Willravel

Because of a lack of the evidence showing intent, it is quite difficult to allow the two ways of though to coexist in my mind. The idea that theists and atheists have different meanings of the word "proof" only seems to come up when the philosophies are directly compared. I think that atheists and theists share the same ideas about proof in our every day lives, such as crossing the street when there is a car coming. The only real separation comes with the application of said proof to theism, which by it's very nature has no connection to proof. I think it runs counter to the idea of faith to share the same philosophical presupposition (5 point word) as atheism, Darwinism, etc.

The problem that I keep coming back to is the explanation of faith. "I just believe" doesn't satisfy me, which is why I am for all intents and purposes an atheist. I see no logic in that position. Others do.
You may have just dug yourself into a very deep hole with this statement. Would you mind showing, with proof or evidence, that god's existence is far more likely to be a reality than his non-existence?
That's not really how science works. We gather evidence and test in order to draw conclusions. Something without evidence, like god, simply doesn't matter. Sure, it's interesting to apply theism to philosophy, but speaking from a purely scientific perspective, god is as important as any work of fiction or flight of fancy.