/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14407820]

Only 14% of philosophers are theists. Kinda hurts your position.

[Anonymous No.14407822]

>>14407820
>People who reject the answers spend their lives searching for them
gee whiz

[Anonymous No.14407823]

>>14407820
Philosophers are retards so this actually vindicates theism.

[Anonymous No.14407828]

yeah but 100% of the philosophers who I actually give a shit about DO believe in God, so fuck your study

[Anonymous No.14407849]

>>14407820
Based OP btfoing religioustards. Embarrassing how they cling to pre-modern philosophy. Don't read Hume, guys! Lest your worldview shatters lololol

[Anonymous No.14407864]

>>14407822
>>14407823
These people spend their entire lives dealing with logic and the arguments and they have come to this conclusion. There is no better person to look to than philosophers.

[Anonymous No.14408041]

>>14407820
Ya but think of how strong the arguments for God those 14% have from being constantly tested by the 86%ers

[Anonymous No.14408046]

>>14407820
A problem, since less than 14% of philosophers are serious people.

[Anonymous No.14408076]

>>14407820
Appeal to common belief

[Anonymous No.14408079]

>>14407820
?where did you get this information?

[Anonymous No.14408090]

>>14407820
In no way
>>14407864
>These people spend their entire lives dealing with logic and the arguments and they have come to this conclusion.
Just like You i suppose and here You go making argument from authority.
Atheists are really desperate.

[Anonymous No.14408100]

>>14407820
>Reject both
massive brains on these lads

[Anonymous No.14408103]

>>14408041
Not very.
>>14408076
>>14408090
I don't think there is anything wrong with an appeal to authority. If 97% of scientists agree with something there isn't much of a reason to even talk to the 3%. It's like believing in flat earth.
>>14408079
Philpapers survey

[Anonymous No.14408113]

>people who believe the religion that authority figures taught them as children

[Anonymous No.14408233]

Imagine thinking any of the reality defying events described in religious texts are actually possible and DID happen. Whats wrong with theists?

[Anonymous No.14408250]

>>14408233
Nothing. What is wrong is with atheists who believe what Jews tell them, when Jews in the same sentence tell them that they want them extinct, pliable, and easily moulded by capital.

Atheism is the religion of cucks. You're basically just food for superior people. Good little wage slaves, nice and childless, nice and consumerist. Easily exploitable, and tame as puppies. You lick Jewish boots and you carry Jewish water.

An easy win for the superior race.

[Anonymous No.14408265]

>>14408103
>If 97% of scientists agree with something there isn't much of a reason to even talk to the 3%.
And What If the "97% of scientists" turns out to be a psychologist and a homeopat quoting studies that have nothing to do with the subject of their paper?
Also, no.
If the "3%" demonstrates They're right experimentally there's no number of other scientists that can make them any less right in no way and by no mean.
You simply have no idea What science is, just like everyone that worships it.

[Anonymous No.14408268]

>>14408113
I was litteraly taught Atheism as a kid. As everybody, Since modern media is 100% atheist.

[Anonymous No.14408275]

I don't "believe in God" but I still wouldn't pick atheist

[Anonymous No.14408345]

>>14407820
>>14408103
Why would you appeal to all philosophers instead of just the experts? I presume that when considering for example climate change you only take into account climate scientists, and not psychologists, computer scientists, etc. Why not do the same here and look specifically at the experts, i.e. philosophers of religion?

[Anonymous No.14408398]

>>14407864
Not really. Like most theists they inherit it from family/environment/media.

[Anonymous No.14408413]

>>14408345
>I presume that when considering for example climate change you only take into account climate scientists, and not psychologists, computer scientists, etc.
You presume wrong.

[Anonymous No.14408432]

Explains the state of philosophy,

[Anonymous No.14408439]

>>14408413
Too bad. I like to presume people are not retarded, but that often turns out incorrect.

[Anonymous No.14408475]

>>14407820
14% of the world is non-religious, 86% of the world is religious. Kind of hurts your position.

[Anonymous No.14408540]

>>14408439
>I like to presume people are not retarded,
Why would you be so retarded.

