Evolution theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression

[Shad]

You ignore reality, you ignore evidence, you look toward what clever renarks you can invent in order to make the issue go away.

Somebody who understands subjectivity would not talk about belief in God the way you do.

People can just stop believing ithat your emotions are real just as they can stop to believe in God. You don't understand how subjectivity works, you only understand objectivity, facts.

It is not a fact what emotions are in your heart, it's a matter of opinion. And you are undermining the opinion on it, so as that people will not acknowledge your emotions.

The way you talk about God, it means you have no emotions. You think people are forced by evidence to acknowledge your emotions, but only in a free way can a conclusion be reached about it.

Your statement do not reflect reality so I ignoring nothing but a constructed straw man reality of your making. Subjectivity is not attached to God, only in your view it is. One does not need God nor a belief in God to accept subjectivity exists, Subjectivity is self-evident. Emotion are your scapegoat when you arguing against a scientific view with a complete lack of evidence supporting you case. You can talk about it all you want but it is a red herring and irrelevant.

Opinions need justification or becomes useless to anyone but the person holding it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Your statement do not reflect reality so I ignoring nothing but a constructed straw man reality of your making. Subjectivity is not attached to God, only in your view it is. One does not need God nor a belief in God to accept subjectivity exists, Subjectivity is self-evident. Emotion are your scapegoat when you arguing against a scientific view with a complete lack of evidence supporting you case. You can talk about it all you want but it is a red herring and irrelevant.

Opinions need justification or becomes useless to anyone but the person holding it.

You are confusing the rules for facts with the rules for opinions. Facts require to be forced by evidence, opinions are only valid when they are chosen, not forced.

Why don't you admit that you have no clue about how choosing works, neither any understanding of subjectivity.

 

[Shad]

You are confusing the rules for facts with the rules for opinions. Facts require to be forced by evidence, opinions are only valid when they are chosen, not forced.

Why don't you admit that you have no clue about how choosing works, neither any understanding of subjectivity.

No I am talking about the rules in which one should justify their opinion in order to convince others that it is an acceptable opinion to have. After all we are talking about evolution which is not an opinion.

I understand subjectivity. I provided examples of subjectivity being required by a field of science. Perhaps you should start justifying your opinions rather than hiding behind your opinions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No I am talking about the rules in which one should justify their opinion in order to convince others that it is an acceptable opinion to have. After all we are talking about evolution which is not an opinion.

I understand subjectivity. I provided examples of subjectivity being required by a field of science. Perhaps you should start justifying your opinions rather than hiding behind your opinions.

What you write I find barely comprehensible, because it is all defensive.

You have not given meaning ful assurances that subjectivity is safe and that knowledge about how things are chosen is safe. You have merely demonstrated that your understanding of it is absent, and that you are annoyed by these subjects.

 

[Shad]

What you write I find barely comprehensible, because it is all defensive.

You have not given meaning ful assurances that subjectivity is safe and that knowledge about how things are chosen is safe. You have merely demonstrated that your understanding of it is absent, and that you are annoyed by these subjects.

This is due to your issues with reading comprehension as demonstrated by you and pointed out by others.

I do not need to provide anything regarding subjectivity. It is your argument and claim not mine. Substantiate your views instead of whining when people point out you have failed to do so. Besides I have already acknowledged evolution by no means destroys subjectivity per my example of psychology which itself crosses over into evolutionary theory.

You want me to develop an theory so you can feel comfortable with subjectivity and evolution? I have already done so, repeatedly. If you have issues with this perhaps you should develop your own ideas instead of waiting for someone else to tell you what to think or comfort you.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This is due to your issues with reading comprehension as demonstrated by you and pointed out by others.

I do not need to provide anything regarding subjectivity. It is your argument and claim not mine. Substantiate your views instead of whining when people point out you have failed to do so. Besides I have already acknowledged evolution by no means destroys subjectivity per my example of psychology which itself crosses over into evolutionary theory.

There you get back to your formalities again, ignoring reality.

