[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree a bit here, don't think its semantics. Skeptics don't underestimate the likelyhood of a position in the sense I think you mean. It's not that I think god is less likely than you do, rather I can see no reason to believe (or disbelieve) in god at all and so do not assign any likelyhood.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely what I mean when I say it is semantic. There are two acceptable definitions of 'skeptic':

1. One who tends to disbelieve a notion.
2. One who tends to withhold judgment on a notion.

I was critiquing the skeptic position on the basis of the first definition. You are saying that the second definition is more apt. In general, I feel that you are being too lenient on most people who identify themselves as 'skeptic' or 'rationalist' or 'bright.' The ones I respect most tend to fall into your definition, and in this case, I feel that the believer and the 'skeptic' are at epistemological loggerheads....BUT....some of the people whom we characterize as skeptics -- James Randi, Earl Doherty, Richard Lewontin, etc. -- tend to fit the first definition. It is a prejudicial bias, for instance, that leads Doherty to the wild conclusion that Jesus never lived, evidence be damned. This is the brand of 'skepticism' which troubles me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, definitely the second. Believing something isn't the case is the same type of thing as believing that something is the case (although you could offer a probabilistic argument that more things are false than true).

chez