Scepticism and atheism ?

Without necessarily endorsing the position, i would point out that some would argue that being a skeptic is what makes someone an atheist.

But actually the point that scepticism should go to should be agnostism. Because you can't prove that God doesn't exist.

I would say that your view of skepticism is rather narrow--either that, or your view of "proof." Those who make extraordinary claims (and you can be assured a claim that the cosmos was produced by an anthropomorphic, omniscient and omnipotent being is extraordinary) have an extraordinary burden of proof. That theme of being unable to prove that no god exists is just a dodge. No one is obliged to disprove any dubious claim. That sort or nonsense is also at the heart of the petty and childish claim of moral and intellectual superiority advanced by many agnostics. I am reminded of a verdict which can be handed down in criminal cases in Scotland--not proven. That there is or even can be a god is not proven. One need proceed no further.

Is the skeptical agnostic obliged to accept a possibility that there are elves, fairies and pixies? After all, can said skeptic prove that there are no elves, fairies and pixies? Why does god get special treatment?

You are right, but actually they should cause if there can be god there can be invisible elves.

Certainly. When i said that a special case is made for "god" i wasn't being either flippant or obtuse. No one of us can possess so much irrefutable knowledge that we can know all answers, or even most answers. That being the case, all of us live our lives based on reasonable assumptions about matters for which we don't have certain knowledge. If one does not consider god to be a reasonable assumption, one is as justified in refusing to believe as one is in refusing to believe in elves--visible or not.

Elves does exist, I saw him in vegas this one time, his music will forever be timeless

Atheists aren't people who have proven that God doesn't exist, they are simply people without theism.

Then can you tell me the exact difference between atheism and agnostism.Agnostics are technically without teism too. I think an agnostic is a shy atheist.

Athiests are sure God doesn't exist, Agnostics aren't

Simple

Ok I knew that but I needed to hear that. (really no joke) If you are sure of something how can you be sceptic? This what I don't understand.

I think actually understand your arguement, lets see if I can sum it.

Scepticism is identified by doubt, but to doubt is not absolute, it is merely a low level of belief, while not anti belief. Threw something together quickly, is this what you are getting at?


Sets sceptics apart from atheists

Bullshit, what the hell do you claim to know about it?

Smileyrius:
Your chart is incorrect, a sceptic might say that God exists %60 percent

And what I say is atheism if not weak is a certain claim that God doesn't exist. How can a sceptic be an atheist? But if you use methodic scepticism and first doubt about God and find it impossible than it's valid. But the real scepticism probably does coop with (not-weak) atheism. My word knowledge is a bit limited so I can't express myself very well sorry.

It is not axiomatically true that an atheist states that there is no god. Both of you are just trotting this out because it is convenient the to the arguments you are making.

Yes, it's not believing at a God actually. The opposite of Teism. Dogmatism is believing and sceptism is against dogmatism. So now I understand that you can be an atheist and sceptic at the same time.

explain, I am intrigued. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject, I merely scribbled something to show what I understood.

Let me emphasize (again, i believe, i believe i said this before) that one can be a skeptic and still be a theist, or an agnostic or an atheist. I get mildly torqued off at people who insist that an atheist must, perforce, deny that there is a god. This is central to a naïve, simple-minded argument peddled by some agnostics who want to claim the moral high ground on the issue of "to god or not to god." There was quite a prolonged and bitter argument over this subject here several years ago. The simple-minded agnostic position is that theists and atheists are both sets of believers, who just hold polar opposite belief sets. Therefore, according to the so-called logic of their position, they have the intellectually and morally superior position, because they acknowledge that they don't know. However, if pressed, they cannot deal with (and often become hostile and abusive as a result) the question of why they would put more emphasis on agnosticism with regard to god, but not toward, for example, fairies, pixies and elves. That's why i brought that up before. In the end, this agnostic position becomes more and more ridiculous. So, should we be agnostic about the effect of red lights? If one approaches an intersection and has a green light for one's direction of travel, does one still stop--after all, one cannot know to a certainty that cross traffic will stop, and the 0nly option is to take it on faith.

I use the intersection with traffic lights as a metaphor to compare blind faith to informed faith. I drive through an intersection with a green light not on blind faith, but the informed faith that i and virtually everyone i've ever seen stops for a red light, and that it is therefore safe to proceed. Blind faith would just assume you can blast through any intersection anywhere at any time because god will protect your silly, deluded Protestant ass.

just dropping by, but suggest looking into the Greek origins of Skepticism. The original Skeptics, founded by Pyrrho, were strongly influenced by Buddhists, particularly 'middle-way' school; Pyrhho had travelled to India under the protection of Alexander's army. Neither Buddhism nor pyrronhism is a 'theistic' philosophy, - it says that any statement about a 'first cause' or 'supreme being' is self-contradictory'. BUT Buddhist philosophy is not 'atheist' in the sense of denying non-material realities. Buddhism implicitly accepts that there is a moral law and generally accepts the idea of rebirth and the importance of ethical behaviour. These are regarded as 'religious views' by the typical modern skeptic. The point is that skepticism was originally a type of spiritual philosophy that sought deliverance from worldly suffering by a very similar means to that of Buddhism. Our modern 'scientific skepticism' is therefore a completely different kind of attitude to the original philosophical skepticism.

If that were true (and i definitely don't endorse what you've written), investigating what you allege to be the origins of skepticism would be pointless.