Evolution theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The existence of emotions is not opinion as we can measure emotions.

.....subjectivity cannot work with the existence of emotions being a matter of fact. With facts, you obviously get objectivity.....

That is so obvious to anybody who reasonably looks at the issue. We can try your way, make the emotions a matter of fact, doesn't work. We can try the other way, make the emotions a matter of opinion, everything fits perfectly.

Yet you just go on pontificating away, with that false pretense of scientific certitude, as if you know what you are talking about, that it's all a matter of fact. What you say simply does not function, as explained, again and again and again.

So we see the evidence that evolutionists destroy subjectivity right in this thread also. Shad just obliterates subjectivity, makes it totally unworkable. And this is not some kind of exception that coincedentally Shad is destroying any room for subjectivity, it is part of a massive onslaught from evolution theory to destroy any and all subjectivity.

Ofcourse the forces of common sense, the basic structure of common discourse, opposing ideologies like Shad, are even bigger. To have knowledge about how things are chosen comes naturally, it is engrained very deeply. Still, a very significant amount of confusion can be generated by intellectual rejection of freedom and subjectivity.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

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.

atheists seem so pacifist because there are so few

Atheists like Stalin killed more people than every religious war in the history of humanity, in a single generation

 

[Shad]

.....subjectivity cannot work with the existence of emotions being a matter of fact. With facts, you obviously get objectivity.....

That is so obvious to anybody who reasonably looks at the issue. We can try your way, make the emotions a matter of fact, doesn't work. We can try the other way, make the emotions a matter of opinion, everything fits perfectly.

Yet you just go on pontificating away, with that false pretense of scientific certitude, as if you know what you are talking about, that it's all a matter of fact. What you say simply does not function, as explained, again and again and again.

So we see the evidence that evolutionists destroy subjectivity right in this thread also. Shad just obliterates subjectivity, makes it totally unworkable. And this is not some kind of exception that coincedentally Shad is destroying any room for subjectivity, it is part of a massive onslaught from evolution theory to destroy any and all subjectivity.

Ofcourse the forces of common sense, the basic structure of common discourse, opposing ideologies like Shad, are even bigger. To have knowledge about how things are chosen comes naturally, it is engrained very deeply. Still, a very significant amount of confusion can be generated by intellectual rejection of freedom and subjectivity.

Yes it can, emotions are states of mind. One does not hold the opinion that they are angry, they either are angry or not. We can measure emotions as I previously explains thus an emotional states are facts. The reason for emotion can be subjective but not the emotion. More so if as you say emotions are subjective then there will never be a unified term for anger. One could be feeling an emotion we identify as anger yet another could identify this emotion as sad or happy. Thus per you views one can not even define an emotion at all

You can explain whatever you wish but you provide no justification so your opinion in moot.

Again lying to support your flawed arguments. I have repeatedly given answers regarding subjectivity.

Here is a new hypothesis. Fundamental religions cause people to lie in order to protect their ideology as per your blatant lying about my views.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes it can, emotions are states of mind. One does not hold the opinion that they are angry,

Wrong. Already explained again, and again.

The existence of the anger must be a matter of opinion, otherwise the logic of free will does not function anymore.

Anger is something which makes a decision turn out the way it does, it is agency. One can never have the agency in a decision be a fact, because then you get logic of cause and effect, being forced.

You are simply providing the evidence yourself that you request, your own subjectivity is surpressed. And when we consider how this comes to be, we will find it is evolution theory which serves as the catalyst for this destruction of subjectivity

It is also bogus, your assertion that "anger" is regarded as a matter of fact, just like any other facts like...the size of planets or something. Common discourse does not put anger and planets in one category, anger is specifically categorized as a thing which makes a decision turn out the way it does, and there are specific rules for all what is said to make a decision turn out the way it does.

But you are right to argue about how common discourse functions, even if your conclusion about it is wrong. Look at common discourse again as perhaps demonstrated on a TV soap opera. Isn't there generally always a question about what emotions somebody has in their heart? Or is it emotionlessly asserted as fact what emotions are in somebody's heart, measured?

Don't be ridiculous, it is not measured, the evidence in common discoure is clear and overwhelming, it is regarded as a matter of opinion. Just as like beautiful and ugly are valid conclusions, anger and care are also valid conclusions. What if somebody shouts that they are wrong. You might say it is anger, you might say it is care, both conclusions are valid.

