asaris

1. I don't think that that's going to be an adequate description of atheism. It may well be that most atheists disagree with most theists about issues of evidence and proof. But I suspect there are some theists that would agree with the atheists conception of proof, and vice versa, with the disagreement being along the lines of whether the burden of proof is satisfied or not. You'd have to say more about what you mean by a standard of proof.

2. I agree that different areas of knowledge use different types of proof. I would be inclined to use science and history as examples of this. I would disagree if you mean to imply some sort of ranking among disciplines based on their standard of proof. I'm not sure that science is in any sense 'better' than history just because it uses a different standard of proof. Sure, no one disputes the existence of gravity. But no one disputes the existence of Queen Elizabeth I either.

3. I think theism can certainly co-exist with 'science-y' explanations of ordinary phenomena. The claim theism makes is that science does not explain everything, not that it explains nothing.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche