Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Not that the list of dictators is very long. The Nazi's banned the teaching of the ToE, Stalin and the soviet government of the time heavily went for Lamackism over the ToE.

The Hitler youth were taught natural selection theory with explicit reference to charles darwin. Communism, also called scientific socialism, is based on evolutionary stages of societal progress. It is of course just as well social darwinism as nazism.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Almost no one who accepts Evolution interprets it like that. You really know absolutely nothing about what the ToE actually is.

All evolutionists interpret it like that, including you.

 

[Deathbydefault]

All evolutionists interpret it like that, including you.

Completely baseless.
Unless you have talked to every single evolutionary theorist on Earth and, somehow, read their minds and they all agreed with social Darwinism.

The way you say that is equivalent to me saying "all the Islamic faith teaches is terrorism."
(I don't believe that, but I never believe anyone who just throws out "all [group]" believes in a specific something)

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Completely baseless.
Unless you have talked to every single evolutionary theorist on Earth and, somehow, read their minds and they all agreed with social Darwinism.

The way you say that is equivalent to me saying "all the Islamic faith teaches is terrorism."
(I don't believe that, but I never believe anyone who just throws out "all [group]" believes in a specific something)

Statistics says you don't have to ask every individual evolutionist. And with every evolutionist I ever debated, or read about, there is a major denial that freedom is real, and major rejection of subjectivity on an intellectual level.

It is actually true, the continuous complaining of religion against evolution theory starting a hundred years ago from Bryan saying evolution theory kills love, up untill the creationist movement of the present, the complaint is valid. Science must be forced to accept as fact that freedom is real, and people should learn about how things are chosen in school, because subjectivity operates by choosing. That is important knowledge for people's lives. Origins, creation, of anything, is by the mechanism of choosing, and anybody saying otherwise is a liar and up to no good. The evolution teachers are professional liars.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Statistics says you don't have to ask every individual evolutionist. And with every evolutionist I ever debated, or read about, there is a major denial that freedom is real, and major rejection of subjectivity on an intellectual level.

It is actually true, the continuous complaining of religion against evolution theory starting a hundred years ago from Bryan saying evolution theory kills love, up untill the creationist movement of the present, the complaint is valid. Science must be forced to accept as fact that freedom is real, and people should learn about how things are chosen in school, because subjectivity operates by choosing. That is important knowledge for people's lives. Origins, creation, of anything, is by the mechanism of choosing, and anybody saying otherwise is a liar and up to no good. The evolution teachers are professional liars.

That's funny to me in a way.
The school I went to refused to teach evolution, or many forms of science at all, especially biology.

So everything I know about the subject is completely self taught.
Also, evolution is objective. It happens and has been proven time and time again.
So as much as a teacher may lie the subject itself does not.

So what do you make of us who are self taught?
Don't thrown that "kills love" claim at me either.

On another note,

Ah yes, but my mental condition details my lack of emotion and ability to express emotion.
I can still make opinion based decisions, "I want IHOP because it's better than Denny's".
It isn't always, "statistically IHOP has a better track record when it comes to pancakes".

I'm also not "asking" if something is okay, I do as I please.
I simply use facts and objective thinking to more quickly conclude arguments.
If I thought I could learn something I would happily engage in a more opinion centered argument.
But since there are few things people can teach me that I can't teach myself, I stick to fact based arguments.
Though I may state an opinion here and there for entertainment value.

I believe I am dealing very well with my mental illness, as I am completely in control of myself.
If I just did whatever I wanted at the very least several members of my family would not be in existence.
Along with the strong impulses of violence my life would equate to a straight jacket in a padded room within a single month.
I stay in control because I enjoy progressing my intelligence, when that enjoyment runs out I will embrace freedom of mind.
Even if that means I wont be me anymore, or would that mean I would actually be myself entirely?

No reply to this? Hm.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No reply to this? Hm.

I think with your condition it is responsible to play it safe. Meaning to accept the common understanding of how subjectivity works, and not experiment with making up ideas about how it works yourself.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I think with your condition it is responsible to play it safe. Meaning to accept the common understanding of how subjectivity works, and not experiment with making up ideas about how it works yourself.

