filtherton

Okay, so it seems some clarification is in order.

First, this is coming out as a general presupposition about the position of all atheists. I realize that there will be atheists who don't fit this bill, and i apologize. It is a general argument, and i don't mean to tell anyone what they think. It's more of a tardy rebuttal to arguments i've already had.

Second, when i speak of spiritual people i mean people whose beliefs are adaptable; they don't believe in things that contradict their experiences or knowledge. I hope that idea is clear.

Okay, pigglet, you're right about the d/theism thing. I guess that i'm speaking more along the lines of spirituality in general. Would you agree that theism is a subset of spirituality?

As for the definition of atheism, i'm treating it here like the second law of thermodynamics: there are many different ways of saying it - you just pick the one most useful for doing whatever it is you're doing. It has been my experience that one of the standard atheist arguments against th/deism is that th/deism is an invalid perspective because it doesn't meet some sort of rigidly defined scientific criteria; teapots, spaghetti monsters, all that. These arguments would seem naturally apply to all spirituality, inasmuch as spirituality equates to belief in the supernatural. I know that technically atheism is isn't just about standards of evidence, but standards of evidence seem to be a fulcrum upon which its more militant adherents attempt to invalidate spiritual beliefs. Discussions generally seem to boil down to questions of proof.

The idea that there is a method which, when followed with enough diligence, can explain all things is groundless. Also, that the idea that any ideas unsupported by this method are regressive is groundless. Obviously, i don't have any sort of proof for these assertions, but a mathematical analogue for them might be godel's incompleteness theorems.

I guess what my position comes down to, is that evidentiary standards are necessarily fluid things. None of us could function if we only acted when we had a strict scientific basis on which to act. I think that a discerning person should be able to figure out for themselves where the limitations of rigorous doctrine A end and where the limitations of rigorous doctribe B begin, and also that the ability to adhere to two superficially contradictory methods of making sense of things isn't necessarily something to be frowned upon.