>>8136440

>most of Veeky Forums are physicists, mathematicians, engineers and computer scientists
>most of Veeky Forums believes themselves to be an expert on race which is biology

>>most of Veeky Forums believes themselves to be an expert on race which is biology
>Veeky Forums
I think there's been a key misunderstanding here.

I'm STEM and no STEM graduates debate philosophers.
STEM have to take Philosophy 101.
Let me explain:
Philosophy 101 -> Epistemology 101 -> Analytics 101 -> Philosophy of Science

This is why people in STEM graduate with a Phd. It stands for "A Doctor of Philosophy".

Science depends on:
1.) Deduction [Logic: Philosophy]
2.) Induction [Logic: Philosophy]
3.) Empricism [Analytics: Philosophy]
4.) Consistency, Congruency [Analytics: Philosophy]

What you're confusing it with is:
1.) Post-modern/Existential Philosophy
2.) Frankfurt Critical Theory
3.) Sophism
All of which are rejected by Empiricists and Epistemologists, which make up the vast majority of Philosophers.

>STEM are philosophers [phd]
>STEM is anti-philosophy
Pick one

People like this poster are an embarrassment to both, philosophers and scientists. Please just stick to internet forums, for you are not cut out to become an academic.

>The "atheists were oppressed" victim complex

Children will believe anything....

Old Atheists: "I don't give a shit about religion, I have other things to worry about"
New Atheists: "ZOMG without religion we would live in a technological singularity utopia with immortality and sex androids and be colonizing Andromeda right now! Religion is responsible of all the wars in history and if we don't eradicate it now, will with fall back to the dark ages and lose all our technology!!!"

> strawman

I mean, they're not wrong

I'm not religious, but I don't agree. I think religion is important to make the underclass behave in a manner beneficial to society.

More of this "judgment is why people are moral" bullshit.

I don't know if you necessarily need judgment, but it does incentivize good behaviors and provide a sense of community for them. I've read some arguments linking the lack of this, along with economic issues, to the epicdemic of older American drinking/injecting themselves to death, along with having more kids outside of marriage, more and earlier risky sex, and so on.

People with higher average IQ don't seem to have these problems as often.

Oh fuck off. Why not just improve their living conditions instead of relying on some kind of exploitative placebo?

I do support this, I just don't know how well it'll work. People in Europe seem to be doing fine without religion and aren't killing themselves as often, so it might just be an American thing.

...

>People in Europe seem to be doing fine without religion

You don't watch the news often do you?

>old atheists

If I could I would, but I can't so I shan't

they see life as a problem to be solved, and STEM is the solution. so obviously anyone who didn't make the decision to study STEM is a fool by default.

>Bruno

Not sure if trolling or an angsty teen

Well they were; but then cuckstianity was replaced by state worship.

When the church is willing to exile, maim, burn and desecrate the remains of those such as Coverdale for daring to suggest that some aspects of their official theology were errant do you sincerely believe they simply sat by and accepted those who suggested all of it was?

>act like smug cunts
it's not an act, they are smug cunts

>was replaced by state worship

That's what always happens in an atheist society

>you sincerely believe they simply sat by and accepted those who suggested all of it was

Yes because they weren't trying to twist [math]Christianity[/math] and spread errant information about [math]Christianity[/math]. The whole point of having a church hierarchy is to preserve the doctrines of Christianity.

If they weren't tolerant of people not having those views then the Jews wouldn't even exist today.

>for daring to suggest that some aspects of their official theology were errant

Oh please, there was constant theological debate in the middle ages. Even Bruno was told to defend his views by presenting arguments and evidence for them or STFU. He didn't and relied on "his feelz" to tell him the truth and told everyone else to adopt the same views hence getting into trouble.

>those such as Coverdale

Because the Puritans, the will put a man in the stocks for kissing his wife on Sunday Puritans, are such the epitome of free thinking?

>Standard alt-right atheist
Religion is bullshit but it has utility.

In my experience this is the mainstream opinion in reactionary circles.

>If they weren't tolerant of people not having those views then the Jews wouldn't even exist today.
LOL, the Inquisition was so tolerant right? Continuous persecution and expulsion of Jews across the centuries was so tolerant.

>Continuous

kek

kek I remember that video

Much of the persecution against Jews throughout the centuries was the result of spontaneous popular action. Although it's true that various monarchs at different times found reason to persecute the Jews, Catholic doctrine pretty consistently stated that the Jews should not be converted by force but instead allowed to do so voluntarily. What usually happened was that angry mobs happened to be pissed off about something and saw the Jews as a convenient nearby Other to receive the blame. The First Crusade is an extreme but good example of this - all the peasants that had risen up to reclaim the Holy Land began their long march and ended up just staying in Europe and murdering lots and lots and lots of Jews, despite the insistence of the clergy that they stop killing Jews at home and go fight Muslims in the holy lands. I think one could argue that in a lot of cases, the Church actually served as an effective counterbalance against the massive popular antisemitism of the day - which would make sense, given that most churchmen were highly educated and thus more likely to be more open-minded than your average commoner.

Rejected by epistemologists? What? You do realize that empiricism isn't the only epistemology... Right?

People in STEM are wrong all the time. This is because they are people, and people are wrong all the time.

People in philosophy are wrong all the time. Same reason.

The difference is that people in STEM get told they're wrong. The test comes back negative, the code doesn't compile, the proof by contradiction didn't contradict fuck all, the concrete doesn't hold. People in STEM learn that unless you have your shit squared away solid, you're guaranteed to be wrong.

And then they see a philosopher going "Maybe it's all made from Four Elements."

And the philosopher isn't used to being told she's wrong, so when the STEM-Lord shows up and says "Proof or GTFO," her nipples swell with rage.

I mean, she IS wrong. She's just not used to being told so.

The only philosophers that STEM people generally respect are those who claim that something DOESN'T exist. Objective truth exists? Proof or GTFO. Objective truth doesn't exist? Yeah that sounds like the null hypothesis.

Economics don't run on fairy dust and goodwill.