/attendees have had about some of the things said at those TAMs, if the image has developed that JREF is an atheist organization and part of our mission statement is to tell any religious believer they're a woo.

I've met you several times Cleon and I, for one, know that you are no woo.

Sincirely,
US the apologist

See my reply to Cleon.

No one is attacking skeptics with religious beliefs. We are, however, noting the inconsistency in calling many other people's religious beliefs woo while ignoring one's own.

 

[Lonewulf]

There's a sky daddy in the sky that created everything, sometimes appears to random people called "prophets", and sometimes enacts miracles.

But to be skeptical of such claims isn't skepticism. And to say that people should be skeptical... OH NO YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR!

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I there are some of you who aren't familiar with Dr. Laura Schlesinger's divorce from The Skeptics Society, here's some Google results that might make for some interesting reading in what could be considered a bizarro version of this imbruglio.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=laura+schlesinger+skeptics+society

 

[CFLarsen]

Thank you, Claus, I knew I could trust you

Don't trust me. Go with the evidence.

I know much better now what you are getting at, I really do. You are talking about believing in things as a concept, and not as actual existing entities. Because Harry Potter does indeed exist as such a concept, even though he do not exist as an actual being. I even understand your weird love analogy better now, even though I still think it is not quite all there.

Precisely: Belief in a concept. The concept of a god who watches over you, or even just listens to you when you unload.

Call it god, call it your imaginary friend, call it your teddy bear, call it your imaginary bartender.

Now, can you honestly say though, that you really think that the skeptic theists believe in a god in the same way that I believe in Harry Potter? I really don't think that they do - and if they don't then this does not really matter for this whole thread at all.

But if you can prove that they actually do believe in god in exactly the same way as we all believe in Harry Potter (as an exisiting character in an existing book, but not a real being) then, yes, I will accept that and admit that there is no inconsistency. Because in that case, I do also believe in ALL mythic characters that I have ever heard of, because, yes, I do realize that they exist as human made-up concepts.

Nobody can ever really prove that someone really believes X. Sylvia Browne could actually believe her own crap. We can only go with what she says and does, and see if we can make heads and tails of it.

That still does not explain why they have chosen only god to believe in, in a Harry-Potterish-way, since the same goes for ALL made-up characters in the whole history of mankind. They don't go around proudly saying "I believe in Pippi Longstocking AND I'm a skeptic. You wanna make something of it?"

Maybe because the "god" concept is so culturally pervasive that they simply find "god" a suitable label?

I dispute that love is not evidential. Below, you admit that it is. Thus, a red herring.

I don't "admit" it, because I haven't argued otherwise.

Is all love evidential?

What? What else could to "believe in god" possibly mean??? This is the most bizarre bit of semantics I think I've ever seen.

Not at all. If you don't like the analogy of Harry Potter, then what about those who list their belief as "Jedi Knight"?

Because if it exists, it must be possible to test for it.

That doesn't answer the question, that just repeats the assumption.

Good. Thank you. Love is evidential. QED.

Some love is evidential. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that all crows are black.

There aren't many things that are. My point was that there is evidence for it, there is none (as yet) for god, so there is reason to believe in love beyond mere comfort.

There is evidence for some of it, yes.

But we've established that it is. At any rate, more so than "god".

You don't think there is any love that isn't detectable?

Yes. What's your point?

My point is that they are in love with a concept. Just as you can be in love with the concept of..say, anarchism. You don't need to be a practicing anarchist to be one.

What else does "I believe in god" mean?!

See above.

They don't claim it, but claim to believe in it. The claim of existence is implicit in the claim of belief. Otherwise, to put it bluntly, they're talking bollocks.

You can't dictate what and how other people believe. You have to go with what they claim.

I can really sense a lot of resistance from you on this issue. You simply won't accept that other people see things differently than you. Why does your definition have to be the only correct one?

I think it's entirely reasonable, and I think your response in turn here is likewise.