 

[David M]

Wrong. Already explained again, and again.

The existence of the anger must be a matter of opinion, otherwise the logic of free will does not function anymore.

No, the existence of anger is a matter of fact (under the definition of anger that humanity has agreed upon). It is an objective fact that Anger exists as an emotional state.

Your persistent failure to understand that the fact that something exists does not automatically equate to the experience of that fact being forced upon people (or that everyone's feelings about experiencing that fact will be the same) is one of the reasons that your arguments fail so comprehensively.

The existence of Anger in humans is a fact.
People experience anger to varying degrees and that differs between individuals in frequency and duration.
How they judge the strength and effect of such anger on themselves or others IS a subjective opinion.

The wholly objective existence of Anger does not affect the concepts of subjectivity, opinion or free will in any way whatsoever. It is irrelevant to those concepts in the same manner as the objective existence of rain or sunlight is irrelevant.

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

You need to provide evidence before you can accuse people of ignoring it, so far all we have had from you is unsubstantiated assertions and a refusal to clarify your imprecise usage of language.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, the existence of anger is a matter of fact (under the definition of anger that humanity has agreed upon). It is an objective fact that Anger exists as an emotional state.

....see, another evolutionist rejecting subjectivity wholesale. What you say can be found to be in error, if you would just reason openly and compare how it works out if anger is held as fact, and if anger is held as opinion.

One can reliably infer from that David regards anger as fact, that he also does not accept freedom is real.

The agency of a decision, what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, can only be identified in a free way. That is the only way to leave the freedom in the concept of choosing in tact. And forming an opinion can only occur in a free way, that is why opinion applies to what the agency of a decision is. Facts on the other hand are obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion. So when David is saying the existence of anger is a fact, he is equally saying that choosing is forced, because facts are obtained forced by evidence.

That's why we see all wellknown atheist intellectuals reject free will is real. They neither accept God is real on a subjective basis, nor do they accept anger is real on a subjective basis. At the start atheists contrast common sense with religious rites, preferring common sense. At this point atheists still accept subjectivity, because there is lots of acceptance of subjectivity in common sense. But when atheists start to think things true systematically, then they come to reject subjectivity altogether, and thereby also reject the reality of freedom.

 

[Shad]

Wrong. Already explained again, and again.

The existence of the anger must be a matter of opinion, otherwise the logic of free will does not function anymore.

Anger is something which makes a decision turn out the way it does, it is agency. One can never have the agency in a decision be a fact, because then you get logic of cause and effect, being forced.

You are simply providing the evidence yourself that you request, your own subjectivity is surpressed. And when we consider how this comes to be, we will find it is evolution theory which serves as the catalyst for this destruction of subjectivity

It is also bogus, your assertion that "anger" is regarded as a matter of fact, just like any other facts like...the size of planets or something. Common discourse does not put anger and planets in one category, anger is specifically categorized as a thing which makes a decision turn out the way it does, and there are specific rules for all what is said to make a decision turn out the way it does.

But you are right to argue about how common discourse functions, even if your conclusion about it is wrong. Look at common discourse again as perhaps demonstrated on a TV soap opera. Isn't there generally always a question about what emotions somebody has in their heart? Or is it emotionlessly asserted as fact what emotions are in somebody's heart, measured?

Don't be ridiculous, it is not measured, the evidence in common discoure is clear and overwhelming, it is regarded as a matter of opinion. Just as like beautiful and ugly are valid conclusions, anger and care are also valid conclusions. What if somebody shouts that they are wrong. You might say it is anger, you might say it is care, both conclusions are valid.

You explain nothing, you just make statements with no justification. Yes anger can have an effect on decision, usually a negative effect. So what? You are conflating emotions as a state of mind with decisions. Cause and effect is a fact. Subjective and/or objective views are have an influence on cause and effect. This is why when someone have road rage and attacks someone we can trace anger as part of the cause of an attack.

Again common discourse is about agreeing views not opposing views. Again demonstrating you have no idea what the terms you use mean. The emotional state of mind of a person is analyzed in, /drum roll, crimes of passion. Yes there is a question about someone emotional state. However there are identification markers, which I have already told you about, by which we conclude what emotion is being displayed and what effect the emotion has on the person, their actions and other people.

