-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution is illogical and non sense
- Thread starter ttechsan
- Start date
LOL. Of course it is objectively good for them to survive just like it's objectively good for us to survive. We are a result of the same objective process. That you are of the subjective opinion that they shouldn't survive because they harm you has nothing to do with whether they were created by an objective process and therefore survival is objectively good for them.
No doubletalk at all. You simply don't get it. It is as objectively good for a bacteria to survive as it is for us to survive. We have both evolved to survive. That you might be of the personal subjective opinion that they shouldn't survive has nothing to do with what is objectively right for the bacteria to do.
Sorry. I was up too late last night and mistook you for Mohammad.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Post 272. "are you on the side who accepts freedom is real and relevant, or with the evil evolutionists who reject subjectivity and freedom?"
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Instead of admiring the intellectuals who deny free will for their daring propositions breaking new ground, we could also just judge them to be ridiculously evil. And ridiculous evil provides a potential for serious evil.
Daniel Dennett started complaining about neurologists denying free will, saying it was irresponsible, citing some studies which showed denial of free will leads to agression and whatnot.
But he did not put 2 and 2 together, that if denial of free will was irresponsible, then redefining the term free will so that it means that one could not have done otherwise then one did, would just as well be irresponsible.
I COULD NOT HAVE DONE OTHERWISE-SO WHAT?
https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/sites... Done Otherwise--So What - Daniel Dennett.pdf
You can see evolutionists are totally closed to reasoning about the issue of the reality and relevance of freedom. The arguments on which their position relies are just exclamations of disbelief. Huffing and puffing their authority, and then exclaiming it is all nonsense. No intelligent argument is ever made, evidence is ignored. There is only this overriding commitment to reject any and all subjectivity which is mindlessly adhered to. And because subjectivity depends on freedom, freedom is also mindlessly rejected without any consideration.
When you openly and reasonably put different theories side by side, then intelligent design theory, creationist theory, looks to be the most in line with the available evidence.
Sure. Creationists fly planes into buildings, massacre French cartoonists, decapitate Christians, rape children to death and perform honor killings and suicide bombers blow up innocent people, but this is not of course any serious evil. Not like the evil evolutionists are capable of.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
The evil-utionists are trying to solve world hunger with more pest resistant crops, create medicine that won't produce drug resistant bacteria/virus, and are using evolutionary algorithms to construct and engineer products that will increase efficiency and minimize our drain of resources in the world. It's terrible. And these evil things they want to spread all over the world as well! I bet they even want world peace. World peace! Imagine? It's as evil and horrific on the same level as eating breakfast and watching the sunrise, or to take your kids to the school, or taking a walk in the park. It's terrible how evil that is! Those frikkin' evil ********!
"Humans are white" is an incorrect statement and cannot be applied to an individual because it is a generalizing statement. We can say "Bob is white" and that can be objectively true, however.
Let's be consistent here. You are applying universal to the experience but not to the reality. You are applying objective to the reality but not to the experience. What is something that is universally true in reality but not also objectively true in reality?
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
History shows evolutionists, or so to say people rejecting subjectvity and free will on account of evolution theory, are perfectly capable of such acts. It is because conscience is sabotaged when what is good and evil is posited as fact. Then it is just a matter of calculating a course of action based on the facts about what is good and evil, and emotions become irrellevant.
And after evolutionists have killed many people, then people would say, yeah we could have known what they were up to, because their rejection of subjectivity and free wil was obvious. It is extremist to deny freedom is real and relevant. It is obviously no good for democracy, emotions, being a human being.
We won't get anywhere unless we use the same definitions. Here are the definitions of universal
universal - definition of universal by The Free Dictionary
and here are the ones for objective.
objective - definition of objective by The Free Dictionary
Where does it say for something to be objective that it must apply to everybody or everything?
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Evil is -at its core -that which adversely affects a system which is beneficial -and a person is evil when they will to do so.
The intentions of a person make them good or evil, but the overall results of their actions make the actions good or evil.
As has been said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Believers and non-believers are both subject to making mistakes due to ignorance of the overall nature of the system they are within.
The more capable and knowledgeable we become, the greater the potential for evil.
A believers' mindset might adversely affect others by their closed-mindedness causing people to be ignorant of certain things, and to not accept things which are beneficial, but the capabilities made possible by scientific discovery can lead to a corruption of -or the complete destruction of -all life on earth -even by accident.