If god = Harry Potter, then they don't really believe in god at all. They don't even delude themselves into belief. They pretend to believe, nothing more. As I "believe" I said a few pages back. Of course, this is only how Claus sees it, so YMMV. If he's right, I think the rest of us can be forgiven for thinking "I believe in god" means "I genuinely think god exists".

What is the difference between Harry Potter, Jedi Knights and Jesus? For all we know, Jesus could be a figment of some writer's imagination (helped by some pretty good marketing people).

Exactly! I mean, that is what I have been discussing all along in any case. I actually took their words for it, that they actually think god exists as a sentient being who is independant from humans' minds and the pages of the bible, as a premise for this whole thread.

You have to take their words for it - but how they mean it, not the way you do. That's where BigLes is going wrong.

But you are unique, Claus.

We all are.

And in this case after my experience with you going around in illogical circles in the apes using language thread, one has to be prepared to waste a lot of time on nonsense. Take this reply, for instance. It completely avoids or ignores every point I made and the answers are as if you didn't read a word I said. How can anyone carry on a discussion with you when you don't stick to the original points?

You don't control this debate. You don't decide what points we can bring up.

OK, stop right there. We are in agreement. Don't go back over this issue. Move forward.

Here is where we disagree and you are proving my point. You are putting god fantasies on a pedestal and pink unicorn fantasies in the junk pile. And you don't understand my point because if you did you wouldn't have said:

CFLarsen: You are falling into the same trap as those who once claimed that rocks couldn't fall from the sky. Your mind is closed to the possibility of gods and unicorns.

Scientists and skeptics who cannot let go of their own god beliefs, or who have taken to allowing others to hold on to their god beliefs have constructed this special category to exclude from science testing for gods. It is convenient to define gods in such a way as to put them in with things outside of the Universe and/or before the Big Bang when time as we know it began. Those are recognized as the things which science cannot test.

The problem with this concept as I see it, is the definition of a god which cannot be tested for using the scientific process is not the definition anyone really uses in their god beliefs. The gods in people's actual god beliefs always do something, otherwise, why believe in one or more of them? The gods in people's actual god beliefs are not the gods which scientists describe that cannot be tested for. And gods which do things can be tested for. I have yet to see that fact truly acknowledged in this controversy.

You have not been paying any attention to anything I have said. I have never put god fantasies on a pedestal, quite contrary. I have put them exactly where I put pink unicorn beliefs, but only if evidence is claimed.

There is no difference between believing in a non-evidential pink unicorn and a non-evidential god.

There is no difference between believing in an evidential pink unicorn and an evidential god.

Print the above two sentences out, and pin them to your wall.

 

[Big Les]

Precisely: Belief in a concept. The concept of a god who watches over you, or even just listens to you when you unload.

Call it god, call it your imaginary friend, call it your teddy bear, call it your imaginary bartender.

I really hope that you're accurately representing the theist sceptics here, because I find where you've taken this utterly nonsensical. This version of god would be one which, deep down, you know doesn't exist outside your own mind. Ergo, how can you believe it? This is in no way comparable with what I have always thought religious belief to be - genuine belief in a god that has external existence.

If all this is true, then fine, great, believe it if you like. Practically it won't affect anything else; your life as a sceptic, how you view claims about the real world, and even how the atheists see you. If anything, if they're aware of this, they won't even think of you as religious believers, because your belief is purely nominal.

Maybe because the "god" concept is so culturally pervasive that they simply find "god" a suitable label?

Then they articulate their feeling of something bigger than all of us as "god"? Fair enough. I still wonder why, when there are many aspects of the universe, nature etc that provide similar senses of identity and our place in the universe. I suppose the thing that's missing is the sense that the universe is somehow listening or caring about you - it isn't. When feeling particularly insignificant and pointless, I can understand why you'd want to believe in a god, but not how you could kid yourself into that belief. Wish I could

I don't "admit" it, because I haven't argued otherwise.

