I know what you're saying and I've come across similar arguments before. Now I won't say that some skeptics aren't overly enthusiastic even to the point of looking like evangelists but let me put a case for the defence:
Originally Posted by Allo Allo
Skepticism is a method.
Skepticism is a method that's pretty much the same as the scientific method. So, if an answer can be found to an issue it is the scientific method that is used to hone in on the truth. The scientist who uses the method is largely irrelevant as any other scientists who uses the same (tried and tested) method will come to the same answer. Skeptics argue from an a posteriori position.
So if skeptics look at an issue they will all come to pretty much the same conclusion on the issue. So yes, this looks like there's a consensus opinion on many topics (á la belief system) but the crucial difference is that skepticism and skeptics rely on evidence to support their conclusions; and if evidence is available, it should lead to the same conclusion.
And, of course, let's not forget that skeptics are human!! (yes, they are ) and no-one's perfect. Some skeptics make me cringe with their arguments and style. It's the method that's really the important thing though - not how people present themselves.
There's a short piece here on what this means: Skeptics are disbelievers
Skepticism is all about examining issues and forming justified conclusions. What happens, however, is that a skeptic will argue from the position of already having examined the issue in detail but an opponent doesn't always realise this. There's an illusion created when a skeptic opposes an issue as they only seem to be coming from one angle. It can look like the skeptic is a dogmatic disbeliever but the truth is (or should be!!) that the skeptic has looked at both sides of the issue but is only arguing from the point of their a posteriori
I'd be embarrassed to be described as a non-skeptic. I would not like to think that people thought that I use things like intuition, gut feelings, or mystical and magical ideas to form conclusions on important issues.