Elitist Philosophy of SSkepticsm: You either accede to Nihilism, or you are unacceptable.
Nihilism
(/ˈnaɪ.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the negation of one or more of the reputedly meaningful or non-material aspects of life. Socially enforced metaphysical or pseudo scientific naturalism.
The Tradecraft and doctrinal methodology of Social Skepticism is formulated to advocate and enforce the One True Religion. Metaphysical Naturalism, a very valid approach to philosophy in the generic sense, only becomes the religion of Nihilism when one group begins to enforce it on society, education, employers and science, or exaggerate the findings of science in order to boast that it has disproved the existence of a myriad of things, which also happen to be disliked by the claimant. It is embodied in this principle:
Nihilism
Socially enforced Metaphysical, Material Monist or Pseudo Scientific Naturalism. The substitution ontology which took the place of Abrahamic Religion in Western academia. The cult and religious doctrine enforcing absolute knowledge as to those things which are deemed ‘natural;’ moreover that nothing exists outside the materials, energies, life forms, features and principles comprised inside a pre-approved realm of understanding. A religious presumption that only the physical is real, and that the mental or spiritual can be reduced solely to the physical. A presumption that all observations of phenomena related to consciousness stem from solely a neural configuration of a single biological source.
It is justified through specious and selective application of the experimental method; attributing its false empirical basis to a pretense standard of evidence, measurability and repeatability. Rather, Nihilism is an unsubstantiated set of pseudo-scientific claims employed as an instrument to squelch freedom of speech, qualify entrants into scientific and academic professions, screen topics under an embargo policy regarding access to science, control and direct institutions, establish social power; and in similar fashion to its Abrahamic religious precedent, leverage the resulting pervasive ignorance into a position of absolute subjugation of mankind.
SSkeptics enforce just such a religion through a mis-definition of the scientific method as only comprising the experimental method, without any supporting or predictive studies (falsification is difficult in this arena) and by conflating their religious metaphysical beliefs with atheism in a hope that most people will not realize the difference. Remember, the Ethical Skeptic does not require a mystical personification to stand as the qualifying mark of a religion. The Metaphysical Naturalist will attempt to imply that there only exists two domains of belief – the bearded grandfather deity, or their religion of the physical only. They will intimate that no alternatives exist. This straw man framing betrays what the Metaphysical Naturalist really fears, that which they profoundly avoid resides in the domain they skip over. Shooting down the grandfather patriarch in the sky is easy, but in order to win in finality, the Metaphysical Naturalist must also conflate and enforce their targeted message with science and atheism, inside a Lie of Allegiance. To the Ethical Skeptic, the only possible demarcation which logically constitutes defining of a ‘religion’ is when an initiate to the rite is:
The Establishment of Religion – The compulsory adherence to an idea around which testing for falsification is prohibited.
A. Told he must accede to an idea as a prerequisite to be regarded as acceptable – (You must accept my contention that Science has rigorously falsified everything I dislike)
If you are a science or technology professional, and you do not adhere to Nihilism, it is best that you keep quiet about it.
and,
B. Is prohibited from testing that idea for falsification – (This contentions on my part are not to be questioned – applying the scientific method inside disapproved subjects or challenging SSkeptic agendas is a foolish waste of time which will carry enforced penalties).
Nihilism, as a hypothesis, can be falsified. In fact, in an ethical reduction hierarchy under the scientific method, it should be the first hypothesis to be tested for falsification. It is the great extents to which Social Skeptics will go, to block falsification based topic access to the scientific method, which is indicative of their secret doubt, regarding their religion of choice.
To the Ethical Skeptic – this circumstance is the Whole Gale alert flag of a religion – the club in which he is unethically coerced into supporting, by less-than-honorable proponents of the club who do not fully grasp the unethical nature of their actions, or even more commonly and worse, …do.
To the Ethical Skeptic, enforced Metaphysical Naturalism is a religion, plain and simple (MN). It is not exactly the same thing as Atheism. Atheism is the objection to personified deities, and sometimes includes adherence to MN tenets. One can be an Atheist and still believe in Earthly alien visitation, for example. Religious Metaphysical Naturalism however, is more accurately termed “Empty Set” -ism, or more commonly: Nihilsm – the firmly held and unscientific belief that nothing resides outside the bounds of what I choose as natural, the sets of life, physical energy and material domains which are approved. The Ethical Skeptic regards this contention set no more or less valid than any other unsubstantiated claim, except where actual science testing supports its specific prejudices. In reality, this religion skips right past the scientific testing however, assumes the robes of inerrant revelation knowledge, and hops right on into King-of-the-Hill presumption gaming. Once in power, is assumed true and can never be disproved because no one who values their career will contest it. The fact that it does not feature a deified personification etched into its stained glass institutional adornments, makes it no less of a religion, in the eyes of the Ethical Skeptic.
The Metaphysical Naturalist’s Decabunk of Nihilsm
Ten Key Unethical Assertions of the Nihilist
1. I will slip the assertion by, that I posses absolute knowledge of the boundary as to what constitutes the natural and preternatural.
2. I will slip the presumption by, that the set of unknowns are small and constrained and therefore constitute no impact on my authority (Penultimate Set fallacy).
3. I will slip the claim by, that my inerrant boundary definitions of natural and preternatural have all been vetted by rigorous empirical testing.
4. I will slip the presumption by, that I do not adhere to a religion because I do not venerate a personified deity.
5. I will slip the assertion by, that if you do not agree with me, then you are religious.
6. I will slip the claim by, that science has only measured evidence in support of those tenets of Metaphysical Naturalism to which I am claiming to adhere.
7. I will slip the implication by, that belief in my version of Metaphysical Naturalist is a mandatory prerequisite for a variety of social goals.
8. I will slip the claim by, that science has found an empty set of evidence in support of those things I declare as preternatural or which could serve to falsify my belief.
9. I will slip the false dichotomy by, that there exist only two possible philosophical camps: Metaphysical Naturalism, and irrational God-believing Christianity.
10. I will slip the claim by, that all those in my camp agree with and hold evidence to support my claims to the supremacy of my Natural Philosophy.
You have heard the old adage, “They must think I am a mushroom because all they do is keep me in the dark and feed me bullshit.” Such is the method employed by SSkeptics to ensure that Science, is at any given time and 
So, because a group of astronomers, physicists, psychologists, nuclear technologists and mathematicians do not like the idea of a North American Primate, then the subject is given the final fatal disposition of a ‘pseudoscience’ – despite none of the ‘scientists themselves’ (or voters, in this context) in question actually having done ANY research at all into the subject. Couple this with the fact that those who actually DO research, are declared to be not-scientists, or are relegated to and less than SSkeptics’ subjectively convenient “