pig

hey filthy,

first, i would modify your opening definition of atheism. i would say that something like skepticism is a philosophical position regarding the standards of evidence necessary to justify a position or belief. i would then argue that atheism is a subset of skepticism, on the topic of theistic religions / spiritual worldviews. Therefore, the evidenciary standards are naturally pretty important.

I have to agree with willravel that atheists and theists don't seem to have different evidenciary standards most of the time. only in this trivial "why are we here, where have we been, where are we going?" (thanks joyce carol oates) discussion. I'd have to ask what you mean by wanting different types of proof. I think this is precisely where roach's point about "faith" and "leaps of faith" come in. That to me would seem to be the big theological fudge factor for most religions. It seems to me to represent a schism in the way theist approach questions of knowledge. I honestly don't really understand it.

This may also be tied up in your last comment as well; you stated that theism in its most general sense a question of "intent" in the universe. I suppose "intent" may require an "intendor," but this seems to throw out deism, for example. So, in a way you seem to lumping in theism with spirituality, which I suppose I don't personally agree with.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this notion of "proof" and theism/atheism a little more. I feel as though this post is mostly a critique / question about your post, without as much creative personal thought as I'd like. I hope to post back when I've had some time to think about this and how to put my perspective.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style