Skeptic/Atheist Orthodoxy - a good or a bad thing

[UnrepentantSinner]

During the recent wailing and gnashing of teeth or Hal’s Commentary, I have come to realize the few comments I made were done so with blinders on. I hadn’t paid close enough attention to the fact that the concerns were over “true” or “pure” skepticism. I mistakenly was basing my arguments from my position that one does not have to be an atheist to be a skeptic. As opposed to one does have to be an atheist to be a "pure" or "true" skeptic. For those of you who injected “pure” and “true” into your arguments, sorry for my being so dense.

This, and my recollection of a falling out between Dr. Laura Schlesinger and the Skeptics Society over religion, inspired me to post this thread polling on Skeptic Orthodoxy. Personally, I am not in favor of some sort of atheist Taliban intellectually cutting the right hands off of theists who feel the same way we do about woo woo claims and a creduloid mentality. I want to know if I’m in the minority here.

[fishbob]

One can be skeptical and not be an atheist. How skeptical does one have to be to be a "true skeptic"?

As humans, with human frailties, it is very hard to be a true or pure anything. This seems to be a philosophical distinction, not likely to be seen often in the real world, and therefore not that important.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm guessing from the replies so far that we should accept theists as long as they're anti-woo woo?

Good!

[PixyMisa]

The key to being a Skeptic is not that you have no beliefs, but that you are prepared to question the beliefs you have and discard them if they are found wanting.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I'm guessing from the replies so far that we should accept theists as long as they're anti-woo woo?

Good!
Supposing someone was anti-talking to the dead, anti-homeopathy, anti-dowsing, anti-alien kidnapping, BUT they believed that chiropractic actually worked. Couldn't we still work with them on the goals we held in common?

Or is this some kind of contest to see who's the purest of the pure?

[roger]

my tongue in cheek reply:

Just as the only difference in the theist and atheist is that the atheist merely disbelieves in one more god than the theist, the only difference in the theist/sceptic and sceptic is the sceptic is sceptical about one more topic than the theist.

[Nyarlathotep]

I think the two groups are separate but closely related. Most atheist will be skeptics and vice versa but a lot of people feel (whether we agree with them or not) that the existance of some sort of deity DOES have evidence to back it up.

Many skeptics are going to be unconvinced by said 'evidence' but since the people who come to that conclusion are basing it off of what they think of as evidence, I don't think one could say that they aren't truly skeptical.

Also I think that nearly everyone has some degree of irrationality in them, some unsupported belief or fear or idea. With some people it is going to be a belief in a diety. I think a tendency toward unsupported belief is just human nature and very hard to fight against

[Skeptical Greg]

Everyone picks and chooses..

Wondering if that bunch of broccoli is really going to keep my colon free of cancer, and if it does, is it worth it, is a form of skepticism.

I would be as concerned about an Atheist who considers themself a pure skeptic, as I would about Sylvia Brown or Oral Roberts.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I wanted to post this link to some hilarious FFRF hate mail, but didn't think it warrented it's own thread.

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/march02/index.php3?ft=sharingmail.html