Evolution theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression

[Vishvavajra]

In your dreams. You can look at common discourse and find the structure of how people talk in terms of making decisions, in daily life. It is right there, obvious for all to see. This is 100 percent a problem with your attitude about it.

So you don't have an answer, then. That's what I thought. This was a troll thread to begin with. We might have turned it into something more useful despite that, but as it is the only purpose it has is to demonstrate in your own words how ridiculous creationism is, and how its exponents are incapable of forming even the most rudimentary argument.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So you don't have an answer, then. That's what I thought. This was a troll thread to begin with. We might have turned it into something more useful despite that, but as it is the only purpose it has is to demonstrate in your own words how ridiculous creationism is, and how its exponents are incapable of forming even the most rudimentary argument.

Anybody who accepts freedom is real, as a matter of scientific fact, and accepts that subjectivity is valid, would not see it that way.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Anybody who accepts freedom is real, as a matter of scientific fact, and accepts that subjectivity is valid, would not see it that way.

Well, I do believe in freedom and subjectivity, and I do see it that way, so obviously you're mistaken. And you still haven't answered any of my questions, or made any attempt to do so. On top of that, you still are laboring under the delusion that in a debate it is the other person's job to support your claims. That's backwards. It's your job, and you just keep refusing to do it, saying that people ought to already agree with you. That's not how it works. If you don't want to debate, stop coming into the debate forum.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well, I do believe in freedom and subjectivity, and I do see it that way, so obviously you're mistaken. And you still haven't answered any of my questions, or made any attempt to do so. On top of that, you still are laboring under the delusion that in a debate it is the other person's job to support your claims. That's backwards. It's your job, and you just keep refusing to do it, saying that people ought to already agree with you. That's not how it works. If you don't want to debate, stop coming into the debate forum.

It is transparent you have no established knowledge about how choosing works, neither do you have anything established about how subjectivity works.

You have fantasy, you will say something different now about it, than you will in a week, you are just making it up while you write about it.

 

[Vishvavajra]

It is transparent you have no established knowledge about how choosing works, neither do you have anything established about how subjectivity works.

You have fantasy, you will say something different now about it, than you will in a week, you are just making it up while you write about it.

What have I said about it? I've just asked you to explain, which you obviously can't do. I'm not the one making positive statements, so by the rules of rational discussion I'm not the one with the burden of proof. You make the claim, you have to support it, or else you admit that your claim has no support and therefore can be disregarded as an empty fabrication.

You claim that the biological theory of evolution by natural selection "denies choosing," whatever that is supposed to mean (it's not standard English, in any case). When asked to explain yourself, you refuse and just say that anyone who doesn't already agree with you obviously doesn't understand how choosing works. When asked to explain how choosing works, you become overtly rude and basically call people stupid and deluded for not already knowing how choosing works. This is not a debate by any accepted definition of the word. This is you being a troll.

Obviously you don't understand how logic works. There is no point talking to you. I will not respond again. Feel free to have the last word. I'm sure it will give you great pleasure to call me delusional one last time while still refusing to engage with any of the points that have been raised.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What have I said about it? I've just asked you to explain, which you obviously can't do. I'm not the one making positive statements, so by the rules of rational discussion I'm not the one with the burden of proof. You make the claim, you have to support it, or else you admit that your claim has no support and therefore can be disregarded as an empty fabrication.

You claim that the biological theory of evolution by natural selection "denies choosing," whatever that is supposed to mean (it's not standard English, in any case). When asked to explain yourself, you refuse and just say that anyone who doesn't already agree with you obviously doesn't understand how choosing works. When asked to explain how choosing works, you become overtly rude and basically call people stupid and deluded for not already knowing how choosing works. This is not a debate by any accepted definition of the word. This is you being a troll.

Obviously you don't understand how logic works. There is no point talking to you. I will not respond again. Feel free to have the last word. I'm sure it will give you great pleasure to call me delusional one last time while still refusing to engage with any of the points that have been raised.

Just nonsense debating tactics.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The philosopher Sam Harris wrote this whole article about how he got sick from drinking coffee, and that it was therefore not free will that he went to the coffeebar every morning, but addiction.

