Evolution theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression

[Shad]

Meaningless assertion of authority.

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

Nope, fact son. Go back to school and you may learn something. I never mentioned subjectivity, red herring and fallacious thinking, ie illogical.

Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

I got the terms backwards; I am prone to doing this. It's like the time I got it mixed up and called Willie the Groundskeeper Irish.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But, anyways, there is still nothing to suggest things in the universe are chosen. Objectively, our best observations indicate **** just happens. Things are not chosen, there is no inherent purpose of life, and you could easily find multitudes of philosophers who go about defining and creating our own purpose, our own goals, our own "good life."

 

[Excaljnur]

You also said this:

throwing out subjectivity and the result is people's emotions are destroyed, simple common sense as is directly shown by the evidence.

and this . . .

Still we can say by common sense that throwing out subjectivity increases depression.

and said this about the evidence. . .

It is the obvious common sense claim. The possible causes the article talked about are not really established as fact.

and. . .

The straightforward obvious answer is that it is caused by evolution theory.

and also this about subjectivity . . .

1 When you talk about depression, then obviously there is something wrong with people's emotions, their subjectivity.

Your right, I added "unique." I inferred that the connections you made between depression, emotions and subjectivity seemed to be missing something. I'm sorry, I don't know what came over me to presume I could clarify upon what you said. I'll try better to interpret what you say from now on.

I am beginning to understand more clearly now . . .

And the answer you must go with must be the obvious answer. Then you investigate, but in this case such investigation will never provide any other answer. There will never be a study which proves beyond reasonable doubt exactly what the causes of the epidemic of depression at colleges are.

This makes sense now as well . . .

Evolution is not truth, the teacher is a liar. The teacher knows that things in the universe are chosen, but lies with evolution theory and natural selection theory, that things are not chosen.

This works better than what I previously had thought . . .

They never find incontrovertible evidence with these sorts of issues. It never happened and never will happen. All that such kind of studies ever provide is some stuff to think about.

This would be easier, too . . .

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.

I understand . . .

Meanwhile as a decisionmaker you are responsible to have an answer, and that answer must be the obvious answer. If you think another answer than evolution theory is more obvious, then you should go with that.

That is more obvious . . .

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

And this is so concisely put . . .

There is a lot of acceptance of subjectivity in common sense, which explains why secularism in the short run would lead to less depression. The more complicated subjectivity in religious rites give way to the straightforward practical subjectivity in common sense, leading to more substantial socializing. However in the longer run when atheists starts to systematically think things through, they go away from common sense, and they come to systematically rule out all subjectivity, leading to increased depression.

These statistics make more sense a second time around . . .

Yes people have contradictory positions, it is too complicated to figure out, still it is not a good idea to reject subjectivity.

When you look at subjectivity, as it is in common discourse, then maybe 90 percent of subjectivity is in relation to who people are as being the owner of their decisions. The remaining 10 percent is religious relating to the spirit by which things in the universe come to be. One can destroy the 10 percent, and still have the 90 percent left, but why would one not destroy the 90 percent as well, once one has begun to destroy subjectivity?

At first I was kind of offended, I now appreciate this . . .

natural selection theory makes nature look like **** red in tooth and claw

It is obvious . . .

How subjectivity works is plainly demonstrated in common discourse.

I was an oracle . . .

Everybody except me sets themselves up as an oracle, instead of trying to accurately reflect common discourse as it is. Only when you can argue how subjectivity is according to common discourse, do you have any point.

I hope I'm respected now . . .

I would respect anybody who has investigated common discourse.

It's just whatever, there is no reasonable discussion possible with any evolutionist.

And evolutionists DO say this, I'm sick of those facts . . .

They say that all conclusions must be forced by evidence, that only facts are valid, no room is provided for any opinion whatsoever.

THEY say that too

They say that all conclusions must be forced by evidence, that only facts are valid, no room is provided for any opinion whatsoever.

You cannot explain opinion with opinion, that is circular reasoning.

This is . . . prophetic . . .

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.

I will study this manifesto.
I promise I will do my best to continue on this discussion with all these lessons in mind. Thank you.