Evolutionary psychology by Cosmides and Tooby regard emotions as like software running on the hardware of the brain. They regard emotions as fact, not opinion, therefore they reject subjectivity.

All discussed multiple times before, yet you keep on pretending that you have an argument.

 

[Kirran]

There you get back to your formalities again, ignoring reality.

Evolutionary psychology by Cosmides and Tooby regard emotions as like software running on the hardware of the brain. They regard emotions as fact, not opinion, therefore they reject subjectivity.

All discussed multiple times before, yet you keep on pretending that you have an argument.

Mohammed you've raised no real points, and provided no evidence. Do these things, please.

 

[Shad]

There you get back to your formalities again, ignoring reality.

Evolutionary psychology by Cosmides and Tooby regard emotions as like software running on the hardware of the brain. They regard emotions as fact, not opinion, therefore they reject subjectivity.

All discussed multiple times before, yet you keep on pretending that you have an argument.

Yes formalities such as justifying one's view is completely unacceptable. Ridiculous statement...

We can measure anger by blood pressure, heart rate, chemicals in the brain along with observations of people's acts. We gain subjective information such as "Are you angry?" by asking for the subjective views of the person in question. The patient will respond with reasons for being angry which we can evaluate as justified or not. The same ways we can measure depression in a person. Emotions are not opinions but responses. One could hold an opinion which causes them to become angry. They could be responding to an external stimulant which can cause anger. Emotions are states within the mind not opinions.

No one goes around stating that in their opinion they are angry, people state they are or act angry. Being angry is a fact not an opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes formalities such as justifying one's view is completely unacceptable. Ridiculous statement...

We can measure anger by blood pressure, heart rate, chemicals in the brain along with observations of people's acts. We gain subjective information such as "Are you angry?" by asking for the subjective views of the person in question. The patient will respond with reasons for being angry which we can evaluate as justified or not. The same ways we can measure depression in a person. Emotions are not opinions but responses. One could hold an opinion which causes them to become angry. They could be responding to an external stimulant which can cause anger. Emotions are states within the mind not opinions.

No one goes around stating that in their opinion they are angry, people state they are or act angry. Being angry is a fact not an opinion.

....subjectivity does not function without things, the existence of which things is a matter of opinion. That is obvious, objectivity works with facts, subjectivity works with opinion.

What you like and dislike, the existence of the love and hate implied with the statements, is logically a matter of opinion.

You have simply excluded subjectivity altogether, just like I said evolutionists do. And you have also excluded all freedom, because the logic of choosing does not function without the agency of a decision being regarded as a matter of opinion.

And the result is a depression epidemic on colleges.

 

[Shad]

....subjectivity does not function without things, the existence of which things is a matter of opinion. That is obvious, objectivity works with facts, subjectivity works with opinion.

What you like and dislike, the existence of the love and hate implied with the statements, is logically a matter of opinion.

You have simply excluded subjectivity altogether, just like I said evolutionists do. And you have also excluded all freedom, because the logic of choosing does not function without the agency of a decision being regarded as a matter of opinion.

And the result is a depression epidemic on colleges.

I exist, this is self-evident. So already anyone can conclude a thing exists which is self. Subjectivity also deals with facts as information. Information absorbed by a person does contain facts such a X animal is a dog. Information could also be false in which X could be a cat but called a dog based on faulty observation.

You were not talking about dislikes and likes, you were taking strictly about emotions. Like/dislike are position regarding an object or view, not an raw emotion itself. For example I like my local hockey team but at times they make me angry. Emotion is not synonymous with like or dislike. You are backtracking as if you previous statement said no such thing.

More nonsense. I acknowledge people could make choice on a subjective whim or view. The question which follows is the opinion justified? One could hold the opinion that chocolate ice cream is the best. Justification could be that they like the taste or physical feeling it produces, hence the view is justified solely based on subjective information. This view would be accepted by anyone as reasonable for the person in question. However what if one has never tasted chocolate in their life. The opinion is not subjectivty to the person in question since they lack the subjective experience. So the only two options left are unjustified assertion or based on views of others. If using the views of others the person in question is taking other's subjective views as objective evidence. The objective evidence being people like chocolate ice cream. So the opinion is could be justified based on the view of others.