[Anonymous No.14408568]

>>14408250
Meanwhile Christianity is literally Judaism for Goys.

[Anonymous No.14408577]

>>14408568
No It's Not.
Jews wouldn't hate it If it was so.

[Anonymous No.14408583]

>>14408577
Meanwhile Christian's in the US keep supporting Israel like good goys.

[Anonymous No.14408665]

>>14408250
Youre retarded the jews did not tell me that its ridiculous to believe in noahs ark. I came to that conclusion on my own, and I'm literally none of what you described in your 2nd paragraph. Fucks sake your mental faculties are lacking this is your brain on parting the sea.

[Anonymous No.14408715]

>>14408103
Appeal to authority is a terrible arguement, otherwise we should have never stopped believing in the existence of aether

[Anonymous No.14408718]

>>14407820
It’s not an election Moshe

[Anonymous No.14408726]

>>14408583
>”christians” in the us
U mean protties

[Anonymous No.14408727]

>>14408268
You're even more stupid then

[Anonymous No.14408733]

>>14407820
>appealing to authority
Super mega ultra cringe

[Anonymous No.14408773]

>>14407820
Only a minority of philosophers is actually relevant

[Anonymous No.14408784]

>>14408583
>AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM
How tiresome it is to "argue" with modern atheists. Like trying to reach a monkey to play chess.

[Anonymous No.14408799]

>>14408250
>atheism is bad because Jews Jews Cultural Marxists Zionists Jews Jews worship the Jew on the cross to escape Jews
Take your meds anon

[Anonymous No.14408800]

>>14408432
/thread

[Anonymous No.14408842]

>>14408784
See the fact that you believe in all the magical happenings in your ancient book makes it mostly understandable why you are so gullible to believe theres some shadow council of jewish people controlling you.

[Anonymous No.14408855]

>>14407820
>no context
k, bye

[Anonymous No.14408857]

>>14408842
Doing exactly the same thing again is a strange strategy If you aim to change my mind anon.

[Anonymous No.14408868]

>>14408345
Philosophers of religion are mostly produced by religious universities in the US to defend religion and evangelize. It is, for the most part, not a rigorous field.
Would you consider people who study Gender Studies to be the authority regarding gender? No, you would cite experts from respected, rigorous fields. Same applies here, the authority on this subject would actually be metaphysicians, who are mostly atheists.

[Anonymous No.14408875]

>>14408113
My parents, those who care about me the most, taught me religion. The media, those that have no interest in my betterment, taught me to hate it. It took me embarrassingly long to realize my mistake.

[Anonymous No.14408891]

>>14408857
I may as well double down against someone who is swayed by fantasy so easily. It seems like the winning strategy to throw complete bullshit at you and tell you that your life will be better if you believe it.

[Anonymous No.14408985]

>>14408868
>Philosophers of religion are mostly produced by religious universities in the US to defend religion and evangelize.
Philosophers of not-religion are mostly produced by atheist universities in the US to undermine religion and evangelize atheism.
I can do this too.
>Would you consider people who study Gender Studies to be the authority regarding gender?
Yes, unless you understand something different by gender.
>the authority on this subject would actually be metaphysicians
No, the authority on the subject of existence of god are philosophers of religion, who can also be metaphysicians.
https://philpapers.org/browse/arguments-for-theism
https://philpapers.org/browse/arguments-against-theism
If you look near the top of the page you'll see that those are classified under philosophy of religion.

[Anonymous No.14409025]

>>14408985
>Philosophers of not-religion are mostly produced by atheist universities in the US to undermine religion and evangelize atheism.
Based retard. Stop trolling.

>Yes
Gender Studies is not a serious field of study

>No, the authority on the subject of existence of god are philosophers of religion
Most philosophers of religion don't specialize in natural theology, nor is philosophy of religion enough, by itself, to make the case for theism.

