In what way do you mean they invoke God? Surely those fields work on a naturalistic framework as well?

Edit: Offside question: Does being an atheist also mean you're a naturalist?

It's an odd thing for anyone to say. Almost like, "Look, God has a big dick too!" Anyway, this is the type of rubbish you can unfortunately expect in the PoR forums.

The saddest thing, to me, is that I cannot see whether it's bad or good.
It would save me a lot of trouble when I can.

It's sad when someone thinks theism vs atheism is a popularity contest. Worse when their attempt to prove God is the winner backfires by being so exquisitely silly. Anyway, good luck. You seem to have a good attitude, which is admirable. :up:

Would you mind expanding on why it's a bad place to stay? — DoppyTheElv

Well, there is a case in point right in front of us, with the posts here from @3017amen.

Please then explain why over at least 75% of the philosophical domains invoke God's existence? — 3017amen

A made-up statistic, chosen for it's appearance. Amen is not concerned with the truth of his statement, only withthe rhetorical effect. That's the technical definition of bullshit

You must be one of the angry atheists LoL — 3017amen

An ad hom.

Provide statistics that prove me wrong. — 3017amen

Shifting the burden of proof - rather than providing evidence for his claim he demands that we provide evidnece that he is wrong

if you're scared say you're scared. — 3017amen

another ad hom.

Shite like this is rife in Phil of religion threads.

Hey, man, if you're scared, just say so!

Oh, my bedtime, thank God-of-the-big-dick! Night all :kiss:

There's comparatively little discussion of any real philosophy of religion on internet fora. Nearly all discussions begin from proclamations starting with 'religion is..' or 'religion says...' and then devolve from there. The ability and interest to consider religious ideas and subjects from a philosophical perspective is pretty rare. And a large part of that is driven by the fact that global, Westernised, liberal culture is pretty unanimously secular in its attitude; normatively secular, if you like. From within that perspective, religion can only ever be seen as a throwback or aberration.

As far as interesting discussions of philosophy of religion, as distinct from 'religion is...' statements, have a read of the following:

Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament, Thomas Nagel

Metaphysical Mistake, Karen Armstrong

Who or What is God?, John Hick

There are many other sources and books available, but these in particular frame the issue in a way that is relevant to contemporary culture.

I'm terrified.

The concept of God, right or wrong, is always invoked in the majority of philosophical domain's as the criterion for the existence of things. Philosophy is an intellectual exercise involving many states of human conscious existence.

I'm not saying this because I'm a Christian Existentialist. I'm saying it because it's a no-brainer. As a rudimentary example ( though I studied philosophy in college), pick up any publication called philosophy-made-simple or its equivalent, where the domains of ethics epistemology logic metaphysics and contemporary philosophy are summarized. They all involve God as a discoursive criterion in their respective domains.

Trust me, it's not me projecting the facts. Like it or not, God's invoked. I'm not a preacher or theist so I have no special interest or hidden agenda. Nonetheless, be cautious of either the extremist atheist, or the extremist fundamentalist.

The concept of God, right or wrong, is always invoked in the majority of philosophical domain's as the criterion for the existence of things. — 3017amen

Again, bullshit.

Now if you like, go to, say, the Stanford Encyclopaedia, choose a few pages at random, and do a search for "god".

Given

Please then explain why over at least 75% of the philosophical domains invoke God's existence? — 3017amen

one would expect it to appear on three-quarters of the pages.

Let us know how you get on.

BTW, relative to cognitive science, or perhaps more Freudian than not, most extreme atheists (or extreme fundamentalists) will more often than not default to ad hominem as some sort of defense mechanism. As an unbiased observation, Einstein, who was not even a theist, seemingly recognized the phenomenon:

The fanatical atheists are like .... who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres- Albert Einstein

Here's a real statistic, FYI:



What do philosophers believe? » Appendix 1: Detailed survey results (Bourget, Chalmers; Springer; Dec 2013)

I suppose, next, 72.8% of academic philosophers are "fanatical atheists", @3017amen. :roll:
Give it up, raving on with mis/disinformation doesn't do anyone any favors.