Not specifically, however you have been trying to equate god with love as both being products of the mind. That's fine, I accept that there is a strong imagined component to both of those. However, I still don't accept the direct analogy, because there is evidence for love and because it has direct relevance and advantage to many in the real world. It has real stimuli, and results in detectable "feelings".

Is all love evidential?

This is like some sort of bizarre reverse-cold-reading process. Are you going to bodyswerve away until your original argument starts to apply?

Not at all. If you don't like the analogy of Harry Potter, then what about those who list their belief as "Jedi Knight"?

They're joking, for goodness sake. It was a hoax. Sure, some of them might believe it, but they're deluded. It's a verifiably fictional religion dreamed up by a known individual. I am having a hard time believing that profoundly held religious belief is the same thing as imagining that Harry Potter exists or that one is part of an ancient, extragalactic, and 100% fictional monastic warrior order.

That doesn't answer the question, that just repeats the assumption.

Yes, it assumes, despite your argument to the contrary, that to believe in something means that you think it exists. When did "I believe in X" stop meaning "I believe X exists"????

Some love is evidential. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that all crows are black.

It only takes some love to be evidential to undermine your implied argument that "love" equates with "god". As soon as you have available evidence, the one becomes more real than the other.

You don't think there is any love that isn't detectable?

Never said that. Only that some of it is. See above.

My point is that they are in love with a concept. Just as you can be in love with the concept of..say, anarchism. You don't need to be a practicing anarchist to be one.

So they fancy themselves believers? Pretend to believe?

You can't dictate what and how other people believe. You have to go with what they claim.

I'm not dictating it - you are. The logical conclusion of what you say is that they play at believing, they dream up a god. If true, they can't possibly "believe in god" in the commonly accepted sense of assuming existence.

I can really sense a lot of resistance from you on this issue.

You must be bleedin' psychic.

You simply won't accept that other people see things differently than you. Why does your definition have to be the only correct one?

Of course I can accept it - I accept that some people think all sorts of things. I just don't agree with this one, and I can't help that. The fact that I actually care what they believe should be clear from the amount of time I've spent genuinely trying to understand. My definition doesn't have to be the only correct one, but to me, it's the correct one in the absence of any evidence (and if you are to be believed, any genuine belief). Give me evidence for god, I will re-assess my position.

What is the difference between Harry Potter, Jedi Knights and Jesus? For all we know, Jesus could be a figment of some writer's imagination (helped by some pretty good marketing people).

None at all as far as I'm concerned. The difference is in the nature of the belief in them. People that believe in Jesus and God do so because they are misinterpreting the evidence, but their belief is as a result often genuinely. I can see no way to genuinely hold a belief in a god you know and accept to be fictional.

You have to take their words for it - but how they mean it, not the way you do. That's where BigLes is going wrong.

So basically they can say what they like to justify their imagined fancy as somehow worthy of belief? You're right, they can. I was wrong in that I assumed "believe in" meant "believe exists". As I said, I think you can forgive me, and the others, this error, because as far as I can see, the two statements, in context, are the same.

 

[Belz...]

So how does a skeptic justify their woo belief without being hypocritical?

I'm not perfect and neither are you is an excuse, not a justification. You speak as if we are going to exclude skeptics who can't let go of god from the club. That is not the point. The point is, no matter how you slice it, god beliefs are woo. Not saying so ignores the elephant in the room.

Fine, then, Girl. There ARE no skeptics.

We still like you, Cleon. And I understand why you think I am just arbitrarily declaring myself queen of the rule book. But that isn't the case at all. And I don't think anyone else is saying that.

Oh, I do.

 

[Big Les]

Fine, then, Girl. There ARE no skeptics.

Setting aside Claus take for a moment, there's a difference between error, later corrected, and wilful belief in defiance of the (lack of) evidence. All of us fail to apply scepticism pretty regularly, but I for one always want to be made aware of my errors so that I can reassess. Making errors and striving to correct them does not invalidate one's scepticism; it's the very essence of it for me.

