Evolution theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression

[David M]

Yes, of course it is, that's why some people have different opinions to you!

And as everyone's opinions are equally subjectively valid according to the OP then the OP isn't correct about anything, he's choosing to think one thing while the rest of us are choosing to think he's wrong. Its all just his opinion.

 

[Kirran]

And as everyone's opinions are equally subjectively valid according to the OP then the OP isn't correct about anything, he's choosing to think one thing while the rest of us are choosing to think he's wrong. Its all just his opinion.

Duuude. Way to take a step back from the discussion, that's some serious perspective right there.

 

[Shad]

It is not so, I am arguing about what is really happening, and you argue about formalities. I have been longer in this than you have, and I know that what you say is just wishing the issue to go away with a few clever remarks. You can see the wiki on free will, where is all the knowledge on how things are chosen in this wiki then? The wiki is a big mess, it provides no practical knowledge of how choosing works, nor does it reference any decisions made in the universe, or ways of deciding or anything practical.

And your own knowledge of how things are chosen is also wrong, because somebody who understands choosing would never fail to mention the categorically subjective agency of a decision. That is the whole point in this thread, subjectivity, which is undermined by evolution theory.

In the real world, evolution theory is really encroaching on all our knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe, in a massive way, and is really making people depressed by undermining subjectivity generally.

You have been at what longer than I. Arguing an untenable straw man you mean?

My clever remarks poke holes in your argument making it unsound and invalid. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Why do I need a wiki to understand free will? Maybe you should focus on philosophical arguments instead, cite someone's work that you believe explains you point better than you have done so here.

Subjectivity is not undermined by evolution, only hard determinism is. Looks like you have never read anything regarding the various view of determinism.

 

[Kirran]

Subjectivity is not undermined by evolution, only hard determinism is. Looks like you have never read anything regarding the various view of determinism.

As a determinist, I disagree with that as well I don't think hard determinism or subjectivity are undermined by evolution.

 

[Shad]

As a determinist, I disagree with that as well I don't think hard determinism or subjectivity are undermined by evolution.

The "hard" view is that free will is an illusion. There is no moral or ethic responsibility for one's actions. Subjectivity is moot under such a view as any view someone holds is not due to reasoning but by determined by their biology and environment. Is this what you support?

 

[Kirran]

The "hard" view is that free will is an illusion. There is no moral or ethic responsibility for one's actions. Subjectivity is moot under such a view as any view someone holds is not due to reasoning but by determined by their biology and environment. IS this what you support?

I believe free will is an irrelevant concept, because it hinges on our existence as separate entities.

I believe I hold a view due to my reasoning, but that it all comes ultimately from what input I've had (where else would it come from?).

 

[Shad]

I believe free will is an irrelevant concept, because it hinges on our existence as separate entities.

I believe I hold a view due to my reasoning, but that it all comes ultimately from what input I've had (where else would it come from?).

I asked as determinism has many branches. Hence my use of quotation marks. One can be a compatibility for example. How by your example of reasoning you are not the "hard" determinist as per my example. Reasoning is irrelevant to a view one may hold. This is the view of the OP, that nature dictated everything, there is no reasoning, free will or choice. Hence why it is a straw man just by referencing you as an example

 

[Kirran]

I asked as determinism has many branches. Hence my use of quotation marks. One can be a compatibility for example. How by your example of reasoning you are not the "hard" determinist as per my example. Reasoning is irrelevant to a view one may hold. This is the view of the OP, that nature dictated everything, there is no reasoning, free will or choice. Hence why it is a straw man just by referencing you as an example

I don't think anyone believes that. It's just that the causes for a particular line of reasoning exist.

 

[Shad]

I don't think anyone believes that. It's just that the causes for a particular line of reasoning exist.

There are a few people that do hold this strict line. However it is more often used as a straw man as per the OP in order to argue a metaphysical view point, not evolution itself. The straw man strips all factors from different metaphysical views focusing only on evolution. Thus become sophistry which is attempting in around about way to discredit evolution by external metaphysical implications constructed as a straw man thus is a red herring regarding evolution itself. Thus the OP becomes incoherent

 

[Kirran]

There are a few people that do hold this strict line. However it is more often used as a straw man as per the OP in order to argue a metaphysical view point, not evolution itself. The straw man strips all factors from different metaphysical views focusing only on evolution. Thus become sophistry which is attempting in around about way to discredit evolution by external metaphysical implications constructed as a straw man thus is a red herring regarding evolution itself. Thus the OP becomes incoherent

That was wonderfully summed-up.

 

[David M]

That is just so much horrid game playing, politics and whatever, and no sensible argument to the point at issue.

