You are right. One cannot be skeptical about everything. But one should be skeptical about those subjects for which no empirical evidence exists. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the claimant.
In the case of the moon landings, there is a rather significant mountain of evidence that it happened. Launches, films, photos, radio recordings, transcripts, witness accounts, scientific findings, equipment telescopically visible on the moon’s surface etc. It was witnessed by the world. There is no credible evidence that it didn’t (Not one admissions from the astronauts or any of the tens of thousands of technicians and scientists involved that it was the world’s largest, most complex, most expensive and most secretive hoax.)
The few claiming it to be a hoax are not therefore skeptics as they are not arguing from a position of evidential superiority, but rather from the position of the conspiracy theorist. Those special needs children who are so intimidated by their lack of understanding of the world that they have to imagine a big, scary group of sneaky clever people who spend their time and superior intelect setting up elaborate April’s fools jokes that they never get to giggle about, because its secret.
As far as past life regression goes, there is no evidence for it. And make no mistake, those claiming it to be true must provide the evidence for it before it can even be considered as a subject worthy of discussion. There is however evidence that it enriches the shrinks who sell it.
I agree with agnosticism. In fact, I consider myself a religious agnostic as I do not know. However, as the claimants have produced no evidence in support of god’s existence, I must lean towards the atheist point of view if forced to take a side.
I am sorry for going Rambo on you GCG, but I just seriously love a good debate. And as you and I often seem to be on the same side of the fence, I should make the most of the opportunity.