I know some of these people who've made a super-ego to take care of themselves, and this super-ego they support can never do anything wrong whatsoever.

Sam Harris is a neuroscientist.

 

[Jared Jammer]

It's not a crazy notion.

• Darwinian evolution, properly understood, entails atheism.
• Atheism, properly understood, entails nihilism.
• Nihilism is a depressing worldview.
• Thus, Darwinian evolution leads to nihilism, which leads to depression.

Not only is it not a crazy notion, it seems like a very logical notion to me.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It's not a crazy notion.

• Darwinian evolution, properly understood, entails atheism.
• Atheism, properly understood, entails nihilism.
• Nihilism is a depressing worldview.
• Thus, Darwinian evolution leads to nihilism, which leads to depression.

Not only is it not a crazy notion, it seems like a very logical notion to me.

The finer details of it is that acceptance of natural selection theory leads to rejection of subjectivity altogether. Or so to say an evolutionist would generally not say that love is not real, be a nihilist in that sense, an evolutionist would more say that love is an objectively identifiable thing, and then go on to some form of social darwinism, to assert what is good and evil as fact.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's not a crazy notion.

• Darwinian evolution, properly understood, entails atheism.

Wrong. Many of the world's leading biologists and geneticists are theists, and they have no issue whatsoever reconciling their theist with understanding of evolutionary theory.

• Atheism, properly understood, entails nihilism.

Wrong again, and I'm begining to suspect this "properly understood" caveat is going to be your "no-true scotsman-esque get-out-fargument-free card". "Oh, so you're a theist who accepts evolution? Well you don't properly understand evolution, then". Oh, you're an atheist that isn't a nihilist? Well you don't properly understand atheism, then".

• Nihilism is a depressing worldview.

Personal opinion, not fact. I see many theistic views as being depressing - the concept of original sin, for example.

• Thus, Darwinian evolution leads to nihilism, which leads to depression.

Not only is it not a crazy notion, it seems like a very logical notion to me.

As has been made clear, you are not qualified to dictate what is logical and what is not. Your views, and your arguments in favour of them, are woefully irrational and poorly thought-out.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The finer details of it is that acceptance of natural selection theory leads to rejection of subjectivity altogether. Or so to say an evolutionist would generally not say that love is not real, be a nihilist in that sense, an evolutionist would more say that love is an objectively identifiable thing, and then go on to some form of social darwinism, to assert what is good and evil as fact.

The only people I ever see talking about social Darwinism always seem to be creationists.

I've yet to meet an atheist that favours it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The only people I ever see talking about social Darwinism always seem to be creationists.

I've yet to meet an atheist that favours it.

Besides the more obvious nazi interpretation, social darwinism can consist of regarding good and evil as relative to the environment, that evolution supports cooperation, rational selfishness etc. Crossing the line to social darwinism is to make what emotions people have into an issue of fact, on account of natural selection theory.

The head of the defunct Enron cooperation was a social darwinist. For instance he fired the lowest performing 10 percent of his employees every year, on account of his idea of natural selection.

 

[metis]

It's not a crazy notion.

• Darwinian evolution, properly understood, entails atheism.
• Atheism, properly understood, entails nihilism.
• Nihilism is a depressing worldview.
• Thus, Darwinian evolution leads to nihilism, which leads to depression.

Not only is it not a crazy notion, it seems like a very logical notion to me.

The above should be an entry into "Grimm's Fairy Tales". "Darwinian evolution" neither posits a deity nor denies it and, as a matter of fact, Darwin was a lay minister in the Anglican Church. It's only near the end of his life whereas he became more of an agnostic, which may have been been more of a reaction towards the status quo, anti-science Christian elements of so many during that day and age.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The above should be an entry into "Grimm's Fairy Tales". "Darwinian evolution" neither posits a deity nor denies it and, as a matter of fact, Darwin was a lay minister in the Anglican Church. It's only near the end of his life whereas he became more of an agnostic, which may have been been more of a reaction towards the status quo, anti-science Christian elements of so many during that day and age.

It is simply true that acceptance of natural selection theory would lead to depression, and by most accounts Darwin himself had depression.

