Skeptic Richard Dawkins' website Richarddawkins.net features a 2 hour video discussion of the 'Four Horsemen' noted above.

"On the 30th of September 2007, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens sat down for a first-of-its-kind, unmoderated 2-hour discussion, convened by RDFRS and filmed by Josh Timonen.

All four authors have recently received a large amount of media attention for their writings against religion - some positive, and some negative. In this conversation the group trades stories of the public's reaction to their recent books, their unexpected successes, criticisms and common misrepresentations. They discuss the tough questions about religion that face to world today, and propose new strategies for going forward."

WSS

Ross, you have identified a lack of fit between one dictionary definition of Skepticism -- and the real-world activities of those who call themselves Skeptics. Your dictionary definition is from the online abridged Merriam-Webster. Your example of Penn and Teller as self-professed Skeptics is apt. They, like Randi, are magicians who debunk supernatural or pseudoscientific claims. They are allied with the international skeptical organizations -- having received the 2005 Richard Dawkins Award**.

Philosophical Skepticism is, as you assert, a 'know nothing' intellectual stance. But it bears little or no relation to present-day skeptical organizations or their activities (see the dictionary.com entry below for the distinction).

For example, your New Zealand Skeptics bear no relation to the ancient school of thought. If you look at the lineup for their 2007 Conference, you can see that they don't fit the bill of 'nihilists' and 'witchdoctors.' Indeed, modern-day skeptics such as the New Zealand group are better characterized as ultimate quackbusters (see a list of informational flyers from their web page Resources for a a list of targets of their skepticism, ranging from Acupuncture to UFOs and Aliens).

Note that one of the premier skeptics today is Michael Shermer (publisher of Skeptic), who writes the regular 'Skeptic' column in Scientific American. The September 2007 issue contains his essay "Rational Atheism," which may be of interest to you.

Here is a snap of the current Skeptic Magazine cover (click to take you to Skeptic.com:

Here is a snap of the current Skeptical Inquirer:

_________________________

List of international skeptical organizations.

**The Richard Dawkins Award will be given every year to honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge; who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins.

_______________

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy.
a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.
–adjective
5. pertaining to skeptics or skepticism; skeptical.
6. (initial capital letter) pertaining to the Skeptics.
Link

WSS

...I used Rand's and Merriam-Webster's definition, both of which essentially agree.

In that link, Penn and Teller seem to be included as skeptics. Anyone who's seen their show, Bullshit!, knows that these guys are as far from dictionary skepticism as it gets. They always present rational arguments for their views and as such are professional debunkers.

And if you didn't need any more proof, Hume is referred to as a "global skeptic".

Phrases keep popping up such as, "disposition to incredulity", "systematic doubt", and "the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values" (Hume, anyone?), which agree with Rand's definition.

Further, I'd suggest there's a substantial congruity between conspiracy theorists and skeptics, and unsurprisingly.

If said organisations don't want to be tarred with the same brush, then maybe they should petition Merriam-Webster, et al, to change the definition... but I doubt they will. Ha! Get it?

Ross Elliot quotes Rand and asserts:

I guess the skeptics think they're pretty cool. Actually, they're nihilists, and bunk buddies with every witchdoctor charlatan from the Pope on down to the local Feng Shui consultant.

I think you are right if you stick with Rand's definition of skeptic (as a purely philosophical position -- the 'know nothing' position).

Modern usage of the word sceptic/skeptic includes those folk who align under The Skeptic's Society and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Skeptic magazines include The Skeptical Inquirer and two Skeptics (US & UK).**

Ross, what would you call the skeptics of the two societies and three magazines, to make a distinction between the know nothings and the good guys (good guys in that the magazines consistently go after anti-realist nonsensicals such as religion, Feng Shui, psychological charlatans, mystics of every stripe, etc.)?

WSS

** See "Skeptical Organizations" at Wikipedia.

...and just call yourself an atheist? Or do you believe in a deity? Objectivism, by definition, and in every sense, is atheistic.

And, no, scientists are not skeptics. Not by Rand's definition above, or by the dictionary definition. Scientists are engaged in the search for knowledge, not in its denial.

Strikes me that atheism is hard for actual atheists to admit to, especially at dinner parties.

How can a declaration of not believing make one a skeptic?
Are scientists skeptic's?

Well, those are just cop-outs.

Rand talked about mysticism and skepticism being two sides of the same coin. I'm sure many in the no-religion/non-believer categories are actually skeptics.

"In the history of philosophy—with some very rare exceptions—epistemological theories have consisted of attempts to escape one or the other of the two fundamental questions which cannot be escaped. Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism). These two positions appear to be antagonists, but are, in fact, two variants on the same theme, two sides of the same fraudulent coin: the attempt to escape the responsibility of rational cognition and the absolutism of reality—the attempt to assert the primacy of consciousness over existence."

Scintillating insight.

I guess the skeptics think they're pretty cool. Actually, they're nihilists, and bunk buddies with every witchdoctor charlatan from the Pope on down to the local Feng Shui consultant.

No Religion doesn't sit right with me.

My point exactly, Mr. Morgan. If the respondents won't identify themselves as "atheists," "agnostics," or even generally "secular," then we must be looking at folks with mystical beliefs, but beliefs that fall outside of any standard "religion."

I for one have no religous beliefs and am not an atheist and am not agnostic ether. No religous belief mean simple that. I would have thought the number would have been higher but I don't know much about the states.

It should be noted that the options given to the poll respondents, at least when they last did the study (2001), were:
Atheist
Agnostic
Humanist
Secular
No Religion

It is this last category that has the biggest response (by far) and has experienced the most growth within the above category of choices.