Hurm.  If science is a "religious faith", then shouldn't this whole
thread be banned under "no cross, no crown"? :)

GS> They claim that since there's no reason why they should be true
GS> they cannot be true.

No, nobody claims that.  The skeptic's position is that there is no
reason to *assume* something is true unless there's a reason to do so.
And the reason must be a scientific one; the assumption must (1) agree with
observations; (2) explain something otherwise inexplicable; (3) be (at
least theoretically, if not practically) testable.

Thus, for example, the skeptic finds no a priori reason to assume that God exists.
The universe is internally consistent unto itself, and as time goes by we
get closer and closer to a scientific explanation of why it is exactly the way
it is (a better one than the anthropic principle, that is; it may be perfectly valid but
it feels like a cop-out).  So God's existence is not assumed.

Furthermore, most descriptions of God make His existence untestable
by observation within our universe.

So God's existence is not assumed, and cannot be proven; it is
therefore not considered when looking for explanations of natural
phenomena.  But the fact that God is not deemed *necessary* doesn't
mean He *cannot* exist - no true skeptic would make such a claim,
even if supposed necessity was the reason His existence was
postulated in the first place.

(Besides, He's omnipotent.  Surely such power includes the ability to exist
despite any and all logic which might indicate otherwise. ;-))