"Common sense"? What is common sense but conventional wisdom through your own filter of supposition and bias and cultural attractors.

That's absolutely true, and still you can't get through life without it. The best you can do is be aware of your biases, and challenge them when you need to.

The best test I've found for separating real skeptics from pop skeptics is as follows: "Is acupuncture real?" The answer allows a very precise classification, and not necessarily in the way you might think.

Does it produce statistically significant effects in placebo controlled studies? If not, then it's unlikely.

Unfortunately, in the case of the actual *AA's, America no longer operates under the rule of law.

What was the last time you heard Randi and Co admit to not being sure about their findings or that their investigation was inconclusive?

When was the last time that their experiment actually gave inconclusive data? Do you have a specific instance in mind where they were intellectually dishonest? Can you provide an example, or is this just a general feeling you have about a group you dislike?

They divide the world into the things of which they are certain, and "woo".

No, they divide the world into things for which there is evidence, and things for which there is not yet. As Hitchens said, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you want your claim to be taken seriously, provide some evidence. If you can't, or won't, do that, why should anyone be anything but dismissive of your claim?

Never, ever an admission that they haven't really examined the literature or even looked into the question. Just an answer, with certainty, based on how it sounds to them.

The number of potentially true, but unverifiable propositions is so enormous that one cannot examine the evidence for every single one of them. If I ask you "Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist?", what are you going to say? Are you really going to withhold judgment until you see all the evidence, or are you going to apply some common sense?

Of course not, anecdotes aren't data. I was just pointing out that his atheistic gangsters are unlikely to exist in the real world, and are therefore not useful for debate. But if you were to approach the subject scientifically, you'd find that religosity is negatively correlated with both education and IQ.

I'll assume that your use of the word "zygote" was just a straw man, and you feel the same about "embryo" or "fetus".

It's not a straw man when people actually make the argument that "life begins at conception".

What others call "the golden rule" exists in the Bible... clearly, we are supposed to serve others when there is ever any doubt.

But how do you serve others? If you just do what your priest does without thinking about it, you can accidentally do a lot more evil than good. The Catholic problems with birth control are a great example. They think they are doing good, because that's what their priests tell them. But really, they're encouraging the spread of disease and forcing unwanted children to grow up in broken homes, which causes all sorts of social problems.

If you'd argue "But I don't just do what my priest says without thinking", that's a great thing. You've acknowleged the value of skepticism. Now apply it to everything your priest says.

The problem is that in order to tell the good religion from the bad religion, you have to apply some skepticism. At that point, you've already admitted that skepticism is more useful than faith.

Faith is dangerous, while skepticism is not. If something is true, then no amount of skepticism can disprove it. Every question you ask will present supporting data for the truth. Therefore, faith is only useful for getting people to believe things that aren't true.

What possible good could come from large numbers of people believing things that aren't true? The only reason I can come up with for wanting people to believe things that aren't true is to get people to act against their own interests. How can that be considered good by anyone except an authoritarian?

A point I made elsewhere is that often the lowest class of believers is compared directly to the most sophisticated of unbelievers.

This is not the case here. I use the abortion argument specifically because there's so much "scholarship" surrounding it. Look at the fit the Catholic Church is throwing over this birth control coverage mandate. These are people who don't only run churches, they run schools and research institutions!

I wouldn't compare the sophisticated believers with whom I associate with gangsters and thugs who are unbelievers and say look what problems atheism causes.

Of course you wouldn't. Because those gangsters and thugs are more likely to have a crucifix or virgin mary tattooed on them than understand the scientific method.

Look at segregation laws, for example, or the current financial crisis in Europe, or the whole climate change issue. Those, as far as I know, came down to people using their brains.

No, not at all. If people used their brains to figure out if segregation laws were good, they would have set up an experiment and observed the effects of both. Instead they followed tradition that said "races shouldn't mingle" and they didn't question that.

Same thing with the financial crisis. People respected the banks because they were "experts" and didn't really question what they were doing. We can trust Goldmann Sachs right? No, you can't. Just a little bit of skepticism would allow you to observe Goldmann Sachs history, and understand that they really are a vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.

Most problems in this world could be prevented if people would just question tradition and authority. Be skeptical. Credulity facilitates evil.

The harm is that when you get in the habit of accepting ideas without question, you are more easily manipulated. e.g. If some guy tells you that a zygote is the same thing as a child, and you don't use your brain to figure out that that is bullshit, you might make it your political mission to ban abortion. That harms me, and it harms society in general.

If instead, you use your brain to figure out the difference between right and wrong yourself, based on evidence, then your judgements as to what is harmful are going to be more accurate. This is a benefit to everyone in society.

This is what Weinburg was talking about. Without religion, if you want to do good you'll figure out how and do it. With religion, you just ask your priest, and do what he says, whether it's good or not.

And yes, I understand that it's comforting. Heroin is comforting too. Neither of them solve any problems.

This kind of move should be left to wise men

Where are we going to find those? Democracy is essential because wise men never stay that way once their self interest is involved.

These extraordinary claims are false, he says, so all extraordinary claims must be false

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Until someone making extraordinary claims presents extraordinary evidence there's no reason to give them much consideration.

He is willing to accept a lack of evidence from the biggest frauds in religion and politics and tip toe around these

When was the last time a major religion made a debunkable claim? They talk about what happened 2000 years ago, which we can't repeat, or even confirm happened. And they talk about what happens after death, which can't be tested either. When religions make extraordinary, positive, testable claims, e.g. faith healing, Randi does debunk them. But that doesn't happen as often as you might think.

The rest of your post is tilting at windmills. If the people you describe exist, it's not Randi's fault they didn't get the message. And for that matter, I really doubt they do exist. The only thing global warming skeptics and Randi style skeptics have in common is the word "skeptic".