[Serious] Absolutes and Atheism

[Neo-Scholastic]

We don't expect theists to only have one religion in common, why would you expect atheists to only have one philosophy in common?

I, for one, have no such expectation. At the same time, if atheism is simply a lack of belief in the divine, then it is a kind of hole. IMHO holes are, in their own way a thing and can have their own unique qualities. So it is right an proper atheism would be variously expressed in the intellectual life of individual atheists, just as theistic belief manifests itself in various ways. If a hole, a true physical lack, can have size and shape then so also an intellectual hole can be described by the extent to which it fails to inform other beliefs. And maybe the hole isn't really about the divine as-such; but rather the function served by belief in the divine.

Personally I'm a rational skeptic epistemologically (or at least I try) a humanist morally, a moderate/progressive liberal politically, and I suppose a classicist when it comes to logic; but I'm probably limited by my education in that regard. I've not always been a humanist rational skeptic moderate/progressive liberal; I will modify them as needed based on evidence or reasoning new to me.

All I can say is that those positions (except the political ones) are very heavily foundationalist. Most refutations of theistic arguments are attacks against foundationalism. I am not saying they are not valid refutations and for the sake of this thread I am not defending them. All I am saying is that the skeptical approach is kind of a double-edged sword. Skeptics deny the efficacy of human reason. And the efficacy of reason is one of the foundational principles of classical theism. So the skeptics method of disposing of theism also disposes them of appeal to reason. YMMV