We can measure emotions.

Workgroup Kappas | Jacobs University
http://faculty.tru.ca/wlroberts/facial.pdf

Anger is not beauty. Anger is an emotion, beauty is an view regarding an object. Again demonstrating that you are incapable of understanding the terms you use. If the two example were similar then one person could hold the opinion that anger is sadness or happiness. However since we have category identification and definitions of emotional terms. Where are beauty is subjective. One could have a view that X object is beautiful while another does not. We do not have that with anger. What we have is a subjective view for the reason of one's anger. No one redefines anger as the emotional state of being depressed as per your beauty example. Psychopaths are also an example of emotions being a state of mind not an opinion. Psychopaths are incapable of certain emotions. If emotion were opinions there would be no such illness thus no psychopaths

Logically valid does not mean logically sound. For anything to be logical true it must be both. Again you are not understanding the terms you are using.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You explain nothing, you just make statements with no justification. Yes anger can have an effect on decision, usually a negative effect. So what? You are conflating emotions as a state of mind with decisions. Cause and effect is a fact. Subjective and/or objective views are have an influence on cause and effect. This is why when someone have road rage and attacks someone we can trace anger as part of the cause of an attack.

Again common discourse is about agreeing views not opposing views. Again demonstrating you have no idea what the terms you use mean. The emotional state of mind of a person is analyzed in, /drum roll, crimes of passion. Yes there is a question about someone emotional state. However there are identification markers, which I have already told you about, by which we conclude what emotion is being displayed and what effect the emotion has on the person, their actions and other people.

We can measure emotions.

Workgroup Kappas | Jacobs University
http://faculty.tru.ca/wlroberts/facial.pdf

Anger is not beauty. Anger is an emotion, beauty is an view regarding an object. Again demonstrating that you are incapable of understanding the terms you use. If the two example were similar then one person could hold the opinion that anger is sadness or happiness. However since we have category identification and definitions of emotional terms. Where are beauty is subjective. One could have a view that X object is beautiful while another does not. We do not have that with anger. What we have is a subjective view for the reason of one's anger. No one redefines anger as the emotional state of being depressed as per your beauty example. Psychopaths are also an example of emotions being a state of mind not an opinion. Psychopaths are incapable of certain emotions. If emotion were opinions there would be no such illness thus no psychopaths

Logically valid does not mean logically sound. For anything to be logical true it must be both. Again you are not understanding the terms you are using.

It is just authoratitive huffing and puffing, there is no substance to your argument.

I am well aware that nobel prize winning scientists assert that emotions are measurable. It is a plain logical error, the emperor has no clothes, as explained many times. Logic does not allow that the issue of what the agency of a decision is, is regarded as a matter of fact. And emotions are agency, they are what makes a decision turn out the way it does.

Before you had the right idea, to look at common discourse. You just had the wrong conclusion. The evidence of common discourse overwhelmingly shows that anger, love, hate, jealousy and so forth, are talked about in terms of being agency of a decision, and therefore the rules of agency apply, which is that it is categorically a matter of opinion same as what applies to what is good, beautiful, God, the soul and so on.

Now you are back to authoritive huffing and puffing, there is no argumentation on your part. Look at common discourse, really look at it, start to have an argument. You know you have no chance, you well know that the logic of freedom is established within common discourse, and religion. And if you deny common discourse, then it means that when you talk about anger, you are talking about something entirely different when people generally talk about anger. It means you took a word from common discourse, completely changed it's meaning, completely changed it's logical structure, and then pretend it is the correct understanding of the term, and common discourse is wrong. It would mean that your position is that common people are wrong to say they are angry because they do not use your definition of the term.

It's possible.....maybe people are wrong.... but it's a very tall order that they are wrong.

And you have no argumentation on your part, whatsoever, that people would be wrong. You are just asserting with baseless scientific authority that emotions can be measured, which means that people behave like robots, automatons in regards to the issue of what emotions are in someone's heart. That they reach the conclusion about what somebody feels by measuring like a machine. That is ridiculous, and you know that is ridiculous. You have no basis whatsoever for your idea, it is complete absurdity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Atheists like Stalin killed more people than every religious war in the history of humanity, in a single generation

Do you have any hard facts to that?
I'll call your Stalin and raise you a Hitler.

