Absurd as it sounds, noted troll Yus/Susidio/TrapperJoe has been claiming for weeks, over hundreds of comments on at least two different blogs that skeptics and believers are equally likely to make assertions without evidence.
Just yesterday, he went on the record, in more than one place, insisting that skepticism is every bit as shaky as belief. What the fool seems not to realize, is that (a) skepticism isn't obligated to provide evidence because the burden rests on the other side; and (b) any skeptical claim, or at least any serious skeptical claim I've ever seen, is accompanied by mountains of evidence. The evidence can be contested and dismissed, perhaps, but there's a categorical difference between the types of arguments the two sides make: Believers often rely on naked assertions (See: Fundy, Bray of) skeptics don't.
(Between you, me and the lamp-post I think the fool, in fact, realizes both points above, only he prefers to kick up dust, and jerk people around)