Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

quote:

---

The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything.

---

The claim that a burden of proof has not been met is a claim in itself. It is a claim that is based on the skeptic's judgement of the quality of evidence. Judgements of the quality of evidence are not absolute. The sceptic must be able to defend that claim against criticism - therefore he / she does in fact have a burden of proof.

quote:

---

Where do you stand on the burning issue of Santa Claus?

---

On this issue, I'm in favour of burning, though I would also go along with a more humane punishment.I think a sceptic can make a good case that the evidence for Santa Claus is negligible. So the burden of proof on a sceptic is quite easy to achieve.On the wider question of Santagnosticism vs Santatheism, in this case Santatheism is justified as we understand the origin of the Santa myth reasonably well. Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given.