Most philosophers are atheist.

[Little Rik]

Oh, well, if atheists are so smart that they do not follow bullshit then let us make a survey right now and see how many atheists know what philosophy is all about.

ARE YOU READY?

I am all ears.  

[Edwardo Piet]

The etymology of philosophy: The "Phil" part comes from "Phila" or love and the "sophy" part comes from "Sophia" or "wisdom" in ancient Greece. Etymologically philosophy means "the love of wisdom".

What philosophy developed into is it's pretty much questioning the fundamental concepts of anything. You can question the fundamentals about science and have the philosophy of science, you can apply fundamental questioning to politics and have the philosophy of politics. You can have philosophy of mind. By questioning the fundamentals of mind.

You can apply fundamental questioning to anything . . . even philosophy itself, which is known as metaphilosophy. But the two main fields of philosophy are epistemology and metaphysics. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge and it asks "What, if anything, can we know?" and metaphysics is the study of existence, what things are made of, and the differences between essence and existence, and how everything fits together. Ontology being the largest subfield of metaphysics which deals specifically with questions of being.

My personal favorite field of philosophy is phenomenology which is kind of half way between science and philosophy. Phenomenology is the study of experience and the world of phenomena. It would be like studying what it's like to experience playing a game of chess, as opposed to studying chess. That would be the phenomenology of chess. For example.

Just off the top of my head.

[Aegon]

The etymology of philosophy: The "Phil" part comes from "Phila" or love and the "sophy" part comes from "Sophia" or "wisdom" in ancient Greece. Etymologically philosophy means "the love of wisdom".

What philosophy developed into is it's pretty much questioning the fundamental concepts of anything. You can question the fundamentals about science and have the philosophy of science, you can apply fundamental questioning to politics and have the philosophy of politics. You can have philosophy of mind. By questioning the fundamentals of mind.

You can apply fundamental questioning to anything . . . even philosophy itself, which is known as metaphilosophy. But the two main fields of philosophy are epistemology and metaphysics. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge and it asks "What, if anything, can we know?" and metaphysics is the study of existence, what things are made of, and the differences between essence and existence, and how everything fits together. Ontology being the largest subfield of metaphysics which deals specifically with questions of being.

My personal favorite field of philosophy is phenomenology which is kind of half way between science and philosophy. Phenomenology is the study of experience and the world of phenomena. It would be like studying what it's like to experience playing a game of chess, as opposed to studying chess. That would be the phenomenology of chess. For example.

Just off the top of my head.

Silly
You're not really THINKING, are you?   

Here's an idea
Stop analyzing words
You really think these things mean anything?
No wonder you are atheist: you still think these primitive things
Maybe I can find a more worthy poster to try my hand at defining this concept exactly they way I, and pretty much I alone, feel like defining it, because that's how words work, now, you know.

Anyone else?

[Little Rik]

The etymology of philosophy: The "Phil" part comes from "Phila" or love and the "sophy" part comes from "Sophia" or "wisdom" in ancient Greece. Etymologically philosophy means "the love of wisdom".

What philosophy developed into is it's pretty much questioning the fundamental concepts of anything. You can question the fundamentals about science and have the philosophy of science, you can apply fundamental questioning to politics and have the philosophy of politics. You can have philosophy of mind. By questioning the fundamentals of mind.

You can apply fundamental questioning to anything . . . even philosophy itself, which is known as metaphilosophy. But the two main fields of philosophy are epistemology and metaphysics. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge and it asks "What, if anything, can we know?" and metaphysics is the study of existence, what things are made of, and the differences between essence and existence, and how everything fits together. Ontology being the largest subfield of metaphysics which deals specifically with questions of being.

My personal favorite field of philosophy is phenomenology which is kind of half way between science and philosophy. Phenomenology is the study of experience and the world of phenomena. It would be like studying what it's like to experience playing a game of chess, as opposed to studying chess. That would be the phenomenology of chess. For example.

Just off the top of my head.

All very good according to the present meaning unfortunately this view lead nowhere.

The Greeks that were so deep into philosophy had their mind shattered when Jesus said to them.........
the work of intellection tends to solve the problems of the things we see, and nothing more.
20. The senses were ordained to bring into the mind mere pictures of the things that pass away; they do not deal with real things; they do not comprehend eternal law.

an then he said............
24. There is no power in intellect to turn the key; philosophy and science both have toiled to get a glimpse behind the veil; but they have failed.
25. The secret spring that throws ajar the door of soul is touched by nothing else than purity in life, by prayer and holy thought.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/agjc/agjc047.htm

So here we are with this love for wisdom that lead nowhere.
Or lead to the border with real wisdom.
Surely philosophy is good but good up to the point.
After that we need a different approach that goes behind the mind.