 

[Dancing David]

Of course "love" exists. There are little molecules running inside your body telling you to like certain people, and there are neural connections in your brain telling you that you prefer the people you spend time with.

Otherwise you're back to Interesting Ian saying that "blue" doesn't exist.

Love and blue don't exist, they are labels applied to other things. There is a stronger defintion for blue than love, emotions are not easy to distinguish. Especialy when people do things like kill themselves for love.

 

[Dancing David]

I suppose you could argue definitions, but that way "drumstick/leg" lies... So fair enough, I was being too literal there. Ironically though, I started out arguing that you can provide evidence for love in terms of physiological reactions, and CFL denied this saying that they could be faked. Since this get-out covers a multitude of sins, I moved away from defending the detectibility of "love" and focussed upon the other key difference;

Regardless, for me the key difference is the stimulus; in the case of love it's external, real, and quantifiable. The same can't be said of god - it's wholly a mental construct - an imagining.

I think that's an important enough distinction to render the comparison pretty weak, but what about detecting the molecules, the connections that you refer to? Isn't that at least theoretically possible? Unlike god? It seems that we might be getting there in a way that is currently impossible for god:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/820857.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/health/psychology/31love.html

I would disagree here, not that I believe gods exist, but that there are physiological events that happen that people conflate with god. The perceptions and attributions made by people who claim a belief in god, they all occur within the biochemical events of the brain.

Again the method of science and scepticism is a tool for saying which perceptions and thoughts have validity to the world outside the brain.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm a bit lost now

Asatro is indeed a serious religion for some people in the Nordic countries, also in Northen Europe on the whole, and there are even groups in North America, I think. It's a very marginal religion, and many are just posers who doesn't really believe a thing, but just want to have cool viking parties. Of those who are serious though, it has been my impression that most of them do in fact not believe in the Norse gods literally, but see them symbolically in different ways. Are you really saying that most of the Asatro practitioners really literally believe that the rolling sound of thunder is made by a real and physical Tor, driving his chariot drawn by the (resurrected) goats Tandgrisner and Tandgniostr over the skies. And that lightning is made by Tor striking out with Mjölner? And that they have not heard of the scientific explanation of thunder/honestly does not believe in it?

And even if so is the case, how does it follow that Zeus then is not also a god connected with thunder and lightning? I mean, talking about Asatro does not make what Skeptigirl said wrong.

Besides, I have a few times run into people on the net who claimed they are "Hellenistic Pagans", that is to say, they worship the Ancient Greek gods. I never got to ask those I run into if their belief in those gods are literal, or symbolic in some way, though, and haven't investigated further. But there are such people as well...

...so, what did all this have to do with the topic of the OP anyway?

Amongst US neopagans the 'true believers' run about 75%, they get very offended by any sort of scepticism. Very few of the american pagans I have met take a stand back approach.

So while they may not feel Thor makes thunder they do believe that Thor exists and does things in the world.

I prefer Freya myself.

 

[CFLarsen]

I really hope that you're accurately representing the theist sceptics here

I'm not presuming to.

, because I find where you've taken this utterly nonsensical. This version of god would be one which, deep down, you know doesn't exist outside your own mind. Ergo, how can you believe it? This is in no way comparable with what I have always thought religious belief to be - genuine belief in a god that has external existence.

If all this is true, then fine, great, believe it if you like. Practically it won't affect anything else; your life as a sceptic, how you view claims about the real world, and even how the atheists see you. If anything, if they're aware of this, they won't even think of you as religious believers, because your belief is purely nominal.

And that's your take on it. You cannot comprehend such beliefs. You find such beliefs nonsensical.

Which religious beliefs do you find sensical?

