How do you discount demons without discounting gods? Or do you think we should be silent about demon belief too? Science cannot prove that there are no such things as witches (still being put to death in Africa) nor that the 9-11 hijackers aren’t in paradise. But we can point out these are primitive beliefs and unlikely to be true; we can also say that if scientists can’t test, refine, and hone our knowledge on such things, it’s unlikely that some guru has either. We can note that there is no more evidence for hell than there is for Valhalla… no more evidence for gods than there are for gremlins. We can point out that if there were evidence for souls, we could expect scientists to be testing, refining, and honing that information for their own benefit while Randi would gladly pay out the million dollar prize so that we might all learn more.

You think atheism degrades skepticism, but you have failed to give an example as to how or evidence as to why. I’m skeptical of such a claim. I expect to see a huge overlap between science, skepticism, and atheism. When a person is as skeptical of their own religion as they are of others, they tend to become atheists. When a person tests their faith based beliefs using the scientific method, they tend to become naturalists (who are also atheists.)Shouldn’t a skeptics convention be a place where such nonbelievers don’t have to walk on eggshells as they do in regular life? Why should the attendees at such a convention have to know or care about other peoples’ magical beliefs? Shouldn’t this be the one place where we are able to assume that others are as skeptical as we are?

I get along equally well at skeptic and atheist conventions– there is a huge overlap of people, so your pedantic advice is unneeded. Atheist groups have a few more new-agey sorts of believers and skeptic groups have a few more faitheists (those who subscribe to or protect some forms of religious faith) — both types of “woo” seem equally sensitive to those who don’t treat their “woo” with the respect they imagine it deserves.

If there are skeptics who don’t want to include those who are skeptical of gods or outspoken atheists, then I think it’s up to them to organize such an exclusionary and prejudicing event and it’s up to them to show the benefits of such an approach. From my angle, it appears that the accommodationist crowd is attempting to make religion off limits for skeptical discussion at a skeptics convention– they are protecting some brands of faith and magical thinking by treating it in a way they would not treat belief in psychics or channeling or demon possession or other unfalsifiable claims. This gives the illusion that some brands of faith are more “scientific”– that the some magical beliefs are more respectable or off limits to scrutiny than others.

You seem to be asking skeptics to care about the feelings of believers while caring very little about the atheists whom you took a swipe at because in your opinion they haven’t contributed sufficiently to skepticism.

From my observations, the biggest growth and diversity in the skeptic community has come from the atheist crowd.

Since religion is the number one institution that elevates faith (anti-skepticism) to a salvation worthy virtue and it is the “woo” that causes the most harm, I think it’s a natural part of the skeptic movement– perhaps the most important part.

Despite eons of belief in such things, there is not an iota of evidence that any immaterial/divine agents exist. The evidence increasingly shows that souls (and all other invisible beings) are products of the material brain of humans. You may not think that atheists contribute to the skeptical movement, but I would say they are on the forefront of leading humanity to understanding the above. When people no longer fear that they will suffer forever because of non-belief, then belief in gods because irrelevant– humans are no longer subject to manipulation whereby voices in one’s head are confused with revelations or prophesy or divine directives. Non-believers in such things can come out of the closet.

I disagree with the notion that atheism degrades skepticism; I think protecting religion from skepticism does more to degrade skepticism than being equally skeptical of all purported immaterial/magical/divine beings– even the ones said to be responsible for universe creation… and the ones named “God” or “Jesus”… and the ones that are 3-in-1 monotheistic deities.

It’s very simple. There is so much dancing around a very simple point. If there is no empirical evidence for something to exist, it can only be said it doesn’t exist. Or do you claim all things which have no empirical evidence must exist? That is a vast set of things. I think it’s just less clutter to say there is no god until someone comes up with some empirical evidence one might actual exist.

The conclusion that there is no God cannot be arrived at empirically, so it cannot be “the result of properly-applied skepticism” as some claim.

Empirical evidence for god? Oh. You say there’s none? Then I guess there’s nothing to talk about. There’s no need to prove god doesn’t exist because those that claim god exists have failed to make their case. That’s “introduction to reasoning for dummies” and if a ‘skeptic’ needs that explained to them, they’re not a skeptic, they’re a woo-woo.

I concur and exactly the same is true concerning go. I am Atheistic concerning Ghosts and Gods in exactly the same measure. You there should retract your point or eliminate Ghosts from the Skeptical scope.

Here’s another cherry pick that supports what I’m saying (bold mine):

“These three elements, naturalism, theory, and empiricism, are what make science different from any other human activity.”