Evolution theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression

[Kirran]

Why people suffer is because of evolution theory. It is simply you that makes people suffer by rejecting subjectivity outright.

So you keep saying with no evidence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So you keep saying with no evidence.

There is no need for intellectual debating tactics when you refuse to accept the simple truth that choosing is denied by evolution.

 

[Kirran]

There is no need for intellectual debating tactics when you refuse to accept the simple truth that choosing is denied by evolution.

Damn, I didn't think this through.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There is no need for intellectual debating tactics when you refuse to accept the simple truth that choosing is denied by evolution.

....I don't see anybody arguing towards responsibility in dealing with a depression epidemic.

There is plenty of indication that there is a problem with evolution theory, which warrants to investigate the issue. When 40 percent of a country, the USA, does not accept a theory, there may be a genuine issue with it. It may be that the theory is not just discarded for religious bigotry in respect to extreme literacy.

And the issue ofcourse is that the theory does encroach on and destroy people's understanding about choosing altogether, and with that all subjectivity is out the window too. That is the underlaying issue in creationism vs evolution, not extreme literacy.

Scientists have a general responsibility for knowledge, if one theory encroaches on another theory, then these issues must be resolved. Just as issues must be resolved between uh.. general relativity and quantum whatever.

Ofcourse as it stands, the reputation of science and scientists, for being totally ignorant about how choosing works, is very low. They are made fun of on TV shows as socially inept, which is ofcourse what one would expect if one does not have any understanding of subjectivity. Real life is different from TV show, the social ineptitude leads to depression in real life, and not so much comedy.

 

[Shad]

....I don't see anybody arguing towards responsibility in dealing with a depression epidemic.

There is plenty of indication that there is a problem with evolution theory, which warrants to investigate the issue. When 40 percent of a country, the USA, does not accept a theory, there may be a genuine issue with it. It may be that the theory is not just discarded for religious bigotry in respect to extreme literacy.

And the issue ofcourse is that the theory does encroach on and destroy people's understanding about choosing altogether, and with that all subjectivity is out the window too. That is the underlaying issue in creationism vs evolution, not extreme literacy.

Scientists have a general responsibility for knowledge, if one theory encroaches on another theory, then these issues must be resolved. Just as issues must be resolved between uh.. general relativity and quantum whatever.

Ofcourse as it stands, the reputation of science and scientists, for being totally ignorant about how choosing works, is very low. They are made fun of on TV shows as socially inept, which is ofcourse what one would expect if one does not have any understanding of subjectivity. Real life is different from TV show, the social ineptitude leads to depression in real life, and not so much comedy.

A population does not need to accept something as true for it to be true. More so you point out that those that reject evolution is due to the fault of the theory rather than presupposition they were taught since childhood. I could put forward teaching children about presuppositional religious views cause depression. First it causes an issue in the parent child relationship since the parent is teaching their children falsehood. When faced with accredit education this put them at odds with their parents due to the falsehood they were taught.Another issue is that they believed a falsehood but were no taught how to reason and to critical think as these are taught in schools not religions. So the education their parents provided was ineffective and fallacious in nature. Hence presuppositions of religion cause depression

It destroys no such knowledge of choosing since we are capable of reasoning thus are not restrict by determination and/or instinct. Only those that can not understand the relationship between these concepts make such leaps in their conclusions all due to ignorance.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

....I don't see anybody arguing towards responsibility in dealing with a depression epidemic.

Not sure I'm willing to back your study of depression, nor your understanding of choosing, nor common discource (or common sense) against my wife's practical experience dealing with all manner of mental illnesses. I'd offer my own studies, but that's just academic, which you've clearly got an issue with.

There is plenty of indication that there is a problem with evolution theory, which warrants to investigate the issue. When 40 percent of a country, the USA, does not accept a theory, there may be a genuine issue with it. It may be that the theory is not just discarded for religious bigotry in respect to extreme literacy.

I think evolution should be investigated and challenged. I just haven't seen anything here approaching either.

And the issue ofcourse is that the theory does encroach on and destroy people's understanding about choosing altogether, and with that all subjectivity is out the window too. That is the underlaying issue in creationism vs evolution, not extreme literacy.

Meh...I tried to engage with you sensibly, but you are determined that atheism = secularism = determinism = evolutionist, so whatever. Suffice to say...yet again...that I am for ever arguing AGAINST objectivity, and TOWARDS subjectivity. But even as I type this I know it will be glibly flipped off by someone who hasn't shown the least interest in any sort of discussion in thread after thread littered with the same keywords and catch phrases.

