Every time I try to read a philosophy textbook and it goes into arguments for the existence of any sort of gods, or, more precisely, into the existence of the Christian one, I marvel at those arguments not being dismissed immediately, given how childish they are.

In particular, I have encountered this in a textbook recently: 'god is the most perfect being imaginable and if it did not exist, it would not be perfect'. By that logic, because I can imagine a 10^100000 year old person who openly lives as such and is well-known by everybody in the world, and because to be 10^100000 year old and to live that person would have to exist, such a person exists. Also, Pascal's Wager is probably very well known at this point and how silly and poorly thought-out it is.
Nonsense like that makes me think that philosophy in general is a silly field that lacks any sort of rigour. Hell, they seem to be amazed at the 'cogito ergo sum' line, despite the fact that in the practical contexts where it is true it is obvious, and in the contexts where it isn't true it is, well, not true.

Hot take: philosophers in general should be forced to adopt higher standards of rigour.