We can do this with emotions on a subject level with anyone that is capable of experiencing emotion, so we have subjective views which are in agreement. We can also use objective data as per my previous comments during states of emotion. We can cross reference these states with other people experiencing the same emotions. Thus we can conclude emotions are facts. The reasons/cause for emotions can be justified or unjustified. So here is an "evolutionist" telling you, again, that evolution has done not causes anything you claim. Thus your opinion is unjustified. You are presenting your opinion as a universal which only requires one example to refute.

One can have an opinion on a view, there is no issue with this. However you seem to misunderstanding you are not making statements of opinion. You are stating for a fact that evolution causes depression. You are stating a view which is reflect reality. Your sophistry has blinded you to what your own arguments imply.

"And the result is a depression epidemic on colleges" this is not an opinion but a statement of reality as a fact. I await your eventual retreat to opinion in light of your error.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I exist, this is self-evident. So already anyone can conclude a thing exists which is self. Subjectivity also deals with facts as information. Information absorbed by a person does contain facts such a X animal is a dog. Information could also be false in which X could be a cat but called a dog based on faulty observation.

You were not talking about dislikes and likes, you were taking strictly about emotions. Like/dislike are position regarding an object or view, not an raw emotion itself. For example I like my local hockey team but at times they make me angry. Emotion is not synonymous with like or dislike. You are backtracking as if you previous statement said no such thing.

More nonsense. I acknowledge people could make choice on a subjective whim or view. The question which follows is the opinion justified? One could hold the opinion that chocolate ice cream is the best. Justification could be that they like the taste or physical feeling it produces, hence the view is justified solely based on subjective information. This view would be accepted by anyone as reasonable for the person in question. However what if one has never tasted chocolate in their life. The opinion is not subjectivty to the person in question since they lack the subjective experience. So the only two options left are unjustified assertion or based on views of others. If using the views of others the person in question is taking other's subjective views as objective evidence. The objective evidence being people like chocolate ice cream. So the opinion is could be justified based on the view of others.

We can do this with emotions on a subject level with anyone that is capable of experiencing emotion, so we have subjective views which are in agreement. We can also use objective data as per my previous comments during states of emotion. We can cross reference these states with other people experiencing the same emotions. Thus we can conclude emotions are facts. The reasons/cause for emotions can be justified or unjustified. So here is an "evolutionist" telling you, again, that evolution has done not causes anything you claim. Thus your opinion is unjustified. You are presenting your opinion as a universal which only requires one example to refute.

One can have an opinion on a view, there is no issue with this. However you seem to misunderstanding you are not making statements of opinion. You are stating for a fact that evolution causes depression. You are stating a view which is reflect reality. Your sophistry has blinded you to what your own arguments imply.

"And the result is a depression epidemic on colleges" this is not an opinion but a statement of reality as a fact. I await your eventual retreat to opinion in light of your error.

Your insistence on justification for opinions is obviously the same as your insistence of evidence for facts.

You do not accept any opinion, which is already clearly demonstrated by you explicitly saying anger is fact.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You huff and puff your authority about the issues, while what you say denies the foundations of subjectivity.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

How? Many theists, especially outside of America, accept evolution. Many who fall outside of the atheist/theist dichotomy accept evolution. I am even going to say it is a reasonable assumption that some atheists do not accept evolution, albeit probably not many.

Perhaps disbelief in evolution largely overlaps with theism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Perhaps disbelief in evolution largely overlaps with theism.

I would say it's probably something more than just that. Granted America is probably the most religious country of the Western world, but it also has a nasty streak of anti-intellectualism. It's probably really a few different things that have caused this bizarre phenomena of America being the anti-Evolution Western country. Poor education standards probably also play into this, and that of course runs very deep and on many different levels, even after the conservative religious influence considered.