Scientists have a general responsibility for knowledge, if one theory encroaches on another theory, then these issues must be resolved. Just as issues must be resolved between uh.. general relativity and quantum whatever.

Yeah...I'm not hardcore enough to reduce knowledge to science, actually.

Ofcourse as it stands, the reputation of science and scientists, for being totally ignorant about how choosing works, is very low. They are made fun of on TV shows as socially inept, which is ofcourse what one would expect if one does not have any understanding of subjectivity. Real life is different from TV show, the social ineptitude leads to depression in real life, and not so much comedy.

Phew, lucky I'm not one of THOSE four eyed geeks. Now all I have to do is stop using stereotypes to judge the world, and actually engage with people whose views don't merely reinforce my own bias and I'm off on the path to knowledge.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

A population does not need to accept something as true for it to be true. More so you point out that those that reject evolution is due to the fault of the theory rather than presupposition they were taught since childhood. I could put forward teaching children about presuppositional religious views cause depression. First it causes an issue in the parent child relationship since the parent is teaching their children falsehood. When faced with accredit education this put them at odds with their parents due to the falsehood they were taught.Another issue is that they believed a falsehood but were no taught how to reason and to critical think as these are taught in schools not religions. So the education their parents provided was ineffective and fallacious in nature. Hence presuppositions of religion cause depression

It destroys no such knowledge of choosing since we are capable of reasoning thus are not restrict by determination and/or instinct. Only those that can not understand the relationship between these concepts make such leaps in their conclusions all due to ignorance.

Another quite boring defensive posting. Making clever arguments is not the point, it is the point to argue towards responsibility in dealing with a depression epidemic.

And the truth is quite simple, one does not need to be very clever to see it. It is fairly obvious that evolutionists go out of their way to destroy any and all knowledge about how things are chosen, in the universe at large, as well as knowledge about how people choose. And with that obviously subjectivity is undermined, it's no good for the emotional well being.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Meh...I tried to engage with you sensibly, but you are determined that atheism = secularism = determinism = evolutionist, so whatever.

No evolutionist ever tries to engage sensibly with this issue. I mean to ignore common discourse, that is simply ignoring reality. People are not going to change the way they talk.

You can present your own investigation of the structure in common discourse, and then compare your findings with mine, that would be sensibly engaging the issue.

And the reason no evolutionist ever investigates the structure in common discourse is because they know I am right. And then they would lose the argument, and fighting tooth and nail is the evolutionist style of argumentation. You'd all make good lawyers.

The real losers are then ofcourse the people, whose common discourse is pressured by evolution theory, the knowledge about choosing undermined, subjectivity undermined.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No evolutionist ever tries to engage sensibly with this issue. I mean to ignore common discourse, that is simply ignoring reality. People are not going to change the way they talk.

'People' meaning, presumably, those who don't believe in evolution, and common discourse meaning everyday conversations that everyone else in this thread is somehow unaware of and unqualified to have an opinion on.

You can present your own investigation of the structure in common discourse, and then compare your findings with mine, that would be sensibly engaging the issue.

I tried conversing with you but you're not interested in conversing. You're looking for an echo chamber.

And the reason no evolutionist ever investigates the structure in common discourse is because they know I am right.

You're going to have to trust me on this...no 'evolutionist' ever wasted a moment considering whether or not you'd agree with them.

And then they would lose the argument, and fighting tooth and nail is the evolutionist style of argumentation. You'd all make good lawyers.

You think we fight tooth and nail? Heh...interesting. Us being the mixed back of nationalities, genders, ages, and religious beliefs posting in this thread? Because we're evolutionists. You don't see anything slightly perverse in dividing the workd into good and bad, attributing bad to everyone who disagrees with you on one point, and then ignoring the fact that, as a group, we have far more differences than commonalities?

The real losers are then ofcourse the people, whose common discourse is pressured by evolution theory, the knowledge about choosing undermined, subjectivity undermined.

We ARE 'the people'. Least a fair cross section. If you're going the petty demagoguery route, you need a crowd of awed onlookers, rather than crickets.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

'People' meaning, presumably, those who don't believe in evolution, and common discourse meaning everyday conversations that everyone else in this thread is somehow unaware of and unqualified to have an opinion on.



I tried conversing with you but you're not interested in conversing. You're looking for an echo chamber.



You're going to have to trust me on this...no 'evolutionist' ever wasted a moment considering whether or not you'd agree with them.