 

[metis]

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.

Only if one takes these narratives literally. Most of us in Judaism at least take the creation and flood accounts more as allegory.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Only if one takes these narratives literally. Most of us in Judaism at least take the creation and flood accounts more as allegory.

...what evolutionists are doing is

1 throwing out all knowledge about decisions made in the universe, not just specific decisions.

2 promote a false concept of choosing that is essentially social darwinist, where the existence of love and hate is a matter of fact, and a decision means to sort out the best result (like natural selection sorts out the fittest organism)

To have basically functional subjectivity, one obviously requires knowledge of, at least, people making decisions. What emotional significance decisions have about the creation of man and woman, and the earth I am not sure, but it could have much emotional significance as well.

Common sense takes care of most knowledge about people making decisions, and subjectivity, however evolution theory encroaches on it, same as it encroaches on religion for the exact same reasons. It's not good for mental health obviously.

 

[metis]

...what evolutionists are doing is

1 throwing out all knowledge about decisions made in the universe, not just specific decisions.

2 promote a false concept of choosing that is essentially social darwinist, where the existence of love and hate is a matter of fact, and a decision means to sort out the best result (like natural selection sorts out the fittest organism)

To have basically functional subjectivity, one obviously requires knowledge of, at least, people making decisions. What emotional significance decisions have about the creation of man and woman, and the earth I am not sure, but it could have much emotional significance as well.

Common sense takes care of most knowledge about people making decisions, and subjectivity, however evolution theory encroaches on it, same as it encroaches on religion for the exact same reasons. It's not good for mental health obviously.

The above is terribly misguided, as most of us anthropologists do not accept "social Darwinism", plus study after study has confirmed that the overall knowledge of those who question theistic causation is certainly not less than those who do have a theistic bent.

Gotta go.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The above is terribly misguided, as most of us anthropologists do not accept "social Darwinism", plus study after study has confirmed that the overall knowledge of those who question theistic causation is certainly not less than those who do have a theistic bent.

Gotta go.

The vast majority of evolution scientists do not understand where exactly the line is between fact and opinion, between is and should. When you propose love and hate as matters of fact.... then you have hollowed out the room for opinion, and left pretty much everything to fact.

 

[viole]

...what evolutionists are doing is

1 throwing out all knowledge about decisions made in the universe, not just specific decisions.

2 promote a false concept of choosing that is essentially social darwinist, where the existence of love and hate is a matter of fact, and a decision means to sort out the best result (like natural selection sorts out the fittest organism)

To have basically functional subjectivity, one obviously requires knowledge of, at least, people making decisions. What emotional significance decisions have about the creation of man and woman, and the earth I am not sure, but it could have much emotional significance as well.

Common sense takes care of most knowledge about people making decisions, and subjectivity, however evolution theory encroaches on it, same as it encroaches on religion for the exact same reasons. It's not good for mental health obviously.

Consider the two possible cases:

1) i am depressed because I know the truth
2) i am happy becaue I believe a lie

Which one would you prefer to find yourself in?

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

The vast majority of evolution scientists do not understand where exactly the line is between fact and opinion, between is and should. When you propose love and hate as matters of fact.... then you have hollowed out the room for opinion, and left pretty much everything to fact.

Since that is my field, I can categorically state that you are completely mistaken. It's one the thing to be "mistaken", but it's another for you to close off your mind, as you have repeatedly done, from any kind of correction from people who actually do know.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Since that is my field, I can categorically state that you are completely mistaken. It's one the thing to be "mistaken", but it's another for you to close off your mind, as you have repeatedly done, from any kind of correction from people who actually do know.

Ok then, reference something relevant from your field of anthropology.

What you say "can't" be true in view of the flood of neurologists, evolutionary psychologists, Darwinian philosophers, evolutionary scientists, saying otherwise, or for instance the whole shambles on the wiki on free will. It can't be, but you are welcome to prove otherwise.

 

[metis]

Ok then, reference something relevant from your field of anthropology.

