I don't think @Mohammad Nur Syamsu wants to talk to me anymore.
It seems that all dissenting views are unreasonable, and therefore can't be discussed.
It seems that all dissenting views are unreasonable, and therefore can't be discussed.
-
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 theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression
- Thread starter Mohammad Nur Syamsu
- Start date
But of course. Someone as obviously learned & eloquent as Mohammad shant dare to discuss Evolution, something he obviously knows everything about don'tcha know.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Reasonably, there is some freedom in the time the earthquake takes place. It can happen in a year or a year and a day for example.
And when peoplr talk about it in terms of why now instead of later, or why at all earthquakes instead of not, then that is a subjective issue.
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
Can someone, apart from MNS, explain to me how he is equating the teaching of evolution with depression.
Because i have read every one of his posts in this thread and cannot understand it.
Because i have read every one of his posts in this thread and cannot understand it.
I'll do what I can.
Basically, he thinks that believing in evolution equates to being a physical determinist - because evolution happens as a natural process, rather than having design involved, as in creationism, it's throwing out the need for a conscious agent. He thinks that believing this as regards evolution equates to believing it for reality overall, hence the physical determinism. He further believes that being a physical determinist means you reject the idea of alternative opinions, the idea of alternative viewpoints, in favour of a single absolute truth, based on science, leaving out emotion and relying solely on logic. He refers to this as subjectivity. I think this mistake comes from reading the way that some physical determinists explain their views, by breaking down a decision into the factors leading to it, and mistaking this for the way such people think in day-to-day situations. He then thinks that because these evolutionists are ignoring their emotions and operating only on logic, they lose all handle on their emotions, and so become depressed.
Something I have a lot of respect for Mohammed for is that he doesn't really care to proselytise his particular faith, or promote one over another. He only cares for how they can actually help people in their day-to-day lives, very much treating them as tools for helping us be happy and emotionally stable. I think this is a very mature attitude, and I salute you for it, @Mohammad Nur Syamsu.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
It's just more debating tactics. Evolution theory encroaches on and destroys knowledge about how things are chosen, subjectivity depends on this knowledge, hence subjectivity is undermined, causing depression.
Anybody can understand. ....
It is of course possible that this is entirely correct, and we're all just not intelligent enough to understand it. That really could be the case, although on a gut level I feel it is not.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
How, exactly, it is at all possible, ever, under any circumstances, for someone to be hurt by something that doesn't exist?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
This may have just saved about 10 more pages.
But there is still the question of how does evolution equate to being a determinist? Especially when there is an abundance of evidence, one of which is just logging onto an online forum, to the contrary?
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
.... come on.... you are now using common discourse, not evolution theory
First you went on and on how worthless common discourse is. Now you insist that your own common discourse about choosing to log on to a forum is right.
Your arguments....are a mess.
And you are using the word choosing with a logic of being forced. We already discussed that several times.
And now you will forget again about what my argumentation is, so then you will be insistently asking for it again.....so that we are back to square 1.
You are not arguing towards responsiblity.
Shad
Veteran Member
Hilarious. I was just mimicking your view just using the opposing points against you. So your argument is boring as well?
Perhaps parents should show some responsibility and refrain from teaching their children about religion which is unproven. They should also teach people about objective facts compared to subjective opinion, a lesson you never were taught.
I already acknowledged subjective views are within different fields of science. I guess you never both reading what people post. Or rather from my point of view unable to comprehend what you read.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
So you were playing another.....debatinggame.
If there is anybody who can give a reasonable response......
You know, write something reasonable about the relationship between common discourse and science for example.
Anything except all these debating tactics, which just go and on and on and on and on and on and on and on......
Shad
Veteran Member
A trick, yup I do not deny this. However the fact that you couldn't see a parody of your own views and declare it boring really shows you lack the necessary comprehension in a sort of discussion you claim to want to have. You point out issues but are clueless that your own arguments have these same issue. I have already given you reasonable responses, if mockingly, but these are not reasonable to you. The only reasonable answer you want is those that agree with you.
You continually fail to justify your views, you fail to provide sources backing your views. When you do provide sources, these sources do not say what you claim. Lecture me about debates when you figure out that debates are more then just blank statements with no justification.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Yes......and therefore dismissed...
Shad
Veteran Member
Nope, the point was just as unsourced and invalid as your own. I just mimicked your argument hence you now agree that your argument is invalid and a trick itself. Thanks for agreeing with what people have been saying for the last 17 pages.
This should be a lesson for all on sophistry. I used his own sophistry against him but since he can not spot sophistry he has disagreed with his own argument by ignorance. This is what happens when one has no clue what they are talking about.
gsa
Well-Known Member
Is this what Christian apologetics used to look like before they hauled out people like William Lane Craig? The few Islamic apologists that I’ve listened to sound super insane, and they’re all native English speakers so I can’t really blame a language or culture gap.
Actually I'd love to hear a debate involving Hindu, Islamic and Christian creationists, alongside a reasonable biologist. That would be entertaining.
Actually I'd love to hear a debate involving Hindu, Islamic and Christian creationists, alongside a reasonable biologist. That would be entertaining.