Evolution theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression

[outhouse]

He's not worth it. He is genuinely, 100% not worth it.

Agreed, he goes on ignore. There is no reason to feed him.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I like this response...
With regards to your question...I believe that there is a striving for organisms to achieve adaptation and reproductive success, and that's not an opinion.

Once you put love on the fact side of things, there is really nothing much of anything left for the opinion side of things to work with. Love and hate are not fact, they are motivation of a decision, they are what makes a decision turn out the way it does, therefore the existence of love and hate are logically a matter of opinion.

The language of natural selection theory should be understood as metaphorical. When you make a mathematical model of natural selection theory, there is nothing in the programming code which corresponds with "striving". It is just a way to talk about it which is convenient, it is error to say evolution scientists have discovered love.

 

[Excaljnur]

That was all over the place.

It is clear you don't understand how subjectivity works, which means all your ideas about people's emotions, depression, are baseless.

I organized my thoughts and provided and argument directly from your various explanations of subjectivity. Its everything you said--I just organized it so it was understandable. Everything I said about people's emotions and depression were your ideas. Calling them baseless is calling your ideas baseless. Did you not even do yourself the courtesy to try to understand your own ideas? Or were they, too,"over the place" to understand?

By the observation that it takes someone to explain your ideas back to you for you to recognize that they are baseless, I think we are making progress.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I organized my thoughts and provided and argument directly from your various explanations of subjectivity. Its everything you said--I just organized it so it was understandable. Everything I said about people's emotions and depression were your ideas. Calling them baseless is calling your ideas baseless. Did you not even do yourself the courtesy to try to understand your own ideas? Or were they, too,"over the place" to understand?

By the observation that it takes someone to explain your ideas back to you for you to recognize that they are baseless, I think we are making progress.

I said this:

"The root of all subjectivity is the issue of what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. With decisions there are always several results possible, so then there are no laws of nature which determine the result, so there are no facts on the issue. But that is no problem because you can just use subjectivity, expression of emotion, with free will, to choose an answer, form an opinion.

So we can see that opinion has a rightful place besides fact, opinions are about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, and facts are about the resulting decisions. There is a world of difference when you attend a college where opinion is acknowledged as having a rightful place, and a college in which facts are competed against opinion, to the destruction of all opinioin, as it is in evolutionist colleges."

Then you changed that into:

"Your deduction is (1) depression involved emotions and all emotions are unique, thus subjective. (2) Subjectivity results in different decisions, answers, explanations and opinions. "

I said nothing about "unique" you made that up yourself. The rest of what you write is similarly not an accurate reflection of what I am saying, unrecognizeable.

And only somebody who doesn't know how subjectivity works would say what you say. I have confidence that what I say about subjectivity is right, because I derived it by looking at common discourse. Then that confidence I have in daily life in talking about what is beautiful, and ugly, and so on, crosses over to my intellectual understanding of that common discourse.

Ofcourse in daily life there is little doubt about it that it is valid to say something is beautiful or ugly. There is high confidence that it is valid. And when you investigate the structure in common discourse how this subjectivity works, you then get a similarly high confidence that this stucture you see is valid. Ofcourse the confidence is then improved further by validating the consistency of the structure philosophically. Trying to figure out if or not there are internal contradictions in the logic used in common discourse. There are no contradictions, so my confidence is high that it is right.

Also I test whether the structure fits with other knowledge, whether or not it has contradictions with other knowledge. And subjectivity as it is in common discourse is inconsistent with making love and hate into a matter of fact. But that is social darwinism, and that has already been established as false, so this contradiction actually further improves the confidence.

 

[Kirran]

Which you could clear up by saying how forming an opinion works.

OK. An opinion is a statement on something subjective. One's views on subjective matters result from one's perspective, understanding, situation, knowledge on the matter and so on. Based on these we make a judgement, thus deciding our opinion on a subjective matter, which will vary from person to person, because, as we both agree, subjectivity is involved.

 

[Treks]

No more R&D!

Oh my goodness! @Kirran, you've figured it out! Put both these charts side-by-side and the REDUCTION IN MARGARINE CONSUMPTION correlates to the INCREASE IN SUICIDES!