 

[Shad]

Your insistence on justification for opinions is obviously the same as your insistence of evidence for facts.

You do not accept any opinion, which is already clearly demonstrated by you explicitly saying anger is fact.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You huff and puff your authority about the issues, while what you say denies the foundations of subjectivity.

Opinions must be justified or opinions become completely worthless. It is not my issue but your inability to justify your views beyond statements which are non-sequitur which you think form premises of an argument.

An emotion is a fact as it is a state of being not an opinion. Again demonstrating that you do not understand what you are talking about when you think being angry is an opinion and not an reaction.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Opinions must be justified or opinions become completely worthless. It is not my issue but your inability to justify your views beyond statements which are non-sequitur which you think form premises of an argument.

An emotion is a fact as it is a state of being not an opinion. Again demonstrating that you do not understand what you are talking about when you think being angry is an opinion and not an reaction.

It's obviously never going to work if you regard anger, love, hate, jealousy etc. as some kind of table of elements for the mind similar to the chemical table.

The existence of these things must be considered a matter of opinion, the freedom in forming an opinion preserves the freedom in the concept of free will. When you have anger as fact, then this anger would force a result in accordance with what the anger in fact consists of. Freedom is gone, it cannot turn out any other way. While if the existence of the anger is regarded as an opinion, then freedom is preserved.

All explained time and again. Why would you risk your emotional well being on such ideas which are obviously invented to suit atheism? You are just acting like a robot measuring device in dealing with people's emotions, when you regard emotions as fact.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I would say it's probably something more than just that. Granted America is probably the most religious country of the Western world, but it also has a nasty streak of anti-intellectualism. It's probably really a few different things that have caused this bizarre phenomena of America being the anti-Evolution Western country. Poor education standards probably also play into this, and that of course runs very deep and on many different levels, even after the conservative religious influence considered.

....obviously creationists are simply right to regard origins of things in terms of the decisions by which they came to be, and regard it as a subjectivity issue, an issue of faith, what the agency of the decisions is.

The USA is simply thoroughly democratic, and it has a large share of the population who emphasize religion chosen in freedom as the only meaningful form of religion. Evolutionists insisting that freedom is not real, that subjectivity is wrong, that they must be forced by evidence to the conclusion God exists, or doesn't exist, obviously that is a tyrannical way of seeing things, because it is based on everything being forced.

Social relations do not function if people were to regard anger as a matter of fact issue, which can just be measured like some kind of material. One requires to be subjective towards the issue of who somebody is as being the owner of their decisions, what emotions are in their heart, in order to function socially.

How can any civilized human being support this wholesale destruction of emotion by evolutionists, by making emotions into an issue of fact? It is the worst kind of ideology, the most anti-human philosophy of all, just plain outright destruction of emotions, ridiculously evil.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How? Many theists, especially outside of America, accept evolution. Many who fall outside of the atheist/theist dichotomy accept evolution. I am even going to say it is a reasonable assumption that some atheists do not accept evolution, albeit probably not many.

This is simply untrue. My personal pursuits, pleasures, and activities have become far more enjoyable once I started doing them for myself.
Do you have anything to actually support this notion?

Socialism is not even close enough to being on par with atheism to be used as "socialist/atheist." The early church communities, for example, functioned under a form of communism and Jesus' teachings are very socialist in nature. Blessed are the poor? Give your money to the poor? Share your extra shirt and food with those who have none? Love your neighbor as yourself? Woe unto the rich? Give to everyman that asks of thee? It's easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is to get a rich man into heaven?
And you need to show where there is a strong correlation, one that is statistically significant, between atheist regimes and suicide. Also do keep in mind this correlation must be compared to other variables, such as how oppressive a regime is, poverty, violence, and other things just to make sure your statement of depression and high suicide rates are actually caused by an atheist regime and not by other things.

Blessed are the poor, Give your money to the poor, Share your extra shirt and food with those who have none, Love your neighbor as yourself

in stark contrast with

Blessed are the politicians, Give your money to the Government, Share your extra shirt and food with the tax collector, Love your dear leader as yourself ....