:starstruck:

It really comes at some point to what the word "God" is intended to mean in a given context. But almost everyone seems to think that they know, and from that seeming thinking comes an endless flow of nonsense, even self-contradictory, even offensive, nonsense.

Religion, whatever that may be, is something people do for some reason. A philosophy of religion, imo, is, should be, the attempt to think about religion in a careful and organized way. Given the peculiar nature of religion, it ought to be clear that thinking about it requires an approach to that thinking, an establishment and arranging of the ground, and so forth. Akin to the preparation for any job, whether buying lumber and making drawings for a project, or buying supplies and establishing base camps for climbing a difficult mountain. But these latter, alas, are almost never done here - I cannot think of a single time it was done. So such discussions here are usually a disaster.

I ceased replying for a while because my interest in philosophy is distracting me of what I should be doing-- study my physics and chemistry exams!

But I have to ask. What should someone get from these statistics? That theism is a bad/irrational wordview to have?

suppose, next, 72.8% of academic philosophers are "fanatical atheists", 3017amen. :roll:
Give it up, raving on with mis/disinformation doesn't do anyone any favors. — jorndoe

Interesting you appear to fit the bill of Einstein's fanatical atheism. I didn't say over 75% of philosophers are theists did I?

Actually how about this, I'll challenge any atheist on this site to debate EOG using all domain's of philosophy. Would you like to go toe-to-toe with me?
LOL

cannot think of a single time it was done. So such discussions here are usually a disaster. — tim wood

Indeed, religion has a habit of giving God a bad name.

Actually how about this, I'll challenge any atheist on this site to debate EOG using all domain's of philosophy. Would you like to go toe-to-toe with me?
LOL — 3017amen

Me. What is EOG?

religion has a habit of giving God a bad name. — 3017amen

It's the religious who do that.

:rofl:

Me, too What is EOG? Do you have a recipe, perhaps?

I ceased replying for a while because my interest in philosophy is distracting me of what I should be doing-- study my physics and chemistry exams! — DoppyTheElv

Philosophy can be a rabbit hole, should prolly' get back to your exam prep. ;)

But I have to ask. What should someone get from these statistics? That theism is a bad/irrational wordview to have? — DoppyTheElv

The stats aren't all that important. Religious (dis)beliefs or absence thereof is personal, something people have to figure out on their own accord. Anyone is free to believe whatever (just not free to do whatever). Scour the literature, spot the crud. ;) Offhand guess, you'll learn more from physics and chemistry.


, just pointing out your raving, something ir/religious alike might do.

End of grade Tests. What kids in my school from grades 3-8 at the end of the
school year. We just finished ours after 3 days.

Man, I can't wait till those fucking eogs are over! — Urban Dictionary: eog

Does being an atheist also mean you're a naturalist? — DoppyTheElv

Strictly speaking no, but there is a strong correlation, as being a naturalist generally means being an atheist (unless you use a strange concept of God).

There you go again with them facts an' stuff.

:up:

AH, that's it. So, @3017amen, you want to argue for 'em, or agin' 'em? I'm ambidextrous.

Or do you want us to do them for you?

How many philosophers were content with their lives and the world before pursuing the art?

How many athiest-leaning philosophers would unwarrantedly shun or discriminate against theologic-leaning philosophers who are on par with the art itself?

Statistics are useful. They can sometimes however paint an incomplete picture.

Actually how about this, I'll challenge any atheist on this site to debate EOG using all domain's of philosophy. Would you like to go toe-to-toe with me?
LOL — 3017amen

If by EOG you mean the existence of god, I am down. I am no certified philosopher, but I'd like to give it a try.

While eager and genuinely encouraging to see. It may not always be so simple. Nor should it be. When there is no room for doubt there is no room for faith. All that remains is fact.

You obey the law because you have to. You praise and worship because you are grateful.

If doing good things automatically rewarded you equally where is the "goodness"? The utility and necessity is there but none of the qualities that make someone a good and kind person.

Sure! I'm a Christian existentialist and I would be approaching this in a few ways.

1. Negative/Apophatic theology.
2. All domains of philosophy can be argued.

Are you a positive atheist? Meaning, is your position something like: "I know God doesn't exist". Or, "I don't believe God exists", et.al . ?