 

[David M]

....see, another evolutionist rejecting subjectivity wholesale. What you say can be found to be in error, if you would just reason openly and compare how it works out if anger is held as fact, and if anger is held as opinion.

One can reliably infer from that David regards anger as fact, that he also does not accept freedom is real.

The agency of a decision, what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, can only be identified in a free way. That is the only way to leave the freedom in the concept of choosing in tact. And forming an opinion can only occur in a free way, that is why opinion applies to what the agency of a decision is. Facts on the other hand are obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion. So when David is saying the existence of anger is a fact, he is equally saying that choosing is forced, because facts are obtained forced by evidence.

That's why we see all wellknown atheist intellectuals reject free will is real. They neither accept God is real on a subjective basis, nor do they accept anger is real on a subjective basis. At the start atheists contrast common sense with religious rites, preferring common sense. At this point atheists still accept subjectivity, because there is lots of acceptance of subjectivity in common sense. But when atheists start to think things true systematically, then they come to reject subjectivity altogether, and thereby also reject the reality of freedom.

Once again you repeat your mistakes of equivocation and, as usual, ignore the parts of a post that demolish your arguments. You cannot get past the simple truth that the existence of a thing is separate from the human experience of that thing and that human experience is subjective.

Your inferences are a wrong as ever. I do accept that freedom is real (though not unlimited).

The fact of the existence of anger does not mean that the is no subjectivity in the way that we experience anger nor does it impinge upon free will such as it exists. In fact I cannot think of any Atheist who rejects the existence of subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Once again you repeat your mistakes of equivocation and, as usual, ignore the parts of a post that demolish your arguments. You cannot get past the simple truth that the existence of a thing is separate from the human experience of that thing and that human experience is subjective.

Your inferences are a wrong as ever. I do accept that freedom is real (though not unlimited).

The fact of the existence of anger does not mean that the is no subjectivity in the way that we experience anger nor does it impinge upon free will such as it exists. In fact I cannot think of any Atheist who rejects the existence of subjectivity.

You pretend there is anger, and the experience of anger, like there is a stone and the experience of the stone. That a stone and anger can be put in one category, together with all the rest of stuff, which stuff can then be experienced. That is totally ridiculous, and plain evidence that you reject subjetivity altogether. There is no doubt about how subjectivity works in common discourse.

Common discourse shows that anger, love, hate etc. are not artefacts like a stone, nor are they processes like running water, instead anger, love and hate are agency. They are what makes the concept of choosing work. And certainly, your concept of choosing must therefore be dysfunctional, because you have destroyed the role of agency in a decision. As a matter of logic, whatever term you put in the category of agency of a decision, the existence of it is neccessarily a matter of opinion. That is like 1+1=2. As facts are obtained forced by evidence, facts can therefore not apply to agency, because force cannot apply to agency, only freedom can apply. The concept of choosing can only function based on freedom, not based on being forced, obviously.

So you see it is all integrated, emotions with choosing, where in your idea, choosing is something else altogether. Something else which in principle has nothing to do with anger, love or hate, an issue to be solved later. But in reality ofcourse, you cannot solve this issue of choosing anymore when you made anger into fact, which means you deny free will as well as reject subjectivity.

 

[Shad]

It is just authoratitive huffing and puffing, there is no substance to your argument.

I am well aware that nobel prize winning scientists assert that emotions are measurable. It is a plain logical error, the emperor has no clothes, as explained many times. Logic does not allow that the issue of what the agency of a decision is, is regarded as a matter of fact. And emotions are agency, they are what makes a decision turn out the way it does.

Before you had the right idea, to look at common discourse. You just had the wrong conclusion. The evidence of common discourse overwhelmingly shows that anger, love, hate, jealousy and so forth, are talked about in terms of being agency of a decision, and therefore the rules of agency apply, which is that it is categorically a matter of opinion same as what applies to what is good, beautiful, God, the soul and so on.

Now you are back to authoritive huffing and puffing, there is no argumentation on your part. Look at common discourse, really look at it, start to have an argument. You know you have no chance, you well know that the logic of freedom is established within common discourse, and religion. And if you deny common discourse, then it means that when you talk about anger, you are talking about something entirely different when people generally talk about anger. It means you took a word from common discourse, completely changed it's meaning, completely changed it's logical structure, and then pretend it is the correct understanding of the term, and common discourse is wrong. It would mean that your position is that common people are wrong to say they are angry because they do not use your definition of the term.