If you pay attention to the status of contemporary philosophy, you will see that there's largely a consensus among different fields of a worldview that's ultimately inconsistent with theism. For example, the overwhelming majority of philosophers of mind, possibly the most important and respected field these days, are physicalists. Yet physicalism is completely inconsistent with the case built by neaely all christian philosophers in the field of philosophy of religion.
Which field do you respect more and expect to be more rigorous in its creation of knowledge?

[Anonymous No.14409044]

>>14407820
Context? Source?

[Anonymous No.14409080]

What does reject both means?

[Anonymous No.14409121]

>>14407822
>I don't think yet I already know the answers
yikes

[Anonymous No.14409145]

Who gives a fuck? Philosophy isn't a rigorous field and most of the claims made by philosophers are subjective and colored through their world view.

[Anonymous No.14409163]

There isnt immediate proof for a bunch of shit we take for granted, who cares

[Anonymous No.14409176]

>bro I don't need to prove god exists
>just have faith he doesn't
What do?

[Anonymous No.14409183]

>>14409176
Based and numidiumpilled.

[Anonymous No.14409186]

>>14407820
Where is this data from?

[Anonymous No.14409219]

>>14409025
>>14408985
>Philosophers of religion are mostly produced by religious universities in the US to defend religion and evangelize.
Based retard. Stop trolling.
>Gender Studies is not a serious field of study
Okay, then it's not a good analogy because philosophy of religion is a serious field of study. You can ask other philosophers.
>Most philosophers of religion don't specialize in natural theology
Nor do most ethicists or aestheticians.
>nor is philosophy of religion enough, by itself, to make the case for theism.
I don't know what that means. Philosophy of religion is not a walled garden that isn't interconnected with other branches of philosophy. Nobody says it is enough "by itself" because it can't exist "by itself", just like metaphysics can't "by itself" without epistemology for example.
>For example, the overwhelming majority of philosophers of mind, possibly the most important and respected field these days, are physicalists.
Not really. The hard problem of consciousness had undermined that. You'll see in the 2020 survey :)
>Which field do you respect more and expect to be more rigorous in its creation of knowledge?
I expect philosophers of religion to be more much knowledgable with regards to the issue of the existence of God than philosophers who don't publish in that area.

[Anonymous No.14409242]

>>14407820
>this many believe it so it hurts your position
cute ad populum

[Anonymous No.14409247]

>>14407820
>It is impossible for those in the minority to be right

I'm not a theist, but this is a dumb argument.

[Anonymous No.14409258]

>>14407820
Academia implicitly requires atheism thus in an especially academic field like philosophy the result is not surprising.

[Anonymous No.14409377]

>>14409219
Yep, you're trolling by this point. There are no such thing as "atheist universities", nor are there organized efforts to train philosophers of religion to argue against theism.

>philosophy of religion is a serious field of study
Philosophy of religion is widely known to be a very biased sample of philosophers. Most are already religious individuals being trained by religious schools to defend their religion, many are even aiming to become pastors or apologists.

>I don't know what that means.
Philosophers of religion are rarely influential in other fields.

>Not really. The hard problem of consciousness had undermined that. You'll see in the 2020 survey :)
LMAO. Imagine believing this. I eagerly await for you to get btfo.

>I expect philosophers of religion to be more much knowledgable with regards to the issue of the existence of God than philosophers who don't publish in that area.
Philosophers of religion routinely make statements about other fields to sustain their whole worldview, statements that are outside their expertise and contradict expert consensus

[Anonymous No.14409405]

>>14409176
Say that his ignorance hurts people even without him knowing

[Anonymous No.14409422]

>>14409219
>hard problem of consciousness
been a thing for decades

[Anonymous No.14409427]

>>14407820
How are you defining philosopher? Because if most of those numbers in that survey are like just philosophy students at a university or something that isn't very impressive

[Anonymous No.14409437]

>>14409377
>There are no such thing as "atheist universities", nor are there organized efforts to train philosophers of religion to argue against theism.
Yes, it's retarded on purpose to reflect the retardedness of what you wrote. Here's Cambridge, one of your religous universities whose goal is to defend religion and evangelise:
https://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/researchareas/research-areas/philosophy-of-religion
>Philosophy of religion is widely known to be a very biased sample of philosophers.
So are people who despite being philosohpically-inclined made a choice to not specialize in philosophy of religion or to not puruse theology instead of philosophy. That sample is clearly already biased towards non-religious people.
>Philosophers of religion routinely make statements about other fields to sustain their whole worldview
I thought you were fine with non-philosophers-of-religion making statements about topics studied within philosophy of religion?