The acceptance of subjectivity on an intellectual basis in the scientific community is very low as it is, and natural selection theory makes things very much worse.

How subjectivity works is that you reach a conclusion about what it is that chooses, by choosing the conclusion.

For example a hare is escaping from a fox, and has some options like run, skip, hop, turn, stand still, and attack. Supposing the hare chooses to hop.

Now the question is, what made the decision turn out hop instead of the other options run, skip, stand still and attack...?

There are by definition at least 2 correct answers to this question, because it is categorically a subjective issue. We might choose between "courage" and "recklessness", as what it is that made the decision turn out the way it did. How we arrive at the answer is by expressing our emotions with free will in relation to the decision, thus choosing it. The logical validity of the answer depends on that it is chosen. So if we would say it is "courage", but not choosing the answer "courage", but instead forcing the answer without the possibility of any other answer, then it would be a logical error.

The reason facts are excluded is because facts are obtained forced by evidence, resulting in a model of what is evidenced. All forced answers are excluded, because force is inconsistent with the freedom of the agency in a decision. If we say it is a fact that it is courage, or a fact that some electrochemistry made the decision turn out the way it did, we would be equally saying that a decision has the logic of being forced, because of the force required for facts, which a logical error of contradiction. The agency in a decision cannot be both free and forced at the same time.

That is basic understanding of subjectivity, and evolutionists do not have it, thereby taking great risks with their mental health.

Only creationism provides validation of both fact and opinion. Opinion applies to the issue of what it is that chooses, the creator, the spirit, the soul etc. , and fact applies to the creation, the resulting decision, the available options etc.

 

[metis]

It is simply true that acceptance of natural selection theory would lead to depression, and by most accounts Darwin himself had depression.

The acceptance of subjectivity on an intellectual basis in the scientific community is very low as it is, and natural selection theory makes things very much worse.

How subjectivity works is that you reach a conclusion about what it is that chooses, by choosing the conclusion.

For example a hare is escaping from a fox, and has some options like run, skip, hop, turn, stand still, and attack. Supposing the hare chooses to hop.

Now the question is, what made the decision turn out hop instead of the other options run, skip, stand still and attack...?

There are by definition at least 2 correct answers to this question, because it is categorically a subjective issue. We might choose between "courage" and "recklessness", as what it is that made the decision turn out the way it did. How we arrive at the answer is by expressing our emotions with free will in relation to the decision, thus choosing it. The logical validity of the answer depends on that it is chosen. So if we would say it is "courage", but not choosing the answer "courage", but instead forcing the answer without the possibility of any other answer, then it would be a logical error.

The reason facts are excluded is because facts are obtained forced by evidence, resulting in a model of what is evidenced. All forced answers are excluded, because force is inconsistent with the freedom of the agency in a decision. If we say it is a fact that it is courage, or a fact that some electrochemistry made the decision turn out the way it did, we would be equally saying that a decision has the logic of being forced, because of the force required for facts, which a logical error of contradiction. The agency in a decision cannot be both free and forced at the same time.

That is basic understanding of subjectivity, and evolutionists do not have it, thereby taking great risks with their mental health.

Only creationism provides validation of both fact and opinion. Opinion applies to the issue of what it is that chooses, the creator, the spirit, the soul etc. , and fact applies to the creation, the resulting decision, the available options etc.

Your basic premise is nothing short of complete nonsense and is worthless. I suppose the next thing you'll claim is that agreeing that there's been an evolutionary process causes syphilis.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Your basic premise is nothing short of complete nonsense and is worthless. I suppose the next thing you'll claim is that agreeing that there's been an evolutionary process causes syphilis.

That you say it is nonsense is just more evidence that evolutionists don't understand anything whatsoever about how subjectivity works.

 

[metis]

That you say it is nonsense is just more evidence that evolutionists don't understand anything whatsoever about how subjectivity works.

Why do you lie so often?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why do you lie so often?

You are far out that you don't understand the basics of subjectivity.

 

[Sapiens]

You are far out that you don't understand the basics of subjectivity.

We get it, thy think that subjectivity gives you the right to spew any old sort of horse puckey and to ignore even obvious truths ... we get it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I wonder how long it can last?