It's possible.....maybe people are wrong.... but it's a very tall order that they are wrong.

And you have no argumentation on your part, whatsoever, that people would be wrong. You are just asserting with baseless scientific authority that emotions can be measured, which means that people behave like robots, automatons in regards to the issue of what emotions are in someone's heart. That they reach the conclusion about what somebody feels by measuring like a machine. That is ridiculous, and you know that is ridiculous. You have no basis whatsoever for your idea, it is complete absurdity.

Hilarious, the Nobel prize for different fields of science are in error because you say so. Logic does allow the use of facts in decisions of an agent. Its how we figure out behavior patterns. Again beauty is a view of an object, emotions are an experience. You are conflating the terms again since you do not understand either.

I provide argumentation back by evidence with you provide no evidence. Before you accuse someone of huffing and puffing consider which one of us have provided evidence continually and which one has not. Here is a hint, it is you huffing and buffing sophistry.

Again a common discourse is an agreement of a view. We are have a dissenting or opposing discourse. Again learn about the terms you use. I took no word out of context since I did not define anger myself. I used anger which comes with a defination people already know and agree upon. I am saying you are wrong not the common discourse which agrees with my view which is backed by evidence. So again which one of use is taking a term out of context? The one backed by evidence or the one providing no evidence at all, just useless sophistry.

Again you seem to think people view anger as anything but anger. Taking your view anyone can start using whatever definition they want for anger. It could be sadness, happiness, etc. Since there is a definition which is used as a basic for observations which I have link.

Again you talk about freedom as if I said freedom does not exist. Again you are putting words in my mouth since I disagree with your sophistry. Blatantly lying again. I reject your views that does not mean I reject freedom.

People are wrong all the time usually due to lack of evidence supporting their views like your own.

 

[Shad]

Stones does not have experiences since an experience is gained knowledge of an event. A stone gains no knowledge. Again demonstrating you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Stones does not have experiences since an experience is gained knowledge of an event. A stone gains no knowledge. Again demonstrating you have no idea what you are talking about.

You put stones together with anger as an artefact. Or together with a process like running water. It is completely delusional, very obviously you only understand objectivity, and this is why you are saying anger is fact, because you have no clue whatsoever how forming an opinion works about what is good, loving and beautiful.

Everybody who knows how subjectivity works knows that what I say is correct. And those who don't know they are part of the problem. One can very easily know how subjectivity works, there is no legitemate excuse to not know, because common discourse is plain and available to all. And the structure in common discourse is unmistakenbly that anger is agency of a decision.

Also everybody can easily know that what you say is probably wrong, by that you do not reason openly, you just pontificate with pseudoscientific authority. You have never addressed how you are going to make the concept of choosing work without the existence of the agency in a decision regarded as a matter of opinion. That is because it cannot be done.

If one reasons openly and considers which is better, to have anger as fact, or to have it as opinion, then it is very obvious that emotions have to do with subjectivity, and that obviously anger belongs to the opinion side of things, not the fact side of things.

Still one can see how incredibly feisty evolutionists are in attacking subjectivity wholesale. That is all the evidence anybody responsible for college policy needs in dealing with the depression epidemic in their college. They need to accept a creationist study course which deals with how things are chosen in the universe, and they need to suppress social darwinism more. It is already accepted at colleges that a scientist cannot present statements about what is good and evil as if it was a fact, because it counts as pseudoscience. That rule needs to be applied more vigorously to include that one cannot present what is loving and hateful, or angry, as fact, because it is the same things as presenting what is good and evil as fact. Good and evil are generally derived from what is identified as loving and hateful. Obviously good and evil apply to the agency of a decision, and so does love and hate apply to the agency of a decision as well. All these social darwinist evolutionists need to be reprimanded, so to gain an environment where subjectivity is allowed, where objectivity does not push subjectivity aside, but that they are both accepted as valid, each in their own right. That the pseudoscientific fact about what anger is, does not push aside the opinion on what anger is, by expression of emotion with free will.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

the common discourse which agrees with my view which is backed by evidence.