>>14409422
thanks sherlock

[Anonymous No.14409450]

>Reject both

[Anonymous No.14409473]

>>14409437
>Here's Cambridge
Where did I say only religious universities have philosophy of religion as an area of study, brainlet? You must not be familiar with the evangelical movement in the US, and the amount of resources it spends to train pastors and apologists at places like Talbot School of Theology.

>So are people who despite being philosohpically-inclined made a choice to not specialize in philosophy of religion or to not puruse theology instead of philosophy. That sample is clearly already biased towards non-religious people.
Not even remotely comparable, don't be disingenuous.

>I thought you were fine with non-philosophers-of-religion making statements about topics studied within philosophy of religion?
Where did I say this?

[Anonymous No.14409488]

Appealing to consensus is a fallacy

[Anonymous No.14409521]

Religion is basically useless in the modern world. If you follow the timeline of religions that rose and fell throughout history you notice a huge shrinkage in gods control over our world. Lightning used to be god, day night cycles used to be god, stars used to be god, oceans used to be god... now what is it? A tool to ambiguously describe how you should behave? Seems somewhat useless in the 1st world, seems like it only was truly useful when it was used by people above as justification for commanding people below. You can see this concept at work on /pol/ pretty interesting how this wave of it being cool to be a christian on 4chan has come around. Religion has always been a strong tool for motivating the proles.

[Anonymous No.14409610]

Philosophers are irrelevant in today’s world. Scientists are the new philosophers, and the vast majority of scientists are not religious or atheist. Agnosticism or vague theism/deism is probably the most “intellectual” standpoint now that atheism is gently going out of fashion among non pseuds

[Anonymous No.14409622]

>>14409473
>You must not be familiar with the evangelical movement in the US, and the amount of resources it spends to train pastors and apologists at places like Talbot School of Theology.
Theology is a separate domain from philosophy of religion.
>Where did I say this?
>>14407820

[Anonymous No.14409627]

>Agnostic and undecided are the same category

When will this fucking meme end.

[Anonymous No.14409633]

>>14408113
>>14408268
>>14408727
>>14408875
Yeah having some religious upbringing is way better than not. Never mind god or no god, you'll be given better education and sensibilities.

[Anonymous No.14409642]

>>14409627
That was an option in every question, not just the one on theism.

[Anonymous No.14409652]

>>14407849
based

[Anonymous No.14409663]

>>14409642
It even being an option is dumb.

[Anonymous No.14409671]

>>14408475
lol dumbass

[Anonymous No.14409684]

>>14409671
By that logic, op is also a retard

[Anonymous No.14409693]

>>14409025
>Gender Studies is not a serious field of study
who says? you? who has probably never looked at it?
regardless philosophers of religion aren't analogous. they're generally theists coming in to incorporate new insights from epistemology or such. they don't really have more expertise on god than the average metaphysician

[Anonymous No.14409703]

>>14409025
>For example, the overwhelming majority of philosophers of mind, possibly the most important and respected field these days, are physicalists.
there is a growing and not-insignificant amount of dualists

[Anonymous No.14409713]

>>14409684
no. experts =/= everyone. why do i have to spell this out

[Anonymous No.14409716]

>>14409663
Not really. You can be undecided with regards to some question. You can also think that the answer to it can't be discovered. They decided to group those two answers to make things a bit simpler, because the two options together rarely if ever account for more than 5% of the answers.

[Anonymous No.14409719]

>>14407820
>16 people actually voted Reject Both

[Anonymous No.14409726]

>>14409622
>Theology is a separate domain from philosophy of religion.
See? You're not familiar how these schools work. Talbot does offer a philosophy program, and Theology schools usually train ministries, apologists and the like in both theology and philosophy of religion. Which is why philosophers of religion are not a good sample, these degrees are mostly given as part of religious indoctrination.

