Skepticism is bullcrap

I'd like to see sources for these claims that Pro is bringing up. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher HitchensPeople who read my debates probably notice that I use that quote a lot. I use the quote a lot because a surprising amount of people are willing to make claims and not back them up with real evidence. The use of phrases like "one of the claims of" or "next point is that" or "there are many claims" is something that Fox News is very good at. (). Fox News anchors use the term "some people say" to insert their own opinions, or to make up an undefined number of people so it sounds like people actually think a certain way. All it is is propaganda.Don't be like Fox News. I've never seen Pro in action but I'm sure he is an intelligent guy when he puts all of his effort into a debate. I hope that he doesn't prove me wrong in that respect.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Onto my points:Skepticism is extremely important. Can you imagine what would happen if everybody believed absolutely everything they heard? The world would be in utter chaos. "It's very dangerous to base it on what you think is the most likely explanation." So what are we supposed to do, never have any opinions on anything ever? Just because there's not a 100% chance of us being right?Definition of Scientific theory: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. (http://en.wikipedia.org...).One of the key principles of science is understanding that we cannot know everything. This is why we use the term theory most of the time instead of law. A theory usually means that we can be 99.9999999999999999999999999% sure of something, but we can't know that we won't discover a better explanation in a few thousand years. We need to stay skeptical for this very reason. If Copernicus (and all other astronomers) had just decided that they were content with the notion that everything in the universe revolved around the earth, modern physics would not be where it is today. We need to always be skeptical. That's how we get better. "Many skeptics lack expertise when trying to find explanations to phenomenon." No kidding. Definition of phenomenon: something (such as an interesting fact or event) that can be observed and studied and that typically is unusual or difficult to understand or explain fully. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...).They have trouble trying to find explanations to phenomenon because there isn't one yet. It needs more observation, more tests, more analysis, more skepticism, and then it won't be a phenomenon anymore. I don't understand what Pro thinks is so bad about skepticism. Skepticism is the reason that we make sure we can duplicate scientific results multiple times before publishing them. It's why we now that evolution is true, and seven day creationism is not. It's how you make sure that you're ready for an English test. If you're not skeptical of your knowledge, you will ultimately fail at everything. "unless you have strict mathematical principles to aid you."Strict mathematical principles would not exist if it weren't for skepticism. We're constantly trying to find holes in everything we deem to be true or else there's no way of proving it's validity. I'm going to ignore the reference to god because it is unnecessary and probably there to bait me into getting distracted. Just FYI, nobody thinks the bible is mythical. They believe the claims inside are mythical, but the bible obviously exists. In summary, we need to be skeptical about everything. For if you do not question everyting, you will be led astray from the truth. The truth shows itself to skeptics because they are the ones that search. If a statement is made that is not totally proven, people will attack it until they find a weak point.I expect Pro to clarify his argument because as of now I don't know why he is against skepticism. It seems like he is against science trying to disprove his religion, not skepticism itself.