It is ridiculous, only mr Spock from Star Trek, or Sheldon from the big bang theory regards emotions as fact like you. That is the only sphere in common discourse which agrees with your understanding of emotions as fact. Sheldon with coldhearted analytical measurement telling people what they feel. But that is to be laughed at, and so should your pseudoscientific pontificating be laughed at.

 

[seb]

60 mln years ago (or so) there were 2 types of dinosaurs: one type was gently biting grass, because they felt something, about this place; the other type was runing around biting, acting as if it was just a planet, and they are its master; now we all evolved into humans, and we look the same, and we, both types of people, agreed on certain things (human rights)

St John the Baptist used to take people to the river bank (two thousand years ago) and say: "come crocodiles, you are all scared of growing old and of death" and if people dealt with their fear of death properly, they would come out of the river changed; and they would know which dinosaurs they are "believers or atheist"

the problem is now with evolution, the problem is with people who are to scared to look into mirror and say "I will die, but I will conquer my fear" Those who are scared and run away, they end up in very dark place: either with lots of make up, in a mini skirt, in a nightclub or in a brothel, having sex non stop; or in cluthes of hate preachers who say HELL SIN (to make them even more scared, more aroused). Instead of saying "trust Allah, stop being aroused" they say "I am Allah, do what I say (which is usually rape, stone to death, or kill)" And they say, after death, more sex to follow;

that is the problem: people end up outside Eden, instead of within; these young people having sex in public randomly with whomever, and jihadi figthers raping in Syria, these are two sides of the same coin; don't worry about evolution my brother; feel compassion to people who left Eden wilingly, out of fear; Allah the most mercifull will take them all back, once they die, and they will fell loved again

leave evolution to atheist and say to them: yes, I am a lizard like you, and we have been stucked here for milions of years; I just feel something and I am unable to pass it on to you; but we both can go to the river bank and talk how scared we are

God bless you my brother; keep the head up: you see Eden, they see planet; long time ago, before the big fall from sky, whene fish appeared in the ocean, you both were one person

 

[seb]

60 mln years ago (or so) there were 2 types of dinosaurs: one type was gently biting grass, because they felt something, about this place; the other type was runing around biting, acting as if it was just a planet, and they are its master; now we all evolved into humans, and we look the same, and we, both types of people, agreed on certain things (human rights)

St John the Baptist used to take people to the river bank (two thousand years ago) and say: "come crocodiles, you are all scared of growing old and of death" and if people dealt with their fear of death properly, they would come out of the river changed; and they would know which dinosaurs they are "believers or atheist"

the problem is now with evolution, the problem is with people who are to scared to look into mirror and say "I will die, but I will conquer my fear" Those who are scared and run away, they end up in very dark place: either with lots of make up, in a mini skirt, in a nightclub or in a brothel, having sex non stop; or in cluthes of hate preachers who say HELL SIN (to make them even more scared, more aroused). Instead of saying "trust Allah, stop being aroused" they say "I am Allah, do what I say (which is usually rape, stone to death, or kill)" And they say, after death, more sex to follow;

that is the problem: people end up outside Eden, instead of within; these young people having sex in public randomly with whomever, and jihadi figthers raping in Syria, these are two sides of the same coin; don't worry about evolution my brother; feel compassion to people who left Eden wilingly, out of fear; Allah the most mercifull will take them all back, once they die, and they will fell loved again

leave evolution to atheist and say to them: yes, I am a lizard like you, and we have been stucked here for milions of years; I just feel something and I am unable to pass it on to you; but we both can go to the river bank and talk how scared we are

God bless you my brother; keep the head up: you see Eden, they see planet; long time ago, before the big fall from sky, whene fish appeared in the ocean, you both were one person

 

[seb]

sorry I am new, never been on any religious forum, i posted it twice

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is ridiculous, only mr Spock from Star Trek, or Sheldon from the big bang theory regards emotions as fact like you.

Clearly, you have no idea who Mr. Spock is, or the whole idea behind the Vulcan struggle to have complete control over their emotions and move towards being creatures of pure logic. They would make Aristotle proud.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

the problem is now with evolution, the problem is with people who are to scared to look into mirror and say "I will die, but I will conquer my fear"

Projecting such feelings onto people does not make it true. Some people are afraid of death, but others are not. It is simply illogical and irrational to fear that which is inevitable. And being afraid of death does not mean going out and having sex. And even if people do that, as long as it is consensual, who cares?