What you say "can't" be true in view of the flood of neurologists, evolutionary psychologists, Darwinian philosophers, evolutionary scientists, saying otherwise, or for instance the whole shambles on the wiki on free will. It can't be, but you are welcome to prove otherwise.

My experience with you is that anything I would post, even this, would be a waste of time because you simply "know" better. Read the Wikipedia article on "evolution", for example, but I doubt very much that you'll do that because you have shown not to be open to any facts that you simply don't want to accept.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

My experience with you is that anything I would post, even this, would be a waste of time because you simply "know" better. Read the Wikipedia article on "evolution", for example, but I doubt very much that you'll do that because you have shown not to be open to any facts that you simply don't want to accept.

You shouldn't make such an accusation while providing such a worthless reference. I likewise know that you are just talking nonsense, I've seen it all before dozens of times, but I present argumentation in the topic with my accusation.

Your reference, it is just a matter of interpretation of words like "beneficial" or "attractive", if or not it is social darwinism.

And seeing as that evolutionists generally oppose creationism, which is the only philosophy which distinguishes and validates both fact and opinion, the intended interpretation must then be towards social darwinism, althought the correct interpretation is not social darwinism. The article refers to creationism being illegal to teach in public shools currently.

Anthropology used to be generally social darwinist, they were mostly racists. They still use the same structure of racism, but now on an individual and humanity level. So instead of saying this race-group is prone to hate, they say this individual is prone to hate, or might argue humanity in general is prone to hate. The very little reading I did on anthropology just now, I found some quotation that anthropologists are generally compatibilists on the free will issue. Compatibilism is most championed by Dennett, who emphasizes he could not have done other than he did. Dennet just uses the selectionist concept of choosing. Sometimes he adds a sor of creationist freedom to the concept in talking about "randomness" giving rise to the options which are selected. This randomness apparently can turn out one of many ways. But this is an add on which is no essential part of his concept of choosing, as he posits there are also choices in which this randomness plays no role. It is a complex way of choosing, and not the fundamental concept of choosing. The sortingcriteria in the selection process are then the social darwinist knowledge of good and evil.

So points 1 and 2 apply to anthropologists, just as it does evolution scientists generally. They throw out all knowledge of decisions made, and they promote a social darwinist concept of choosing instead.

 

[metis]

You shouldn't make such an accusation while providing such a worthless reference. I likewise know that you are just talking nonsense, but I present argumentation in the topic with my accusation.

Your reference, it is just a matter of interpretation of words like "beneficial" or "attractive", if or not it is social darwinism.

And seeing as that evolutionists generally oppose creationism, which is the only philosophy which distinguishes and validates both fact and opinion, the intended interpretation must then be towards social darwinism, althought the correct interpretation is not social darwinism. The article refers to creationism being illegal to teach in public shools currently.

Anthropology used to be generally social darwinist, they were mostly racists. They still use the same structure of racism, but now on an individual and humanity level. So instead of saying this race-group is prone to hate, they say this individual is prone to hate, or might argue humanity in general is prone to hate. The very little reading I did on anthropology just now, I found some quotation that anthropologists are generally compatibilists on the free will issue. Compatibilism is most championed by Dennett, who emphasizes he could not have done other than he did. Dennet just uses the selectionist concept of choosing. Sometimes he adds a sor of creationist freedom to the concept in talking about "randomness" giving rise to the options which are selected. This randomness apparently can turn out one of many ways. But this is an add on which is no essential part of his concept of choosing, as he posits there are also choices in which this randomness plays no role. It is a complex way of choosing, and not the fundamental concept of choosing. The sortingcriteria in the selection process are then the social darwinist knowledge of good and evil.

So points 1 and 2 apply to anthropologists, just as it does evolution scientists generally. They throw out all knowledge of decisions made, and they promote a social darwinist concept of choosing instead.

And thank you so much for proving the point that it is quite "worthless", to use your word, trying to get you to understand the truth.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And thank you so much for proving the point that it is quite "worthless", to use your word, trying to get you to understand the truth.

it is totally bogus that anthropologists and evolutionary science in general should be blindly trusted on the issue of dealing with subjectivity, given their history of open racism well into the 1960's.