Then they articulate their feeling of something bigger than all of us as "god"? Fair enough. I still wonder why, when there are many aspects of the universe, nature etc that provide similar senses of identity and our place in the universe. I suppose the thing that's missing is the sense that the universe is somehow listening or caring about you - it isn't. When feeling particularly insignificant and pointless, I can understand why you'd want to believe in a god, but not how you could kid yourself into that belief. Wish I could

Because it comforts them.

Not specifically, however you have been trying to equate god with love as both being products of the mind. That's fine, I accept that there is a strong imagined component to both of those. However, I still don't accept the direct analogy, because there is evidence for love and because it has direct relevance and advantage to many in the real world. It has real stimuli, and results in detectable "feelings".

Persinger's experiments show that we can produce god-like experiences.

This is like some sort of bizarre reverse-cold-reading process. Are you going to bodyswerve away until your original argument starts to apply?

Just answer the question: Is all love evidential?

They're joking, for goodness sake. It was a hoax. Sure, some of them might believe it, but they're deluded. It's a verifiably fictional religion dreamed up by a known individual. I am having a hard time believing that profoundly held religious belief is the same thing as imagining that Harry Potter exists or that one is part of an ancient, extragalactic, and 100% fictional monastic warrior order.

How do you know that they are joking? Who are you to speak on all these people's behalf?

As for those who do believe it - what does it matter if it is a "fictional religion dreamed up by a known individual? A religion is only factual, if the origins have been lost in the mist of time?

Yes, it assumes, despite your argument to the contrary, that to believe in something means that you think it exists. When did "I believe in X" stop meaning "I believe X exists"????

You need to show where it meant "I believe X exists" in the first place.

It only takes some love to be evidential to undermine your implied argument that "love" equates with "god". As soon as you have available evidence, the one becomes more real than the other.

Of course!

Have you read some of the saints' descriptions of their meetings with god? That often sounds a lot like a sexual orgasm, doesn't it?

Never said that. Only that some of it is. See above.

I asked if that's what you think.

So they fancy themselves believers? Pretend to believe?

How can you tell for certain the difference what other people believe or pretend to believe?

I'm not dictating it - you are. The logical conclusion of what you say is that they play at believing, they dream up a god. If true, they can't possibly "believe in god" in the commonly accepted sense of assuming existence.

You keep returning to this assumption, but you still need to show that the assumption is true.

You must be bleedin' psychic.

I am going with what you say, precisely the way I have to go with what believers say. If I am wrong about what your position is, then tell me. Precisely the way you should start listening to how religious people describe how they believe.

Of course I can accept it - I accept that some people think all sorts of things. I just don't agree with this one, and I can't help that. The fact that I actually care what they believe should be clear from the amount of time I've spent genuinely trying to understand. My definition doesn't have to be the only correct one, but to me, it's the correct one in the absence of any evidence (and if you are to be believed, any genuine belief). Give me evidence for god, I will re-assess my position.

It is much more than mere disagreement on your part. You refuse flat-out that people can believe because it makes them feel good, to the point where you tell them that they don't really believe.

None at all as far as I'm concerned. The difference is in the nature of the belief in them. People that believe in Jesus and God do so because they are misinterpreting the evidence, but their belief is as a result often genuinely. I can see no way to genuinely hold a belief in a god you know and accept to be fictional.

Let's say this was the year 3007. There are only repeated myths about the Star Wars story left. You hear someone saying "I believe in the religion of the Jedis". Will you then equate his religion with the Abrahamic religions?

So basically they can say what they like to justify their imagined fancy as somehow worthy of belief? You're right, they can. I was wrong in that I assumed "believe in" meant "believe exists". As I said, I think you can forgive me, and the others, this error, because as far as I can see, the two statements, in context, are the same.

Yes, they can say what they like to justify their imagined fancy as somehow worthy of belief. You may not like it, but you have to accept it.