A religious belief might keep one from accepting beneficial medical advancements made possible by science, but those same advancements can also lead to horrible tragedies due to a mix of knowledge and ignorance.
For example..... We are altering, and even synthesizing, DNA without a complete knowledge of the implications. The science that allows for plants that glow in the dark when they need water -are resistant to certain diseases, etc., might have some short-term benefits, but potentially cause even greater long-term problems. Some fear that synthetic DNA might escape somehow and cause all sorts of problems -and we don't know that it will not.
I don't even want to think about the possibilities given present knowledge coupled with an evil mindset**.
The splitting of the atom led to a situation which may very well destroy all human life, at least -and that may even be a better alternative than an abominable state caused by messing with DNA.
Ignorance can be a good thing when accurate vision and discipline are lacking.
From a biblical perspective, the present state of affairs is known as eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Eating from the tree of life only would have meant continual guidance and government by God -so that we might have protection from forces greater than ourselves, avoid causing many of our own maladies and then seeking remedies, and make advancements in balance with the overall system of which we were initially ignorant.
In other words, we could have advanced more quickly without any risk of destroying everything and ourselves.
After the events in Eden, God purposefully allowed mankind to make their own choices, but also made choices for them which would manage risk and bring them to the end declared from the beginning.
There was a plan for the possibility of obedience -and a plan B for (perhaps inevitable) disobedience (rejection of knowledgeable guidance) which would eventually completely eradicate the possibility of disobedience (and so... disorder leading to tragedy) by allowing us to learn from our choices while managing the risk.
For example... confusing man's speech at Babel postponed the state of affairs we see today for thousands of years while other things were accomplished.
We will now be allowed to nearly destroy all life on earth -but a complete destruction will be prevented.
We will then have a collective experience base from which to discern that obedience to -and government by -God and Christ (belief in him will be made much easier by his actual presence) is necessary.
Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved..............................
**"It's interesting - I used to have this professor at Oxford, okay? Doctor Wickham, his name was and he was, like, this massive fat guy, you know? Huge, big guy. We used to call him - you know, well, I won't tell you what we used to call him, but he taught biomolecular kinetics and cellular dynamics. And he used to sort of scare the underclassmen with this story about how the world would eventually be eviscerated by technology. You see, it was inevitable that a compound would be created which he referred to as the 'Anti-God'. It was like an accelerated mutator or sort of, you know, like a, an unstoppable force of destructive power, that would just lay waste to everything - to buildings and parks and streets and children and ice cream parlors, you know? So whenever I see, like, a rogue organization willing to spend this amount of money on a mystery tech, I always assume... it's the Anti-God. End-of-the-world kinda stuff, you know... But no, I don't have any idea what it is. I was just speculating."
Last edited:
If something isn't true for everyone or everything, then it must be subjective.
outhouse
Atheistically
But hey wear tinfoil hats and have no credibility.
Imaginative ?
outhouse
Atheistically
Mythology?
mythology?
has no place what so ever in this discussion.
The objective process of evolution and natural selection produced a survival instinct so it's objectively correct of us to have it and to try to survive. Some people are of the subjective opinion that they don't want to survive. But since it is objectively correct of humans to want to survive we say these people are ill and try to stop them from committing suicide and try therapy and medication to heal them.
It is objectively good to follow the instructions the objective process of evolution and natural selection has "programmed" our brain with. We are programmed to breathe so it's objectively good for us to breathe and bad to stop breathing. Staying alive is objectively good for both predator and prey. So when a predator kills a prey it is objectively good for the predator but objectively bad for the prey. This is self evident.
McBell
Unbound
This looks like you are merely tossing in the word "objective" willy nilly in hopes someone will take you seriously and not actually pay much attention as to if the word should even be in the sentence at all.
Bold empty claim.
Two things:
- "It is objectively good to follow" is nothing but a bold empty claim.
- Again, it looks like you are merely tossing in the word "objective" willy nilly in hopes someone will take you seriously and not actually pay much attention as to if the word should even be in the sentence at all.
except during the times we should not breath...
Say, while underwater.
But don't let truth and facts slow you down.
I get the distinct impression you do not know what the word "objectively" means.
This looks like you have nothing constructive or useful to say at all and have to resort to degrading your "opponent".
Another useless statement.
- One more useless statement and a repeat of a previous useless statement.
Very clever! I didn't think of that.
It means "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice;" as in the objective process of evolution and natural selection which is "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice;"
I don't think there's much point in continuing this exchange.