Yes now anthropology is generally not racist anymore, but, as shown, they basically still portray good and evil as a matter of fact issue, by making love and hate into an issue of fact.

 

[metis]

it is totally bogus that anthropologists and evolutionary science in general should be blindly trusted on the issue of dealing with subjectivity, given their history of open racism well into the 1960's.

Yes now anthropology is generally not racist anymore, but, as shown, they basically still portray good and evil as a matter of fact issue, by making love and hate into an issue of fact.

BS. I was getting my undergrad degree in the 1960's, and I can categorically state that you are terribly wrong. To get at what you're stating, one has to go back to only what certain scientists were teaching prior to and during WWII, but no one should ever accuse the entire field or most of it for doing this because it simply is wrong.

Should I blame all Muslims for what ISIS does? This is essentially what you're doing here with scientists and "evolutionists".

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

BS. I was getting my undergrad degree in the 1960's, and I can categorically state that you are terribly wrong. To get at what you're stating, one has to go back to only what certain scientists were teaching prior to and during WWII, but no one should ever accuse the entire field or most of it for doing this because it simply is wrong.

Should I blame all Muslims for what ISIS does? This is essentially what you're doing here with scientists and "evolutionists".

I am thinking if there are anthropologists who are concerned with the way subjectivity is dealt with, they would basically agree with what I am saying, and not mind about it me not mentioning them. I am thinking those anthropologists would hold a disfavorable view of anthropology in general as well.

 

[David M]

What you say "can't" be true in view of the flood of neurologists, evolutionary psychologists, Darwinian philosophers, evolutionary scientists, saying otherwise, or for instance the whole shambles on the wiki on free will. It can't be, but you are welcome to prove otherwise.

I'm sorry, but do you really think that neurologists, evolutionary psychologists, Darwinian philosophers or evolutionary scientists spend their time updating a Wiki entry on Free Will?

Wiki is not an authoritative and definitive source on any science related subject, its a starting point for further in-depth research.

 

[shawn001]

I am thinking if there are anthropologists who are concerned with the way subjectivity is dealt with, they would basically agree with what I am saying, and not mind about it me not mentioning them. I am thinking those anthropologists would hold a disfavorable view of anthropology in general as well.

By the OP statement your not "thinking"

I could just as well say they are all depressed because someone on a religious forum who doesn't know the facts and post titles like you did is why they are depressed. .

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am thinking if there are anthropologists who are concerned with the way subjectivity is dealt with, they would basically agree with what I am saying, and not mind about it me not mentioning them. I am thinking those anthropologists would hold a disfavorable view of anthropology in general as well.

Anthropology is known to be the most humane of the humanities. Where there is a fight for the voiceless who are being severely exploited, you will find anthropologists. Where there is a culture trying to preserve it's heritage, you will find anthropologists. Where there are communications needed and sensitivities that need to be considered, you will find anthropologists. Where there is a medical emergency and West needs to know how to communicate with non-West, there is an anthropologists. Where there are bones that need a voice for a trial, there are anthropologists. Very easily, anthropology is the most wizened of the social sciences. It is also one of the few schools of anything that promote a holistic intake/view of the world, instead of seeing as it a concrete East/West, Black/White, Either/Or like most of the humanities and social sciences. When it comes to subjectively approaching people and culture, anthropology is far better equipped than psychology or sociology, and I can't think of any anthropologists who hold their own field in a disfavorable view.

it is totally bogus that anthropologists and evolutionary science in general should be blindly trusted on the issue of dealing with subjectivity, given their history of open racism well into the 1960's.

Today, anthropologists tend to be rather open minded. We acknowledge the past, but we can't dwell on the past or nothing will get done as we would all be stuck on the past.

Yes now anthropology is generally not racist anymore, but, as shown, they basically still portray good and evil as a matter of fact issue, by making love and hate into an issue of fact.

Anthropologists are some of the least likely to state their are concrete definitions of love and hate. We study other cultures, we see that love and hate vary, we see that many things vary from culture to culture, and we tend to hold to "good and evil" and other such things in concrete, definitely definable things.