OP is just giving the results of a survey

[Anonymous No.14409735]

>>14407820
Hmmm, almost like the potential philosophers who believe in God tend to become theologians instead...

[Anonymous No.14409741]

argument by authority is the go to argument for retards

[Anonymous No.14409742]

>>14409726
The fuck do I care about your cherrypicked little school.
>OP is just giving the results of a survey
No, OP is claiming that the result has some significance even though it's a general survey and not a survey of experts within the specialty that deals with the question.

[Anonymous No.14409752]

If you are a monist, you must be a pantheist. That is all.

[Anonymous No.14409756]

>>14409752
>That is all.
how about an argument stupid

[Anonymous No.14409755]

>>14409726
You are such a soiboi, lol.

[Anonymous No.14409763]

>>14409610
you are a pseud

[Anonymous No.14409770]

>>14409713
>academic philosophers
>”experts” on religion

Lmao, you know nothing about academia obviously.

[Anonymous No.14409782]

>>14409756
1. Monism is the thesis that the totality of the world comprises of one substance.
2. Anything knowable or causal must occur within this one substance (following from one).
3. That means that the totality of these (knowable) interactions falls within this one substance.
4. This substance is therefore all-powerful, since no causal interactions exist outside of it and it contains the totality of causation, and all-knowing, since all things known must be captured within its scope.
5. God in a minimal sense is defined as an all-powerful and all-knowing being.
6. Therefore, God is this monistic substance. And if so, then anything within this substance is a part of God, which is pantheism minimally conceived.

[Anonymous No.14409789]

>>14409782
Actually based.

[Anonymous No.14409803]

>>14409726
>these degrees are mostly given as part of religious indoctrination.
No they aren't, what the actual fuck are you talking about, people wanting to become a priest get a divinity degree.

[Anonymous No.14409826]

>>14407820
if you are gonna argue you position through people who support your claim, atheism, then you only need to look at history and see, that all the greatest geniuses that have lived where theistic, so fuck off with your poll of marxist academics

[Anonymous No.14409840]

>>14409782
damn, this actually isn't bad. though i presume people might have a problem with god being synonymous with the universe. not even spinoza held that view
>This substance is therefore all-powerful, since no causal interactions exist outside of it and it contains the totality of causation
it might be objected that this doesn't make the being all-powerful. is the universe all-powerful? because we can imagine things that can be done without them happening. god is usually taken to be capable of doing anythinf he imagined
>all-knowing, since all things known must be captured within its scope.
a similar objection applies in that there are things nobody in the universe knows about. so if god knew everything that is known in the universe, he still wouldn't know everything

[Anonymous No.14409847]

>>14407864
>logic and arguments
>every philosopher’s ultimate conclusion is that nothing matters and pederasty is cool

[Anonymous No.14409854]

>>14409742
>The fuck do I care about your cherrypicked little school.
Based fucking retard

[Anonymous No.14409856]

>>14409782
>God is this monistic substance. And if so, then anything within this substance is a part of God, which is pantheism minimally conceived.

[Anonymous No.14409867]

>>14407820
>Kinda hurts your position.
Explain how, retard.

[Anonymous No.14409877]

>>14409755
Post body

[Anonymous No.14409886]

>>14409803
>religious schools only indoctrinate through divinity degrees
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.14409891]

>>14408475
>most people are stupid
Oh shit, looks like I'm wrong!

[Anonymous No.14409892]

>>14409840
Well Spinoza speaks of Nature, which is what I have in mind, not necessarily the universe though it works.

As for your other objects, yes this is a very mundane and boring conception of god. It's not the kind of god that wills anything into existence. As for knowledge, this is a regional conception that I adopt from Schelling and Hegel. We as subjects are god coming to know itself. This means that we have to have a particularly complicated conception of modality to make sense of how the absolute itself can 'learn' things.

[Anonymous No.14409893]

>>14407820
What's the sample reference?