It's lack of margarine that's making people depressed.

 

[Kirran]

Oh my goodness! @Kirran, you've figured it out! Put both these charts side-by-side and the REDUCTION IN MARGARINE CONSUMPTION correlates to the INCREASE IN SUICIDES!

It's lack of margarine that's making people depressed.

This is gonna change the world man, we've gotta report this.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

OK. An opinion is a statement on something subjective. One's views on subjective matters result from one's perspective, understanding, situation, knowledge on the matter and so on. Based on these we make a judgement, thus deciding our opinion on a subjective matter, which will vary from person to person, because, as we both agree, subjectivity is involved.

Did you figure that saying subjective a lot (4 times), that it would mean it is an explanation of subjectivity?

Actually you should not use the word you are trying to explain, nor any synonym of it, in the explanation of the word.

An opinion is formed by choosing about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

opinion = the result of choosing about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does

See, on the one side should be the word opinion, on the other side is the explanation of the word, which must not contain the word opinion, nor a synonym of it, otherwise it is circular reasoning.

You have an opinion predetermined by situation etc., but also freely decided. Those are 2 different forms of logic. Then you should say an opinion is chosen based on the options the situation and perspective etc. provides.

You have not defined what a subjective matter is, that is more circular reasoning. Only the issue of what makes a decision turn out the way it does, is categorically a matter of opinion.

So there are 2 rules any opinion must abide by for it to be logically valid. 1. the opinion must be arrived at by choosing it, meaning there must be several options available any of which can be chosen. 2. the resulting statement must be about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

Like, dislike, Beauty, ugly, etc. these statements suppose there is love / hate in the heart, which love / hate choose the word like / dislike. In choosing the word like, you also must have the option of the word dislike available, or some other option.

 

[Kirran]

Did you figure that saying subjective a lot (4 times), that it would mean it is an explanation of subjectivity?

Actually you should not use the word you are trying to explain, nor any synonym of it, in the explanation of the word.

An opinion is formed by choosing about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

opinion = the result of choosing about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does

See, on the one side should be the word opinion, on the other side is the explanation of the word, which must not contain the word opinion, nor a synonym of it, otherwise it is circular reasoning.

You have an opinion predetermined by situation etc., but also freely decided. Those are 2 different forms of logic. Then you should say an opinion is chosen based on the options the situation and perspective etc. provides.

You have not defined what a subjective matter is, that is more circular reasoning. Only the issue of what makes a decision turn out the way it does, is categorically a matter of opinion.

So there are 2 rules any opinion must abide by for it to be logically valid. 1. the opinion must be arrived at by choosing it, meaning there must be several options available any of which can be chosen. 2. the resulting statement must be about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

Like, dislike, Beauty, ugly, etc. these statements suppose there is love / hate in the heart, which love / hate choose the word like / dislike. In choosing the word like, you also must have the option of the word dislike available, or some other option.

To be honest, I feel like you're never going to understand my explanations as to why your opinions about atheists, evolutionists, Nazis and communists are erroneous. So nice debating you, but I'm going to duck out.

Anybody else who wants to get involved, you're tagged in.

 

[Iti oj]

Which you could clear up by saying how forming an opinion works.

Why that seems to be your point not some one elses

 

[Shad]

Ofcourse in daily life there is little doubt about it that it is valid to say something is beautiful or ugly. There is high confidence that it is valid. And when you investigate the structure in common discourse how this subjectivity works, you then get a similarly high confidence that this stucture you see is valid. Ofcourse the confidence is then improved further by validating the consistency of the structure philosophically. Trying to figure out if or not there are internal contradictions in the logic used in common discourse. There are no contradictions, so my confidence is high that it is right.

Valid does not mean sound. You toss the words logic and philosophy around but have no understanding of these terms.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

To be honest, I feel like you're never going to understand my explanations as to why your opinions about atheists, evolutionists, Nazis and communists are erroneous. So nice debating you, but I'm going to duck out.

Anybody else who wants to get involved, you're tagged in.

You have no explanations. You don't understand how subjectivity works, therefore you can't know if it is true or not that acceptance of evolution theory leads to rejection of subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Valid does not mean sound. You toss the words logic and philosophy around but have no understanding of these terms.

