I thought I spelled it out fairly clearly. — T Clark

Not to me. As I see it, what you described is a method. But there is no relationship between the philosopher and the history of philosophical problems. How do you not spend your life devoted to problems long resolved? How do you avoid reinventing the wheel? What if you spend years contemplating what it is we can know with any certainty only to end up with a variation of 'I think therefore I am'?

atheism literally has no ontology or epistemology to speak of. — Shwah

Well, isn't that because atheism isn't a philosophical system? Apart from the positive dogmatists, isn't atheism simply the view that there is no good reason to accept the proposition that god/s exist.

A philosopher should pay their philosophy dues. — T Clark

I agree, but I am wondering what those dues would look like.

Just like any other profession. — T Clark

So in your view to be called a philosopher you probably have to be a professional? The idea of devoting time, attention, effort and disciple would probably mean that not everyone is a philosopher, right?

Ok. I'm general, you're trivial... I get it. :wink:

They choose what they think is the wisest track — Shwah

I would question this; especially the use of the word 'wisest'. I would suspect that many decisions made are instinctive or reactive (not chosen as such) and 'wisdom' is by-passed. Sagacity is not exactly bountiful.

which may be, for a child, the easiest and most shortcut-y path. — Shwah

For a child? Do adults not take short-cuts in decision making?

You have to put more on the line than we do. — T Clark

What does more on the line look like?

I meant that the study of wisdom naturally applies to all of us in every action and state (we're always and only seeking to do the most wise thing — Shwah

That seems remarkably optimistic. Don't many people act without thinking and generally choose the low road and/or the easiest, most brutally efficacious path possible?

Everyone is a philosopher as we all seek wisdom in whatever we're doing. Thieves want to be more successful etc etc so the term is really useless. — Shwah

If this is your view do you think there is good and bad philosophy? You seem to see it primarily as a method.

Sure. You don't think competence and key reading is relevant? I am saying there is a tradition and the philosopher is familiar with this tradition. I'm not interested in whether s/he is philosophising correctly - the tradition may well be (and often is) problematic. To just sit on your back step and think deep thoughts is likely not enough. But I am not a philosopher, so it's just my intuition.

Calling a philosopher someone who has expertise in philosophy offers no real explanatory power. — Shwah

So how does it not explain the idea to say that a philosopher is someone who is familiar with central problems and their proposed solutions in philosophy?

made the adverb-exclusion second paragraph. — Shwah

What's that?

Yeah but that's circular which is why philosophy must be defined in general terms — Shwah

Ok. I don't see how it is circular. I also defined it in general terms. Generally when someone calls themselves a practitioner, they have competence and expertise in the thing they practice. I can't really see a way around this. You can't be called a surgeon just because you enjoy cutting people open...

My philosophy 101 teacher said that philosophy isn't merely a person's point of view or way of living. Is there anyone that can't call themselves a philosopher? — TiredThinker

There are at least three OP's asking this question.

Generally they end up winding back to the position that a philosopher has a level of competence and understanding of the key problems in philosophy and how they have been answered.

If you are ignorant of philosophy, how can you be a philosopher? You can think philosophically or be philosophically inclined, but that does not make you a philosopher.

In the USA, I don't see the silencing of theists or really any kind of supernatural theorists. You can even believe that extraterrestrial reptiles who eat children run the world and they won't lock you up. You can blog about the flatness of the earth as you fly around the globe. As far as I can tell, religious folks are often resentful of the intellectual minority ) who dare to challenge or mock not silence such theories. — lll

That is absolutely true and an important point.

Once again atheism trying to shove its leftist agenda down people's throats. Y — Gregory A

You seem to enjoy a phobic anti-atheist rant. Good for you! However, many atheists are conservatives. Some are fairly right wing. Ayn Rand was an atheist. Libertarians tend to be atheists. Many atheists are arseholes. They are not really a team. Some atheists believe in ghosts and astrology. The only thing they have in common is the lack of a particular belief. To say that atheists are all far left social engineers is to engage in a conspiracy theory. Many people like these conspiracy theories as they make it easier not to think.

