I say yes because: You can be a monotheist or a Christian and be a skeptic. When people tell me that things will get better, I demand proof. When people tell me to have faith, I ask why, and if the reason sucks, I say so. One can have faith in one area, and in another area be skeptical. I am a skeptic when I question how God can be all good, all powerful with the existance of evil. I question why the Bible says that women are the weaker sex when women have the babies. Every day I question pretty much everything. I am quite annoyed by the No True Scotsman Fallacy that theism and skepticism are mutually exclusive. I am like this in politics as well. When i was a consertvative, i questioned why do people have to hate Arabs or gays or want to ban contraception. If I start to feel that a belief is wrong for me, I change it until I find the right one. I find it ironic that people talk about change and then shit their drawers when they see it. I'm here to say skeptical theists do exist, and i'm not the only one. My awesome friend Mark is another skeptical theist. The No True Scotsman Falllacy is defined as: You made what could appear to be an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevent criticisms or flaws of your argument. In this form of faulty reasoning, one's belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it won't apply to a supposedly "true" example. This kind of post-rationalisation is a way of avoiding valid criticism's of one's argument. Example: Sally is a a prochoice libertarian. Susie is a prolife libertarian. Sally says that Susie is No True Libertarian because she is prolife. This is a very classic example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Conclusion: Two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. Second conclusion: I invite the person who inspired this debate to take part. This is a serious debate, and I want to prove that logical theists do exist.