You think we fight tooth and nail? Heh...interesting. Us being the mixed back of nationalities, genders, ages, and religious beliefs posting in this thread? Because we're evolutionists. You don't see anything slightly perverse in dividing the workd into good and bad, attributing bad to everyone who disagrees with you on one point, and then ignoring the fact that, as a group, we have far more differences than commonalities?



We ARE 'the people'. Least a fair cross section. If you're going the petty demagoguery route, you need a crowd of awed onlookers, rather than crickets.

From where I sit, what you write is not answerable, there is no reasonable argument in it. You simply have no argumentation to the point at issue whatsoever.Reasoned argument like; no common discourse doesn't work with with this structure, it works with that structure... All I get is this politicis, lawyering, debating tactics, no reasoned argumentation engaging the issues.

 

[Nietzsche]

'
We ARE 'the people'. Least a fair cross section. If you're going the petty demagoguery route, you need a crowd of awed onlookers, rather than crickets.

Hey, you take that back. Crickets are good people!

 

[Kirran]

....I don't see anybody arguing towards responsibility in dealing with a depression epidemic.

We should try to deal with the high rates of depression we see today. I agree 100%. But we disagree on the causes.

There is plenty of indication that there is a problem with evolution theory, which warrants to investigate the issue.

I don't think there is.

When 40 percent of a country, the USA, does not accept a theory, there may be a genuine issue with it. It may be that the theory is not just discarded for religious bigotry in respect to extreme literacy.

Took time for the flat Earth theory to die down too in some societies. Took a while for the germ theory of disease to catch on.

And the issue ofcourse is that the theory does encroach on and destroy people's understanding about choosing altogether, and with that all subjectivity is out the window too. That is the underlaying issue in creationism vs evolution, not extreme literacy.

I don't think it does encroach on people's understanding of choosing.

Ofcourse as it stands, the reputation of science and scientists, for being totally ignorant about how choosing works, is very low. They are made fun of on TV shows as socially inept, which is ofcourse what one would expect if one does not have any understanding of subjectivity. Real life is different from TV show, the social ineptitude leads to depression in real life, and not so much comedy.

Real life IS different from TV. I socialise with scientists almost every single day, in a science-oriented university. I am studying science myself, and know many people doing so. They're not socially inept, they're not depressed. At least, no more than any other group of people. Actually, they generally seem less depressed than the average population to me.

When the results don't support your hypothesis, it's time to change your hypothesis.

 

[Midnight Rain]

So what you are saying is, the gunpowder did it, not the one pulling the trigger.

There is no inconsistency between all things being chosen and force being real. The consequences of a decision can be forced.

Why don't you just give up. Simply be honest and admit the obvious fact that evolution theory encroaches on our understanding how things are chosen, and undermining subjectivity in general, thus causing depression.

I did not create an explosion when firing a gun. The chemical reaction did. But lets go back to something else. What if there was an earthquake? Who chose the earthquake?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I did not create an explosion when firing a gun. The chemical reaction did. But lets go back to something else. What if there was an earthquake? Who chose the earthquake?

....I said it about 20 times already, the issue of what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, is categorically a matter of opinion. This issue is the root of all subjectivity, it is what all subjectivity is about. You don't understand subjectivity, as it is in common discourse.

 

[Kirran]

....I said it about 20 times already, the issue of what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, is categorically a matter of opinion.

Yes, of course it is, that's why some people have different opinions to you!

 

[Midnight Rain]

....I said it about 20 times already, the issue of what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, is categorically a matter of opinion. This issue is the root of all subjectivity, it is what all subjectivity is about. You don't understand subjectivity, as it is in common discourse.

An Earthquake is common discourse? Or are you stating that some things are created by decision and some are not?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why people suffer is because of evolution theory.

Your point is invalid as people suffered before the theory of evolution was thought of.

quod est demonstrantum

You have not supported this claim. You have to offer support for your position before you claim it is proven.

The knowledge about how decisions are made is torn apart by evolutionists.

You have not supported this claim. How does this happen?

 

[jonathan180iq]

This thread

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

An Earthquake is common discourse? Or are you stating that some things are created by decision and some are not?

......we are not communicating. If there is anybody wanting to engage in reasoned discussion.....

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Your point is invalid as people suffered before the theory of evolution was thought of.

You have not supported this claim. You have to offer support for your position before you claim it is proven.

You have not supported this claim. How does this happen?

That's not logic. People can be hurt witg guns even if before guns didn't exist.

Anybody has any reasonable argument?