The worst bloodlettings in history have been carried out by atheist regimes, — Gregory A

Superficially true. But these regimes did not kill for the 'glory of atheism' the way The Inquisition, The Crusades, the Witch Trials, Putin, Islamic State, Isis, etc, killed or kill 'for the glory of God'. They killed as part of a cult of personality and in the name of political fanaticism and nationalism. I would agree that political fanaticism is as bad as religious fanaticism. But I wouldn't include Nazi's - they had the Catholic church and the sermons of Martin Luther to back up their thinking and the slogan, 'Gott Mit Uns' - 'God is with us' was very important in Nazi lore and old German nationalism.

By the way, there are atheist idealists.

I'm not saying I am an idealist am trying to describe the argument properly Often when I contribute I am not defending my own position, I am trying to interrogate and steel man other arguments to see if I might have missed something.

Well, it's not quite solipsistic because it is not saying 'only I exist'. It is saying we all share the same illusion of consciousness manifesting as ostensible material reality.

Can you think of any more examples of this sort of "why" question in philosophy? — Luke

A lot of those sorts of questions might be meaningless even though they seem to make sense to humans whose entire worldview is tied up in measuring things and trying make meaning. Why isn't the world 25% larger than it is?

I'm sure there are other existent things that we readily accept without proof. I will post more if I could think of other examples. But my point is, so much for requiring proof for beliefs. We don't always require proof. — L'éléphant

Well, I guess an idealist would argue that everything we see, we take for granted as real when it is actually a product of mind. Does that count?

When we see people walking down the road, we take it for granted that they are real. What if only 50% of them are real and the rest spectres?

For me the question sometimes might be: what is it we have reason to doubt? Not so much what is it we don't have proof for.

There are many things we accept for which we have no firm proof and some are much more quotidian. 'My husband says he loves me'. Is it true? 'My wife says this is our daughter' But is it? My brith certificate says I was born in Denmark in 1923. Is this true? If I jump off the roof of my 20 story apartment building I will fall to the ground and probably die. But what if I can fly? None of these sorts of things are generally established through proof but I guess we can have reasonable confidence about most of them based on some key indicators and inferences.

Well I went out to the bar tonight, "so to speak", long awaiting anything that resembled moderate discourse on your behalf (rather than the child's play you seem so eager to engage in).

I will refrain from responding to the flagrant disingenuousness of your comments until tomorrow. Don't worry, I'll make sure to address all feeble trivialities with sober mind as I did earlier, if at the very least for "argument's sake". — chiknsld

If you didn't change your above comments, I apologise. They looked even more nasty when I first saw them last night, but now I am used to your abusive ways they seem on par with your general approach. Again apologies. By the way, did you notice I apologised when you're the one being derogatory? :wink:

You go around asking theists for proof of God — chiknsld

Most forms of atheism are about interrogating this question of proof of god/s. Especially when someone makes a god/s claim as you did, which you won't justify on a philosophy forum.

but you are not genuinely interested in their beliefs. — chiknsld

So now you can read minds and determine motivations? I wonder why you arrived at this projection.

Generally I don't engage with abusive folk. It's tiresome and also for many others here.

Cheers for now.

Stop insulting my belief in God. Again, you are not some sort of authority that I need to prove to you that God exists. That's silly. — chiknsld

This is a philosophy forum - we debate ideas like god/s. If this triggers you, deal with it.

I'm assuming you are sober now (as per your own admission) - your last response (which you have now sanitised) was quite a display of bile and judgement. I'm assuming it was the booze talking, not your theism?

You seem to be a vulnerable, sensative theist who is quick to jump at shadows. Here's a collection of nasty, unwarranted phrases from your latest response that suggest you are a dishonest interlocutor who has created a phantom Tom to dump abuse on.

Continue on with your fake entitlement though. :wink: — chiknsld

I know the difference is apparently too subtle for you comprehend — chiknsld

Acting innocent again, eh? — chiknsld

you probably should have very little to say. — chiknsld

It's almost like you keep forgetting that you don't believe in God — chiknsld

you're just here to troll believers. — chiknsld

All of these seem to have metastasized from your earlier comment.