[Anonymous No.14409902]

>>14409856
Thanks for the gif. Not sure if you agree with my claim but it made me smile.

[Anonymous No.14409926]

>>14409891
>the rest of the cultures of the world don’t follow the totally contingent naturalist materialist myth promulgated in the last 100 years in my tiny corner of the world therefore all other people must be stupid and “unenlightened”.

You are the ”unenlightened” one, white euro imperialist.

[Anonymous No.14409957]

>>14408103
>if people came to a different conclusion there is no reason to look at their methodology or results
imagine
IMAGINE
being this anti-science.

[Anonymous No.14409983]

>>14409892
>As for knowledge, this is a regional conception that I adopt from Schelling and Hegel. We as subjects are god coming to know itself.
that makes sense. interesting

[Anonymous No.14409986]

>>14409893
Based statistics poster.

[Anonymous No.14410051]

>>14409926
>thousands of cultures exist today and throughout history all with belief systems about the supernatural that contradict every other belief system
>the one I like is right though
Embarrassing. A child couldn't be more childish. All the mental gymnastics you've performed solely so you can believe the teachings of the religion which also happened to be the easiest one to join, given your place on the planet and in time

[Anonymous No.14410063]

Smells like ANGLO

[Anonymous No.14410088]

>>14408268
>Since modern media is 100% atheist
That's hardly true

[Anonymous No.14410103]

>he claims to be atheist
>still feels the need to have to validate his own beliefs against religious people

[Anonymous No.14410170]

>>14408784
>haha fucking stupid atheists Jews Jews Jews fucking Jew ducks JEWS
>omg y u as hominem me :( atheists are so mean

[Anonymous No.14410173]

The universe is chaotic and indifferent. Your consciousness will be permanently extinguished by death. Enjoy qualia while you still can.

[Anonymous No.14410179]

>>14410103
That is simultaneously a blessed and cursed image, thank you.

[Anonymous No.14410313]

>>14408103
lol get a load of this psued

[Anonymous No.14410428]

>>14409633
the non-religious are better educated and less criminal. so you are wrong

[Anonymous No.14410436]

>>14409877
both Christianity and Islam are literally centered on submission. of course betas are going to flock to them

[Anonymous No.14410507]

>>14409521
>a huge shrinkage in gods control over our world
Did you think this through before posting this? What the fuck does this even mean if the God of today is omnipotent and omniscient?
>Lightning used to be god...
It still is. Why would it not be. Theists today still believe God created, controls, and can destroy the entire universe.
>Seems somewhat useless in the 1st world
Is this how atheists think? Say, hypothetically for a moment, if God really existed, you would still prioritize your life of approximately 70 years on a ball of clay in the "1st world" over eternity and infinity?
Damn your bait really got me, but that's still retarded.

[Anonymous No.14410513]

>>14409782
Ahah this nigga is attributing spinozist views to theists

[Anonymous No.14410541]

>>14408432
B'd an' R'p'ld

[Anonymous No.14410558]

You can't be irreligious and philosopher. Anglos are subhuman.

[Anonymous No.14410573]

>>14407823
yeah if anything this is what should be expected. if most ‘philosophers’ in 2019 were theists then i would consider atheism much more strongly

[Anonymous No.14410614]

>>14410428
I absolutely hate this argument from tippers. It puts the cart before the horse. It is the overwhelming prosperity of bourgie westerners that allows them the luxury of atheism. It's all fine and good to say that the world is purely material chaos, and no such thing exists as good or evil, but try living those axioms in a world that requires more than obedience to an immaculately organized economic model. The human race was born into complete chaos, and religion and virtues had to be developed from that to create a life that wasn't an endless orgy of sex and bludgeoning. The cardinal virtues are quite unintuitive to people, so rituals, stories, and parables had to be created to communicate them. Just look at people today, our vices have grown so wild they have been rebrands as virtues. The only reason we can indulge so such a ridiculous degree is because we're eating from the pantry that our ancestors stocked.

[Anonymous No.14410616]

>>14408868
What the fuck are you talking about? Atheists don't even believe in metaphysics