Is science and atheism objectively the most correct philosophy?

wtf is /u/?

You have to be a hardcore redditer to even make this let alone post it

>Evolution is not a science

>Climatology is not a science

Found the home schooled retard from a flyover state

Liberalism is a disease

Found the American public education.

>lmao anyone who doesn't share my sub iq is some nonsense me and my buttbuddies like to say xDDDD

You need to be 18 to post child

shut up retard, you're fooling no one

Science isn't true, period.

How does your post contribute to the conversation?

No because reality morality is more useful than truth.

Science is what.
Philosophy is why.

In societies with a strong sense of honour, they sacrifice their own individual pleasures for other people; they take pleasure in being pro-social and loyal. It would thus follow that peace and prosperity aren't always inherently good.

Philosophy, to me, means reaching an idea that is the least morally obstructing.

atheism isn't a philosophy

it's the absence of religion
negative philosophies aren't philosophies (I'm looking at you nihilism)

it isnt even necesarily absence of religion

newatheists are constructing this whole ideological thing under the word 'atheism' pumping it full of meanings it dosent have and values that are unrelated to it, implying attitudes, purposes and agendas that have no real basis in it and generaly being naive and actualy anti-intellectual

its silly how they reject phylosophy yet try to ape it and take its place, its like somehow they miss the point that facts are facts, interpretation of facts is not the same thing as deriving facts from experiment and observation, interpretation implyes systems of meaning, the fact itself is meaningles, how someone will interpret it, what it will mean, depends on some number of factors, the general and individual circumstances, stances, attitudes, values and beliefs etc, and to sort all that shit out you need to think about it, you dont just ''apply logic'' you use logic in some specific way as opposed to another, this is the only way you can derive any meaningfull meaning out of it, and thats philosophy, othervise its just demagogy and autism

Ha, New Atheism is quickly becoming a larger and larger movement. Yes it is pure ideology, BUT it is ideology based on reason, logic and rationality. Thus it will prevail.

untill the pendulum swings back with a vengance, and people start basing their ideology on monthy pithon and harms

>>>/reddit/

>science is true whether or not you believe in it

How the fuck does that even mean anything? Let's just for a while assume that there's absolutely no conflicting stuff within whatever's taken to mean "science" whatsoever, that it's all compatible with each other.

Still, science doesn't give you a direct hotline to the very core of reality allowing you to experience it without the obstructions of your easily fooled senses. Quite the opposite really, the scientific method is based on creating a model of reality that to some degree will allow you to get results corresponding with reality. The more data you have, the more exact results you will receive, but it's still an abstraction.

Sometimes, a model is used because it's useful enough, even if it's not "true". Like you use classical physics because it will allow you to closely describe the stuff you're most often dealing with, like the movement of trains, cars or bicycles, or the bird poop dropping on your head, but to describe bigger or smaller things you'll need to use quantum and/or relativistic physics.

So the real value of science is that it's useful for some stuff, not that it's true, whatever that means.

Evolution is definitively a science. Just because you don't understand, doesn't make it wrong.

>Being this retarded

That ain't Harris, it's Adam Sandler, right?

What the fuck do trannies and cannabis have to do with scientism? This is just like a big list of shit you dislike.

It's not a philosophy

I meant Ben Stiller...

back to

*tips menorah*

Neal smokedegrass tyson?

What a fucking faggot

Science is a pragmatic spook.
The virtue of science is that at the very least, it works towards objective truth and it gets us closer.

That being said, science makes life better while the humanities make life worth living.

fpbp

>So the real value of science is that it's useful for some stuff,
Nice pragmatic bias.

>science makes life better

Stephen Hawking is a good scientist, but if he really thinks that then he's kind of a moron otherwise.

I think the term you might be looking for is "secular humanism." And if so then, no, not really. Because if it's true, there is no such thing as "correct."

The fun thing about being a fedora-lord is that all you've managed to do is subscribe to another religion with even more magical thinking. I.E. pretending anything you think or say or do has any real importance while your own beliefs insist that cannot possibly be the case. Pursuit of truth has no inherent merit to it. Any good feelings that gives you are chemical reactions firing off in the brain. Insisting that truth leading to improvement in human lives and survival of the species is also likewise meaningless. It's just a bunch of values you subscribe to because of ape genes. There's no real value in one speck in the universe surviving a little longer.

But hey, at least people can still play pretend!

What's really ironic about science and athiesm is that pretty much no 'atheist' really understands what the hell they even believe in, and those that do ignore the massive issues with so much of what they believe.

Quantum Mechanics and Einstein's theory of general relativity are completely irreconcilable for example, Heisenbergs claim that causality breaks down at a sub-atomic level literally goes against the entire basis of scientific thought and from what the understanding of our universe is based on - but hey you know what it's SCIENCE, it's ok if it's self contradictory and irrational because it's still enlightened haha!!!

I wouldn't call atheism a philosophy, and I wouldn't make the mistake of separating science from philosophy.

Your Not an Atheist as so much as you are a worshiper of the Modern Secular Liberal Faith. With its "do's and don'ts" it resembles a Religion.

>Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.

He doesn't. He just thinks philosophy as a field has failed in keeping up with modern scientific developments and so has begun to miss the mark in its observations.

The implications of scientific advancement and how its applied is a major topic in philosophy.