You're making a mockery of atheism. — chiknsld

Now it would be great if you could construct responses in future without resorting to personal attack and bogus assumptions. It makes it look like you have nothing to say, which may not be the case.

But really there is no way to prove that God exists at least not in the way that you want proof. — chiknsld

Ok, I think most of us already knew this. But you have dodged my question from the beginning and I am assuming you won't face up to it even now.

You not only believe there is a god you you indicated that you know how god thinks. How could you expect to say something like that on a philosophy forum of all places and not have some ask for justification?

God takes into consideration all people, not just the ones who believe. — chiknsld

We might have avoided the need for you to get worked up and nasty if you had just answered the question. How do you know how god/s think?

Nicely put.

Ik dacht, dat hij was een 'oude vriend'... niet belangrijk. :wink:

Hoe gaat het met je? We hebben je gemist.

[ :lol:

The only reason I mention the word "theist" is out of respect for the thread (which is about atheism). Plenty of non-religious practicing people still believe in God. Nice try though. — chiknsld

A theist is simply a believer in god/s. It has nothing to do with practicing a religion. There was no 'nice try'.

If it is not immediately evident to you that there is something going on, whilst living and breathing in a gigantic universe...then it's a safe assumption that you will probably never believe in God. — chiknsld

If it is not immediately evident to you that there is nothing going on, whilst living and breathing in a gigantic universe...then it's a safe assumption that you will probably always use god/s as an emotional crutch. You see, you are not presenting an argument, you are just using words to construct a rudimentary appeal to mystery and emotion. I can do it in reverse and it's no better.

You've got to be kidding me. Haughtily asking for proof of God in the guise of sincere and genuine civic duty? Vladimir Putin? Gays in Saudi Arabia? You're making a mockery of atheism.

Religion does not have a monopoly on psychopathy, — chiknsld

I did not say religion has a monopoly on psychopathy. Although in some theocracies it does. I see you prefer deflection to argument.

Wouldn't it be so easy for you if everything was all natural? I mean, then you wouldn't even have to ask a theist why they believe in God right? Or for proof? But wait (here comes the justification)... — chiknsld

Do you have evidence of anything that is not natural? I thought not...

Justification? One of many reasons for anti-theism perhaps.

Asking people why they believe in god/s? I know many of those reasons, having a priest as a close friend, having worked in palliative care services and working with people to prevent suicide has taught me enough about believer's reasons.

But still you avoid discussing yours and resort to deflections Ok I get it, it's hard if you have no good reasons.

And you know what? I don't care that people are theists (as long as they don't want to establish a theocracy) I'm just on a forum and when theists use words that sound like they know stuff when it's way more likely they don't, I sometimes enter the discussion. Arguing about god/s is no more useful than arguing about what the best Adam Sandler movies is.

Take care, it was fun. Maybe we can engage about some other stuff later.

I will say this (correct me if I am wrong), you do not believe in God but you continue to ask for proof of God. What to you is proof of God? — chiknsld

As an atheist, I hold the position that I have seen no reason to be convinced there is god/s - let alone people knowing what god/s want. So I am asking for theist's evidence. That should seem reasonable, surely?

The main role for an atheist in these conversations is to ask theists - 'why do you say that?'

I don't know what would be counted as 'proof', but I do know that nothing I have heard or seen so far works for me.

It's important because governments all around the world have harmful religious agendas, from killing gay people in Saudi, to working to overturn Roe versus Wade in the USA. We know religious nationalism is a huge problem all around the world (Putin anyone?) and all of these are folk who not only believe in god/s, but think they know what god/s wants.

So why do you make the claims you do?

I have no theory on offer, but I have never assumed that time was anything much more than a human construct to help us make sense of and order our version of 'reality'. Notions of cause and eternity similarly are ideas we use to explain things and to some extent map onto terrestrial events as we view them.

my post is not meant to be persuasive — chiknsld

You can't make extravagant claims on a philosophy forum and expect for them to go unchecked.