At least I can put a sensible argument together....here it is again:

Evolution theory encroaches on and destroys knowledge about how things are chosen, subjectivity depends on this knowledge, hence subjectivity is undermined, causing depression.

And I provided much evidence for it already, you are just not accepting any kind of evidence on the issue, regardless if it is happening or not.

You have provided no evidence, not even when requested to do so. You refuse to provide understandable defintions of the terms you use, even when requested to do so.

You re not engaging in "common discourse" at all, because it involves both parties actually explaining their position in a manner that the other party can understand so that a discussion can take place, all you do is make unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

...when anybody talks about how things are decided in the universe then evolutionists start screeching that it is nonsense. So that knowledge about decisionmaking is out the window, and the subjectivity that comes with that.

Then for human beings and animals....evolutionists use a logic of sorting, selection, to mean choosing, where the result is simply forced by the sorting-criteria.

So you can see evolutionists suppress all knowledge about choosing. Which is not to say that evolution theory neccessarily suppresses it, because it doesn't.

All addressed many times before. Reality is that evolution theory encroaches on and destroys all our knowledge about how things are chosen. Independent from evolution theory there is natural common discourse and religion in which freedom is regarded as a reality.

That evolution theory is not succesful in totally obliterating all knowledge about choosing is because of these forces that oppose it, however, they still are fairly succesful in suppressing and destroying the knowledge to a significant extent.

I think I would generally agree, I might put it another way, if this is the point you're getting at.

belief in evolution largely overlaps with belief in atheism in general, that ultimately everything is an accident, without any higher purpose. Forbid higher purpose, and any job, activity, pursuit including life itself becomes less meaningful, less fulfilling , less gratifying.

That higher purpose works best when it is a personally acknowledged belief, faith, that is adhered to, not an academic assertion. the soviet union and other socialist/atheist regimes attempted to replace God as man's natural higher purpose with the state, the results are the proof in the pudding- specifically depression, high suicide rates

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You have been at what longer than I. Arguing an untenable straw man you mean?

My clever remarks poke holes in your argument making it unsound and invalid. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Why do I need a wiki to understand free will? Maybe you should focus on philosophical arguments instead, cite someone's work that you believe explains you point better than you have done so here.

Subjectivity is not undermined by evolution, only hard determinism is. Looks like you have never read anything regarding the various view of determinism.

You are still caught up in formalities, and you simply ignore reality. Reality where there is a massive onslaught against any knowledge about how things are chosen from the academic people around evolugion theory.

And again, you clearly don't understand yourself how choosing works, you are yourself a victim of this wholesale destruction of knowledge.

 

[Shad]

You are still caught up in formalities, and you simply ignore reality. Reality where there is a massive onslaught against any knowledge about how things are chosen from the academic people around evolugion theory.

And again, you clearly don't understand yourself how choosing works, you are yourself a victim of this wholesale destruction of knowledge.

You have yet to go beyond unjustified statements. Do you know what formalities means? I am follow formalities which dictate one justify their views with evidence yet you want me to ignore this. Are you serious?

 

[Shad]

I think I would generally agree, I might put it another way, if this is the point you're getting at.

belief in evolution largely overlaps with belief in atheism in general, that ultimately everything is an accident, without any higher purpose. Forbid higher purpose, and any job, activity, pursuit including life itself becomes less meaningful, less fulfilling , less gratifying.

That higher purpose works best when it is a personally acknowledged belief, faith, that is adhered to, not an academic assertion. the soviet union and other socialist/atheist regimes attempted to replace God as man's natural higher purpose with the state, the results are the proof in the pudding- specifically depression, high suicide rates

If you need the divine to give you a purpose and pat you on the head when you are a good boy then you have not moved beyond the child's role in a parent-child relationship.

 

[Kirran]

If you need the divine to give you a purpose and pat you on the head when you are a good boy then you have not moved beyond the child's role in a parent-child relationship.

I want to be God's parent.

 

[Shad]

I want to be God's parent.

You have a lot to answer for due to the acts of your child hah

 

[Kirran]

You have a lot to answer for due to the acts of your child hah

I'll put them onto a good path after adoption.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

belief in evolution largely overlaps with belief in atheism in general,

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.

Forbid higher purpose, and any job, activity, pursuit including life itself becomes less meaningful, less fulfilling , less gratifying.

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?

the soviet union and other socialist/atheist regimes attempted to replace God as man's natural higher purpose with the state, the results are the proof in the pudding- specifically depression, high suicide rates

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.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You have yet to go beyond unjustified statements. Do you know what formalities means? I am follow formalities which dictate one justify their views with evidence yet you want me to ignore this. Are you serious?

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.