You cannot tell people that their beliefs are not real beliefs, just because you cannot fathom the way they think.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm a bit lost now

Asatro is indeed a serious religion for some people in the Nordic countries, also in Northen Europe on the whole, and there are even groups in North America, I think. It's a very marginal religion, and many are just posers who doesn't really believe a thing, but just want to have cool viking parties. Of those who are serious though, it has been my impression that most of them do in fact not believe in the Norse gods literally, but see them symbolically in different ways. Are you really saying that most of the Asatro practitioners really literally believe that the rolling sound of thunder is made by a real and physical Tor, driving his chariot drawn by the (resurrected) goats Tandgrisner and Tandgniostr over the skies. And that lightning is made by Tor striking out with Mjölner? And that they have not heard of the scientific explanation of thunder/honestly does not believe in it?

And even if so is the case, how does it follow that Zeus then is not also a god connected with thunder and lightning? I mean, talking about Asatro does not make what Skeptigirl said wrong.

Besides, I have a few times run into people on the net who claimed they are "Hellenistic Pagans", that is to say, they worship the Ancient Greek gods. I never got to ask those I run into if their belief in those gods are literal, or symbolic in some way, though, and haven't investigated further. But there are such people as well...

Let me take your own words and change a few:

Christianity is indeed a serious religion for some people in the Nordic countries, also in Northen Europe on the whole, and there are even groups in North America, I think. (M)any are just posers who doesn't really believe a thing, but just want to have cool celebration parties. Of those who are serious though, it has been my impression that most of them do in fact not believe in the Abrahamic god literally, but see them symbolically in different ways. Are you really saying that most of the Christians practitioners really literally believe that what is perceived as miracles is made by a real and physical God, through the Holy Spirit? And that miracles are made by God or Jesus intervening in the physical world? And that they have not heard of the scientific explanation of miracles/honestly does not believe in it?

See what I'm getting at?

 

[Egg]

You can, I imagine examine god beliefs to a certain extent. A skeptic isn't going to believe the face of Jesus is in the tortilla, nor is the shaking of the congealed blood in the glass container which becomes liquid every year a miracle. But somewhere along the way you stop the critical analysis. OK, so the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and humans evolved. So did God make Adam and Eve? Was there a Garden of Eden? Is the story of original sin real or symbolic? Let's say it's symbolic. No worldwide flood, symbolic as well. Can you really look at the evidence objectively which more than suggests the Jesus in the Bible didn't really exist (see "The God Who Wasn't There" for a synopsis of the evidence against there being an actual Jesus)? Is that where the line is for you?

I'd be interested as to where most sceptics believe they draw the line.

Since clearly none of has the time or resources to check out everything, we rely on information from others for most of our facts which we then base our reasoning on. Science has a good peer review system that allows us confidence when appealling to such evidence and if we were writing a paper which we expected to have any credence we'd check out the sources as thoroughly as was practical, but can any of us claim that same stringency in our day to day lives or behind many of our beliefs or biases?

Anecdotal evidence from sources you've learned to trust from your own experiences might not stand up to any public sceptical analysis, but does that make it irrational to believe them? If a close, trusted friend says he saw a distinctive, rare bird in his garden which all the experts say should not be found within 300 miles of the area, is disbelief the rational approach if there's no apparent reason to doubt his sincerity or competence?

Should a "true" sceptic be the guy getting thrown out of the airport for demanding to see the passenger list, the crudentials of the mechanics and pilots and to be able to check the engine, runway etc, before he will board a plane?

I advocate critical thinking and the scientific method, but I'm quite prepared to admit that my theistic beliefs are largely based on subjective experiences and anecdotal evidence. There's probably some suspension of disbelief and perhaps arguably a null hypothesis thrown in there too, but should strong evidence show me to be mistaken, it's likely that I'd follow it. If that removes a "sceptic" label for me in many people's eyes, I can live with that and would continue to try to apply critical thinking in my approach to my arguments and to life. I'm not a great supporter of labels for people anyway.

Skeptigirl, this post isn't particularly aimed at you. Your quote just gave me a line to follow on from. I'm a little surprised to see "The God who wasn't there" cited by a sceptic as credible evidence though.