When I did asked what philosophy is all about I didn't mean the various branches of studies but the very essence of philosophy which is nothing but a starting process that may lead higher towards a goal of life.
If philosophy is instead taken as a goal of life then is all futile because it will not lead to real wisdom with all that entail such as total peace of mind and bliss.  

[Odoital77]

What was the response rate of the survey?  If it wasn't at least 85%, then I would take it with a large grain of salt.  Having said that, if you take those numbers as accurate, what would follow from the fact?  Not much...

Very few surveys (including, the US Census) get an 85% response rate!

Then they should be taken with a grain of salt and their level of accuracy esteemed far less.

---

What was the response rate of the survey?  If it wasn't at least 85%, then I would take it with a large grain of salt.  Having said that, if you take those numbers as accurate, what would follow from the fact?  Not much...

It would follow that most philosophers are atheists. Which is what this thread is about.

Oh, and of course, it means people who actually think about stuff don't believe in bullshit as much.

Okay, but it wouldn't actually mean that what they don't believe in as much (i.e. your so-called "bullshit") isn't true.  It could still be true and, in that context, would simply mean that they didn't believe in the truth as much.  But the mere fact that some group of people doesn't believe a particular thing does nothing to prove or demonstrate the falsehood of that thing they don't believe.  This is merely an argument from authority...nothing more.

[Aegon]

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13371

What was the response rate of the survey?  If it wasn't at least 85%, then I would take it with a large grain of salt.  Having said that, if you take those numbers as accurate, what would follow from the fact?  Not much...

This is the second comment in the thread about this. Nobody knows how statistics and polling work... you guys need a crash course? I could make a topic lol

If they put a number down of people they surveyed then the answer is 100%. All of those people partook in this survey. They would not put that number otherwise. They're called respondents aren't they?

[Odoital77]

What was the response rate of the survey?  If it wasn't at least 85%, then I would take it with a large grain of salt.  Having said that, if you take those numbers as accurate, what would follow from the fact?  Not much...

This is the second comment in the thread about this. Nobody knows how statistics and polling work... you guys need a crash course? I could make a topic lol

If they put a number down of people they surveyed then the answer is 100%. All of those people partook in this survey. They would not put that number otherwise. They're called respondents aren't they?

Um, the reason the term respondents is used is because there is a difference between the number of people who are surveyed or asked to participate and the number of people who respond to the survey.  The response rate needs to be high enough (i.e. 85%) to ensure relatively accurate results.  In addition, you would want to survey an actual representative sample.  So if you only surveyed State & Ivy-League level schools, you're likely to get a different result than if you simply surveyed Ph.D. level philosophers currently engaged in teaching at the Collegiate or University level.  And if you surveyed Ph.D. level philosophers at 10 schools versus 1,500, you'd likely get a different result as well.  The numbers do matter, but having said that... I don't see the point.  Nothing about the truth or falsehood of either atheism or theism would follow from the survey results.

[Aegon]

This is the second comment in the thread about this. Nobody knows how statistics and polling work... you guys need a crash course? I could make a topic lol

If they put a number down of people they surveyed then the answer is 100%. All of those people partook in this survey. They would not put that number otherwise. They're called respondents aren't they?

Um, the reason the term respondents is used is because there is a difference between the number of people who are surveyed or asked to participate and the number of people who respond to the survey.  The response rate needs to be high enough (i.e. 85%) to ensure relatively accurate results.  In addition, you would want to survey an actual representative sample.  So if you only surveyed State & Ivy-League level schools, you're likely to get a different result than if you simply surveyed Ph.D. level philosophers currently engaged in teaching at the Collegiate or University level.  And if you surveyed Ph.D. level philosophers at 10 schools versus 1,500, you'd likely get a different result as well.  The numbers do matter, but having said that... I don't see the point.  Nothing about the truth or falsehood of either atheism or theism would follow from the survey results.

Yeah. It's the number of respondents though. Its 3am my time now and Im in the hospital I didn't mean to equate respondents to people surveyed. But the number they advertise is very often the number if respondents. You can look at the study yourself in the link to get those answers though.... I understand the rest already... no need to explain that numbers matter, it's ok.

Also the last part.... who cares lol. Did you think it would?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Unless they canvassed every fast food drive through they couldn't possibly have hit every philosophy major.  

Reminds me of:  'What a shame that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair.' - George Burns

Boru

[Jackalope]

12.5% don't understand what the words mean, I notice. Some philosophers they are.

Really? So, deists are theists now? Or are they atheists?

IOW, could it be that respondents who answered "other" did so because they *do* know what words mean, and both atheist and theist fail to capture the nuance of their position?