Haha, well with my "condition" I would say you're correct.
I do adhere to many norms so as to not be removed from the public.

How exactly does subjectivity work?
Doesn't it follow personal, and non objective, judgments of people, places, art, food, and so on?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Haha, well with my "condition" I would say you're correct.
I do adhere to many norms so as to not be removed from the public.

How exactly does subjectivity work?
Doesn't it follow personal, and non objective, judgments of people, places, art, food, and so on?

I already explaind to you how it works several times, creator and creation. Subjectivity is to choose about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion.

But investigate common statements like "the painting is beautiful" and whatever, and see for yourself the general logical structure, the rules, which apply to forming any opinion.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I already explaind to you how it works several times, creator and creation. Subjectivity is to choose about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion.

But investigate common statements like "the painting is beautiful" and whatever, and see for yourself the general logical structure, the rules, which apply to forming any opinion.

Ah well, my opinions are influenced by how I think so it's rare for something that could be considered 'nice' to come out.
Usually the closest I can get to it is "IHOP is better than Denny's".
I think that you would subjectively conclude that it's better that I stick to facts.
Just as I have subjectively concluded that it would be good for you to also accept some facts.

 

[leibowde84]

It's a bogus comparison because the theory of nuclear fission is not phrased in terms of "success" as in differential reproductive success, or "struggle for " anything, like "struggle for" survival.

Natural selection theory is phrased in such a way as to make people identify themselves as being in a struggle for survival, as per law of nature. That doesn't happen with nuclear fission theory.

And moreover evolution theory is poised in direct opposition to creationism, which in it's dual characteristic between creator and creation is the only theory which distinghuishes fact from opinion.

And of course you yourself reject the notion that goodness and evil of a man are properly attributed to the spirit that chooses, because you don't accept the existence of such spirit, because there isn't any evidence for it. You yourself attribute goodness and evil of people to their material attributes, be it genetics like a racist, or their actions, or the processes in their brain.

Of course that is the main point of social darwinism that it confuses ought with is, that it asserts as pseudoscientific fact what is good and evil.

It is interpreting natural selection theory as saying that organisms in fact like to live. Good and evil are derived from what is identified as loving and hateful. So as that if you love icecream, then by this love it is good to eat icecream, and bad to have it taken away and such. Which means that if the existence of love is regarded as fact, then good and evil automatically become a pseudoscientific fact also.

That is why the hitleryouth schoolbook starts out with the title "a factual outlook on life", and then begins to lay all sorts of judgements on diverse groups of people as if they were scientific facts.

And so it was that the universities where chockfull of these racist evolution scientists, who identified themselves as being organisms in a struggle for survival, who then promulgated all sorts of social darwinist ideology far and wide. To Italy, Germany and Japan.

That is of course the ideological mechanism through which conscience is sabotaged, that by making it an issue of fact, emotions simply become irrellevant. Which means emotions are neglected, so the emotion turn sour, and then these sour emotions are the basis for making the pseudoscientific ideas about racial health through genocide and war.

Again, you aren't even talking about Social Darwinism. It is confined to only human beings, so no other organisms are relevant. Here is an explanation (again) of what Social Darwinism is limited to:

"The theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform."

 

[leibowde84]

You have said you have a sort of mental condition which is basically that you are not good at subjectivity, and then you come on a religious forum asking if it is okay if you regard every issue as an objective matter of fact. That is not a responsible way to deal with your condition if you ask me.

When did he claim to have a mental condition? Or was that just a blatant childish insult?

 

[Deathbydefault]

When did he claim to have a mental condition? Or was that just a blatant childish insult?

Ah no, I have been sub-diagnosed with alexithymia and APD (antisocial personality disorder).
But thank you for trying to defend me.

 

[leibowde84]

All evolutionists interpret it like that, including you.