So you not only believe god/s are real, you claim to know what god/s think. A double whammy of implausibility from an atheist's perspective, as I am sure you must know. Pray tell us how it is achieved?

The debate about the nature of atheism takes place precisely because people make claims such as yours and won't or can't justify them. Ideas live in ecosystems.

I can't do anything about how you interpret others. But I'm asking you about how you interpret god'/s. Do you have an answer to this?

I can actually prove (through logic) that we are not alone, — chiknsld

Which of course is not the same thing as actually proving it. A Nobel Prize and a shit-ton of money awaits the person who can prove gond/s. One suspects this will go unclaimed.

God really does the same thing if you think about it. God takes into consideration all people, not just the ones who believe. — chiknsld

So do you know god/s personally? This is the kind of odd personal claim an apologist might make. Why would we take this seriously?

That's it! A bit more nuanced than my version...

The world is full of things for which we don't have explanations. Explanations are human things. — T Clark

I wish this were more widely recognized. A succinct formulation of a key idea.

:up:

Atheism is a rejection of free-speech (primarily another element of the Left).
— Gregory A

this has to be a troll. Best left alone. — Wayfarer

You'd think so. But I've heard this kind of incoherent, quasi-libertarian shit from some apologists in recent times. Next comment is usually a connection between Communism and atheism, along with a conspiracy to deprive people of liberty, along with their faith.

I'm a theist but to be honest don't give a fuck about them gods. — EugeneW

I think of you more as an eccentric, based on your entertaining responses.

The atheist believes in the fairy tale that no gods exist. So it's a belief. Do they have demonstrate of any of this? I think not. — EugeneW

No, again you are wrong. :wink: The atheist says they have no reason to believe there are gods. They do not necessarily say there are no gods. I don't believe in Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster for the same reason. I don't say they do not exist I say I have seen no reason to think they are real. Big difference.

Sure, what method did you use to show Zeus doesn't exist? Ill just use that one. — DingoJones

Exactly. :up:

Atheism is a belief, a fairy tale, a myth — EugeneW

Wrong. :wink:

Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief. A responsible contemporary atheist is more likely to say - 'I am not convinced that god/s exist.' For the same reason that a Christian does not believe in Zeus, Allah, Ganesh, Ahura Mazda, Thoth, Krishna, whichever.

Theism deals with reality, with the beings that live in an eternal parallel world, who, by ingenious design or accidentally, created spacetime in its eternity and infinity, the basic stuff in it, and the laws according to which it behaves. — EugeneW

Demonstrate any of this? I thought not..

All moral theories yield apodictically correct answers for the ones holding them. — EugeneW

Do you mean people assume their answers/worldviews are correct or that everyone's individual truth is correct?

1.When faced with conflict and loss, people should choose the least damaging option.

2.The losses from war outweigh other peaceful solutions such as negotiation and political means.

3. When faced with conflict and loss, war is not the least costly option.

4. Unless it is unavoidable, If something causes harm and damage to people, it is unjust.

5. The war is avoidable.

6. The war causes harm and damage to people.

Conclusion: Therefore, a war is unjust. — Howard

Seems a bit of a messy argument. I don't have a strong view on this topic, but this seems somewhat naïve to my eye. Perhaps defining what a war is might be useful too.

Let's just take a few premises at random.

1.When faced with conflict and loss, people should choose the least damaging option. — Howard

How do you know what the least damaging option is? How do you not know that a small war in 2022 might prevent a much larger, more lethal war in 2024 saving millions of lives?

2. Peaceful solutions like negotiation or politics do not always work. Can you prove they do? Could we have negotiated with Hitler? Could the holocaust have been prevented by just sitting down and having a diplomatic chat with the Nazi's?

4. Does not make sense logically. Something causing harm and damage to people is not necessarily unjust. It might be regrettable, but unjust? Are cars unjust? Is Coke unjust?

5. The war is avoidable. Really? Which war is this? You could argue that most things in theory are avoidable, except death and taxes. But in practice this is just a statement that requires evidence to back it up. If Russia attacked London would war be avoidable?