Meaningless assertion of authority.

Your concept of subjectivity is wrong, the logic in it does not function, as explained in full.

 

[averageJOE]

More College Freshmen Report Having Felt Depressed
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us/more-college-freshmen-report-having-felt-depressed.html?_r=0

The prediction of creationists in the early 20th century of evolution theory bringing "hell to the highschool", turns out true.

With evolution theory you are creating a study environment in which any knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe is discarded, and with that any subjectivity about what made the decisions turn out the way they do is discarded as well. No room is provided for subjectivity at all, hence students become depressed.

Most significantly at Harvard, where the predominance of atheism is the largest. That hellhole where 50 percent of students become seriously depressed during their studentcareer, should be closed down as a health hazard for mental health.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I explained how subjectivity works in post no 62.

You did not accurately explain it. Subjectivity deals with hard facts, evidence gained through observation, testing, and retesting, and care has been taken to sort variables. The scientific method is based in subjectivity because being subjective means you logically and rationally work through things.

IMO it's a fundamental failiure of education that you don't understand how subjectivity works. A failure of education, that you don't know anything about how things are chosen in the universe.

I have Asperger's Syndrome. Having this, I am drawn to subjective, concrete, hard facts the way an insect is drawn to light. There is nothing, at all, to suggest anything is chosen. From our best perspectives, our best observation, it looks that in the grand scheme of the universe we (our planet) are less than a spec of dust sitting on a shelf in a massive library. We may play a larger part in the local cosmic eco-system, as even tiny bacteria are vital in their own ecosystems, but this doesn't mean we were chosen, picked, or have any special purpose.
If we were picked, why is most of the surface of the earth uninhabitable by us? Why do we live in the middle of a cosmic shooting gallery? Why must those who work to protect the earth suffer from the folly of those who waste it? Why are testicles external? What's up with the digestive system of a rabbit? What's up with all the very nasty and horrible birth defects and other ailments?

It is just common sense that if a college accepts subjectivity is valid, and teaches about how things are chosen in the universe, that this would provide a general atmosphere in the college in which the human spirit, and friendship, is appreciated, reducing depression.

Subjectively, there is no reason to suspect things are chosen. Biology, culture, and individual upbringing and experiences appear to be a much stronger prediction of behavior than suggesting we are picked by some cosmic entity.
And without your objective ideas of things being chosen, colleges still promote friendship and being socially active and involved on campus, which is one of the things I struggle with. Community involvement, charity work, being active in clubs, they expect it all (and they really don't like it when you tell them "the community" here is a conglomerate of mostly Conservative pricks who have always made me feel unwelcomed).

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You did not accurately explain it. Subjectivity deals with hard facts, evidence gained through observation, testing, and retesting, and care has been taken to sort variables. The scientific method is based in subjectivity because being subjective means you logically and rationally work through things.

Obviously, objectivity deals with facts, and facts are basically a copy / model of something forced by evidence of it. Opinions are totally different, they are arrived at by choosing the conclusion, expression of emotion with free will, and they are about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

What kind of game do you think you are playing when saying subjectivity deals with hard facts?

 

[metis]

Why is it that some people need a constant reminder that the ToE does not in any way counter any belief in God as it is neutral in that area?

 

[Sapiens]

Why is it that some people need a constant reminder that the ToE does not in any way counter any belief in God as it is neutral in that area?

What it does is shred most of the creation stories (at least the western ones) and that casts doubts on the god(s) of the story.

 

[David M]

That is false and exactly the sort of attitude that leads to suppression and destruction of subjectivity.

If anything, depression is exacerbated by the destruction of objectivity and a rise in subjectivity (by your usage of the terms).

You do not accept the obvious fact that depression means there is something wrong with the subjectivity of that person.

This fact is not obvious, in fact its flat out incorrect.

Your acceptance of facts is just nonsense bureaucratic formalism of the scientific method, and has nothing to do with really just accepting plain facts in a straightforward way.

Facts are facts, that you refuse to accept them is your problem, not reality's.

 

[David M]

My explanation of subjectivity is sufficient.

Obviously incorrect as multiple people have trouble deciphering your ramblings.