Jesus died fighting for the former over the latter

along with depression, oppression & poverty are synonymous with socialist-atheist states; USSR, N Korea, Communist China, etc- you have to admit it's a pretty strong correlation, obviously that does not prove causation- perhaps it's complete coincidence!

There are lots of studies showing people of faith are generally happier, for whatever reason, that's not too controversial an observation

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There are lots of studies showing people of faith are generally happier, for whatever reason, that's not too controversial an observation

Considering non-believers, as a whole, are such a small part of the population it would be incredibly hard to come up with any generalization for this. Christians and Muslims seem violent because there are so many, whereas atheists seem so pacifist because there are so few. However, depression does not know religion. It is found mostly in those with certain genetic predispositions, but also those facing certain conditions. Many mental disorders go hand-in-hand with depression, poverty and depression are frequent companions, depression is an accomplice of addiction, abuse often leads to depression. And whereas certain things are more likely to cause depression, there are many things that help to ameliorate depression, and none of them are dependent upon religion. Religion may a benefit of providing easier access to a support system, but this support can be found outside of religion. Other things that help with depression, such as regular exercise and good diet, are not based on religion at all.

you have to admit it's a pretty strong correlation, obviously that does not prove causation- perhaps it's complete coincidence!

It is not a strong correlation. China has a lot of people working in hazardous sweatshops 16+ hours a day for pennies a day. China also heavily censors information and is very strongly totalitarian. North Korea is also very strongly totalitarian, giving citizens very little control and choice over their lives. The USSR was doomed from mismanagement, foolish nationalism, and violent oligarchs. And in America, where we can see an empire crumbling from mismanagement, foolish nationalism, and violent oligarchs, we also see high rates of depression. The one big difference is whereas the USSR was officially atheist, America added "under god" to the pledge because it couldn't stand the idea of having something in common with Russia. That kind of attitude, btw, is known for causing depression.

 

[Shad]

It's obviously never going to work if you regard anger, love, hate, jealousy etc. as some kind of table of elements for the mind similar to the chemical table.

The existence of these things must be considered a matter of opinion, the freedom in forming an opinion preserves the freedom in the concept of free will. When you have anger as fact, then this anger would force a result in accordance with what the anger in fact consists of. Freedom is gone, it cannot turn out any other way. While if the existence of the anger is regarded as an opinion, then freedom is preserved.

All explained time and again. Why would you risk your emotional well being on such ideas which are obviously invented to suit atheism? You are just acting like a robot measuring device in dealing with people's emotions, when you regard emotions as fact.

The existence of emotions is not opinion as we can measure emotions. The rest of your point is incoherent sophistry based on you error regarding emotion. Emotions are response. If someone hits another in the face this triggers an emotion. No one sits around forming an opinion regarding how they should feel when punched in the face.

Decisions people make can be logical or emotional, objective or subjective. For example say I am shopping for X car. I visit the local dealerships looking for the best deal or just buy the first one I see on a whim like the colour. Evolution was not invent for atheism nor is science. It only seems that way since you hold a primitive religious view reinforced by dogma and doctrine. You are unable to break away from your indoctrination nor are you actually willing to learn about the subject you are talking about. Hence why you create straw man and make umps to conclusion support by nothing at all, not even your opinion is justified

 

[Shad]

Blessed are the poor, Give your money to the poor, Share your extra shirt and food with those who have none, Love your neighbor as yourself

in stark contrast with

Blessed are the politicians, Give your money to the Government, Share your extra shirt and food with the tax collector, Love your dear leader as yourself ....

Jesus died fighting for the former over the latter

along with depression, oppression & poverty are synonymous with socialist-atheist states; USSR, N Korea, Communist China, etc- you have to admit it's a pretty strong correlation, obviously that does not prove causation- perhaps it's complete coincidence!

There are lots of studies showing people of faith are generally happier, for whatever reason, that's not too controversial an observation

Happiness is due to the social network religion constructs.