Since you've demonstrated a lack of understanding for what Social Darwinism is, and now seem to not have a grasp on the limits of Evolution, can you just provide us all with your definitions of both. I feel like you are arguing against something very different than evolution in general. Just as an example, evolution would not be relevant when speaking to one race or ethnicity being considered "stronger" or "more fit to survive" than others, as evolution deals with competition between species. You seem to be discussing Social Engineering based on racism. I don't see where evolution even would fit in.

 

[leibowde84]

Ah no, I have been sub-diagnosed with alexithymia and APD (antisocial personality disorder).
But thank you for trying to defend me.

No problem. Muhammad tries to use personal insults and a lack of respect on this site to get under people's skin. He's pretty good at it, actually.

Sorry to hear about your troubles though. I've had issues with social anxiety myself, and it has been a constant struggle since childhood. After trying about 5 different medications, each taking about 6 weeks to have any effect, I finally found a medication that helped. That was not until I was in my mid-twenties though, so it was a long, difficult ride until then. But, there are also some great therapists out there that can help.

 

[Deathbydefault]

No problem. Muhammad tries to use personal insults and a lack of respect on this site to get under people's skin. He's pretty good at it, actually.

Sorry to hear about your troubles though. I've had issues with social anxiety myself, and it has been a constant struggle since childhood. After trying about 5 different medications, each taking about 6 weeks to have any effect, I finally found a medication that helped. That was not until I was in my mid-twenties though, so it was a long, difficult ride until then. But, there are also some great therapists out there that can help.

No worries there.
I stay in control of myself, although at times I don't want to be.
Those I listed are not an official diagnosis, I just experience select traits.
I have trouble experiencing or conveying emotions along with trouble thinking of people as people.
Also it's something I've, more or less, always had, so I'm very used to it.
Hence my ability to have civil conversation.

Therapists aren't my style as they attempt to institutionalize me for how I see things.
So long as there is control there is freedom, but it's a one type for another type, I'm sure I'll switch eventually.

I'm sorry you had to experience social anxiety, happy it worked out in the end though.
If therapy helped as well then all the better.
Cheers.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Ah well, my opinions are influenced by how I think so it's rare for something that could be considered 'nice' to come out.
Usually the closest I can get to it is "IHOP is better than Denny's".
I think that you would subjectively conclude that it's better that I stick to facts.
Just as I have subjectively concluded that it would be good for you to also accept some facts.

There doesn't really exist an option for people to just stick to facts.

It is obvious that the "better than" doesn't go for all opinion. That is the obvious clue which you can investigate further on your own, looking at how people in general talk in terms of opinions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Since you've demonstrated a lack of understanding for what Social Darwinism is, and now seem to not have a grasp on the limits of Evolution, can you just provide us all with your definitions of both. I feel like you are arguing against something very different than evolution in general. Just as an example, evolution would not be relevant when speaking to one race or ethnicity being considered "stronger" or "more fit to survive" than others, as evolution deals with competition between species. You seem to be discussing Social Engineering based on racism. I don't see where evolution even would fit in.

It is just blatant dishonesty. According to evolutionists Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini weren't even social darwinists. Your history is nonsense, you have no clue about social darwinism.

 

[leibowde84]

It is just blatant dishonesty. According to evolutionists Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini weren't even social darwinists. Your history is nonsense, you have no clue about social darwinism.

So, enlighten me. What definitions are you using for Social Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution?

 

[Deathbydefault]

There doesn't really exist an option for people to just stick to facts.

It is obvious that the "better than" doesn't go for all opinion. That is the obvious clue which you can investigate further on your own, looking at how people in general talk in terms of opinions.

I am well aware of people who talk in opinions, ever heard of my parents?
Regardless of that, subjectivity is not a one sided "love" matter, as I'm sure you know.
I believe you to be on the "love" side, while I am at an opposite end.
We aren't compatible, mentally or otherwise, so our discussion may as well end here.

That is, unless you do want to start talking facts.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So, enlighten me. What definitions are you using for Social Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution?

I already explained exactly how social darwinism is derived from natural selection theory to you.