It still seems to me at least that your whole article is stating “I cant tell if X exists because it is outside the realm of evidence, reason and logic….”

It’s not. The “whole article” is about judging arguments by their conclusions.

The point about testability (which is only a small part of this post) is that the answer to any untestable question is totally irrelevant. Science and scientific skepticism are epistemologies.

I can’t say any of this more clearly than I have in less than 5000 words (and that would probably still not do it). People actually go to school for years to learn this stuff and continue to learn nuances for most of their lives, yet enthusiastic newbee skeptics reject it simply because it doesn’t fit with what “sounds right” to them or what they’d like the field to be. I won’t argue it anymore.

No, that’s treating the conclusion as the argument.

I don’t like ‘good’ or ‘bad’ skeptic as the distinguishing term.

‘Skilled’ or ‘unskilled’ are more meaningful.

‘Consistent’ and ‘inconsistent’ is also good.

So, if we assume that a theistic skeptic does not have sufficient reasons to justify assent to theism, it is possible that they are actually highly skilled and trained in critical thinking, but are simply inconsistent: In their view, religious beliefs are waived of the requirement to be skeptically justified prior to assent.

Note that it is possible that a theistic skeptic might have good reasons for either why they assent to theism in the first place, or as to why they feel that theism is entitled to a waiver.

I’m yet to come across a theist that has been able to actually give a satisfactory argument to either effect… But that’s the thing. What is to be considered is the argument of the skeptic.

We don’t know how skilled or consistent a given skeptic is towards a given subject until we hear their arguments.

The gist of the article (if I have read it correctly) is that we shouldn’t pre-judge that an argument can be dismissed on the basis of the conclusion alone. We need to consider the argument itself, because it might turn out to be the one that provides an actually sound justification for that conclusion.

I’m not exactly holding my breath or anything as regards theism. But if we’re going to be skilled and consistent skeptics, I think that this is the stance we should adopt.

I cringe a bit when people say that skepticism cannot address the god question, are these people really being skeptical or are they just limiting their skepticism to testable claims.

Why is being skeptical of testable claims praise worthy but skepticism towards untestable claims frowned upon? surely skepticism can address both with varying degrees of certainty? if skepticism absolutely cannot address the russels tea pot (Its 50 50 whether its true) then I might suggest that people are promoting a skewed view of skepticism for some agenda other than what they claim, possibly more to do with public relations that thinking critically

It still seems to me at least that your whole article is stating “I cant tell if X exists because it is outside the realm of evidence, reason and logic….”

I dont understand why you claim that you can be skeptical about real bullshit but theoritical bullshit is off the table. It just doesnt appear to be very skeptical, i mean if you lived your life as a skeptic you surely wouldnt believe theoritical bullshit for no other reason than you cant prove it…..by definition thats not skepticism

Is atheism rational? I can’t answer that. Atheism is a conclusion. Whether it’s a rational conclusion depends on why the individual drew that conclusion.

I met so many atheists at various events for the many of the same reason believers are in church… born in the faith, dated someone who didn’t believe, etc… and then somehow assert the conclusion that simply because they don’t believe in something silly like gods, they have cornered the market on critical thinking. This is a serious problem in our community.