Would it help if I was to post a list of history’s most respected philosophers who were not atheists?
You either put faith in your theology and believe it, or you do not.
There is no middle ground.
I have clearly made my point, your failure to understand isn’t my problem.
so agnostics are mythical creatures like unicorn?
even a progressive christian can question life, Dr. S. Your black box of philosophy is leaving out alot of important philosophy.
so in short.
I reject your atheist philosophy and replace it with my agnostic philosophy.
Probably not, at this point he’s locked into his decision and any proof otherwise will just make him repeat his point, or ask you to bow down before the one you serve.
Philosophy seeks to understand the whole as well as the parts; theology is open to, and subject to, philosophical investigation. To say that theology and philosophy are to be opposed to one another is foolish, because what philosophy is, is an exploration of abstract and metaphyschical realms of thought – it is as my proffessor likes to put it, thinking about thinking – though, this is not to say that this is all that philosophy is.
If you think of philosophy as the search for truth, then to reject the versacity of any theology without giving it consideration, study, or contemplation, is to nessesarly limit the pursuit. Just consider how much Western philosophy has come out of Eastern metaphysics.
My theology was arrived at using the tools of the philosopher. My faith in my theology is no stronger or weaker than my faith in my philosophy.
Well it is your problem if you have any interest whatever in convincing me of your position. You have made a claim. I am in disagreement with it and have asked you to expand on it. You have done so insufficiently, at least for me.
(But perhaps there are others here who can see his point? Is there anybody who can help me see that any philosopher “worth his salt†must necessarily be an atheist? Anybody?)
Come on Dr. S - at least try and be more than the POR of atheism on this forum.
What area of philosophy do you specialise in? I bet I could name five specialists in any field who would happily put to rest your dogmatic assertions. So I wonder - where does your certainty come from? Imagine yourself in the position of asking this question of another - what do you usually conclude in these situations? Now consider what would make someone else think this way about you. Come on Dr. S - at least point me to whatever earlier thread you wrote which grounds your current assertive brevity.
Regards,
James
No. And using his point you can eliminate atheists from philosophy as well.
His “theology” is the “lack of” theology or A-theology.
by those definitions an Agnostic would make the best philosopher as they are more willing to question all points and beliefs. You are willing to question the belief in god, but not your belief (or lack of belief) in no god.
Dr S wrote
This raises the obvious question of the reason for studying philosophy and/or theology. Is it to justify your preconceptions or grow to understand as a whole? My interest is in “meaning” as a whole and the purpose of life including human life. I can not separate them in my need to “understand”. It would be like separating my left brain from my right brain insinuating that one denies the clarity of the other. In reality, they compliment each other in the experience of life as a whole as do philosophy and theology.
Of course, it always takes more effort to something right.
Religion is a great shortcut to thinking. Being religious and philosophical is possible, but it does require more circumlocution and less intellectual honesty. Hence all the extra work. 
Theology is a great application of thinking. Being atheistic and philosophical is possible, but you start farther away from the truth – lending to less intellectual honesty, and less true progress.
See quotes below by greater Christian thinkers than I.
mrn
Postscriptum: Lets just leave the slam about intellectual honesty as a decorous bit of rhetoric. Who knows who is being honest to themselves?
Ah, only if you start with the truth and work your way backwards! That’s how religion works, but that’s diametrically opposed to the way science and philosophy are supposed to work…
And you’re the last one to criticize the use of a bit of colorful rhetoric, MRN. 
Sounds like the way you get a proof in math, too. You intuit an answer, look for a quia argument (argument from effect to cause), then present the proof as a propter quid argument (argument from cause to effect). [The order of presentation is opposite the order of discovery.] I’m not sure how you think philosophy or science, or even theology for that matter are done.
Plus note that a phillosophy with a religiously revealed premise becomes revealed Theology, and philosophy of God proven without them remains natural Theology – a part of Philosophy (metaphysics).
You don’t think Aristotle was overly biased to religion, was he? But a lot of Thomistic thought is based on that pre-Christian’s work.
Moi? 
mrn
Phaedrus
What? Are you saying Philosophy starts with questions, and works towards the truth? Show me. Most of what I see secular philosophy doing is starting with obvious truths, and trying to tear them apart into nothing. I mean, haven’t you claimed to be a nihilist yourself?
Secular philosophy? More like pop philosophy. Anyway, haven’t I proclaimed often enough that philosophy is futile anyway?
To be accurate, I’ve stated I’m more of an existentialist with a nihilistic streak. That streak doesn’t doubt physical reality, just the ultimate futility of wisdom.
Math does in some cases spin an elaborate proof for something obvious. I guess that’s one reason I fucking hate math. I’d say real science and the only useful philosophers start with questions and try to find answers. To do it bass ackwards is to put the cart before the horse.
But I figured that would get a rise outta you Bible Thumpers. I haven’t crossed swords, er, keyboards, with Ucci for awhile. Mission accomplished! 
In reading through the posts since you wrote this, it seems as though it isn’t just me.
Do you have anything further you can offer us to help us all understand?
First off, I don’t use the ridiculous christianized definition of atheist which states it is a belief. it isnt. Atheism is the absense of theology.
Second, as Phaedrus pointed out, theology is in the buisness of answers, while philosophy is in the buisness of questions. If you Start ‘with all the answers’, as theists do, how can you possibly be asking questions?
Maybe you can philosophize within the narrow scope of your religion (how many angels…etc), but that isn’t philosophy.
I have no problem with your definition of atheism. I’m not sure that’s been the issue here though, has it?
Nor have I claimed it to be. You’ve set up a straw man. Meanwhile, I could ask if philosophizing within the narrow scope of the assumption that there is an absence of any theological implications is philosophizing.
It’s all beside the point, however. Let’s get back to the question I, and others here, are having trouble with. How is it that you can claim that any philosopher “worth his salt” is an atheist?
You don’t really seem to be answering this.
Are you sure it wouldn’t help for me to post that list?