The assumptions behind evolution?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I asked for clarification which you refuse to provide. It seems like you are being unreasonable by expecting people to accept your ideas without an explanation of your ideas. You whine quickly when you are exposed for incorrect statements. Any position which one may hold that is not in agreement with you is dismissed completely. Which is apparent when you dodge a person's questions and go off ranting about the education system.

It is in fact true that societies of tens of millions can come to live under an ideology in which freedom and subjectivity are basically rejected, like with communism and nazism.

And yes there is a direct link between getting no education about how things are chosen, and the sort of intellectual thuggery evolutionists such as yourself engage in, and ideologies in which freedom and subjectivity are rejected.

Nobody in their right mind considers what you write open and reasonable discourse. I think everybody knows that evolutionists are trying to get rid of any knowledge about how things are chosen, and they just use any excuse whatsoever to make it go away.

 

[Shad]

It is in fact true that societies of tens of millions can come to live under an ideology in which freedom and subjectivity are basically rejected, like with communism and nazism.

And yes there is a direct link between getting no education about how things are chosen, and the sort of intellectual thuggery evolutionists such as yourself engage in, and ideologies in which freedom and subjectivity are rejected.

Nobody in their right mind considers what you write open and reasonable discourse. I think everybody knows that evolutionists are trying to get rid of any knowledge about how things are chosen, and they just use any excuse whatsoever to make it go away.

You are still dodging. I asked for clarification not statements nor rants about the education system.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You are still dodging. I asked for clarification not statements nor rants about the education system.

You go and discuss how things are chosen in the universe, independent of me. You can do that if you are not dead against any knowledge about how things are chosen.

 

[Shad]

You go and discuss how things are chosen in the universe, independent of me. You can do that if you are not dead against any knowledge about how things are chosen.

No I am asking you for clarification not statements with word switching.

I do not agree with your idea. I support different views but not the views you rant against since such views are strawmans.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No I am asking you for clarification not statements with word switching.

I do not agree with your idea. I support different views but not the views you rant against since such views are strawmans.

It's accusatory nonsense, evolutionist. A debatingtrick.

You don't agree with the idea that freedom is real, that things in the universe are chosen, which is why you destroy the knowledge about it on the internet. You are instrumental in advancing ideologies in which freedom and subjectivity are rejected.

 

[Shad]

It's accusatory nonsense, evolutionist. A debatingtrick.

You don't agree with the idea that freedom is real, that things in the universe are chosen, which is why you destroy the knowledge about it on the internet. You are instrumental in advancing ideologies in which freedom and subjectivity are rejected.

No it is clear. When you mentioned DNA all your did was witch adaptation and the results of it with choice.

I never put forward the claim freedom is real or not. I support freedom and free-will via the concept of agent-causality. Read Kant's work on freedom, Hume's freedom of action. Play your strawman on someone else.

 

[outhouse]

It's accusatory nonsense, evolutionist. A debatingtrick.

You mean asking you to answer a question and directly and honestly is a trick?

 

[LuisDantas]

The assumptions behind evolution are well condensed as "that reality is reasonably predictable and miracles or acts of magic do not happen just because".

 

[outhouse]

You don't agree with the idea that freedom is real

Has nothing to do with biology.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No it is clear. When you mentioned DNA all your did was witch adaptation and the results of it with choice.

I never put forward the claim freedom is real or not. I support freedom and free-will via the concept of agent-causality. Read Kant's work on freedom, Hume's freedom of action. Play your strawman on someone else.

It's not true, you are against any knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe. That is the fact that is in evidence. You play all sorts of debatingtricks, but this obvious fact remains.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Has nothing to do with biology.

The behaviour of organisms. The way representations of organisms are chosen in the DNA world.

It doesn't make any sense that freedom would be not real, or not relevant. The organisms look as if they are chosen as a whole, why wouldn't they? Only if you are against any knowledge about how things are chosen, would you oppose open and reasoned discourse about this.

Ofcourse, why would the defenders of knowledge, try to surpress and break down all this knowledge about how things are chosen, which we use practically in day to day life?

It's a mystery, but there are clues. We can see whole societies of tens of millions of people can come under the spell of an ideology in which freedom and subjectivity are rejected, nazism and communism. It appears both these ideologies were far more popular at universities than with the population in general.

Why do people become nazi's or communists? The main attractive thing about these ideologies is that they provide factual certainty about what is good and evil. That is the motivating factor at play here.

All these evolutionists reject subjectivity, they reject the spiritual, which automatically means that somewhere they can know as fact what is good and evil. That's what happens when you reject subjectivity, then you are left with objectivity. And you can see by the smugness, and authority with which evolutionists act, that they are deep into knowing for a fact what is good and evil. You will never find any open and reasoned discourse with them.

 

[outhouse]

All these evolutionists reject

Yes we tend to reject untrained or unqualified peoples biased opinions. People who cannot substantiate a single claim.


We tend to follow facts, the facts behind evolution, taught in every credible university worldwide every single day.

 

[Shad]

It's not true, you are against any knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe. That is the fact that is in evidence. You play all sorts of debatingtricks, but this obvious fact remains.

Asking for clarification is a debate trick now? Explaining your idea with more than just statements is a trick? I am guessing anything which isn't full 100% agreement with you must be a trick to you.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Asking for clarification is a debate trick now? Explaining your idea with more than just statements is a trick? I am guessing anything which isn't full 100% agreement with you must be a trick to you.

Yes those are just debate tricks. You have no intention whatsoever of open and reasoned discourse about how things are chosen.

That you ask for clarification just means that everything I have written up to that point you have dismissed as incomprehensible. It s just a trick. When next I would write something to clarify, you will dismiss that as incomprehensible too, and so on. Somebody who argues reasonably would ask a specific question about what precisely is not understood. Would acknowledge the points that are understood. But you ask generally, in order to dismiss everything entirely.

And we can see that this is your intention by the complete absence of any established knowledge about how things are chosen.

You try to do away with all knowledge about how things are chosen. It is pure evil, no less evil than any nazi or communist. What do we expect to get if we destroy all knowledge about how things are chosen? The holocaust, why not? Global thermonuclear war? Sure! This bizarre idea to destroy knowledge which is of direct use for our conscience, the knowledge about decisions we make, and that are made, obviously provides the potential for unlimited evil.

 

[Laika]

The reason provided was that atheists, communists, nazi's and evolutionists all reject freedom is real, and reject subjectivity.

And as you can see half this topic is occupied by evolutionists objecting to any knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe.

This is probably futile, but...

Atheists:
The majority of Atheists today are secular liberals who believe in free will and therefore accept Judeao-Christian notions of moral responsibility. Most are also individualists and therefore accept the role of subjectivity in the form of empathy in weighing up moral arguments. Nietzsche is somewhat an exception, but his philosophy was a direct response to Nihilism; he none the less still believed in subjectivity ("the will to truth") and freedom ("the will to power").

Evolutionists:
"Evolutionists" believe in a process of 'natural selection', in which animals compete with one another over resources. Philosophically, this does imply some measure of free will in choosing the means by which to survive, but in the struggle for existence. Most "Evolutionists" only apply the theory of natural selection to the natural world and the animal kingdom. They are often Atheists in Liberal sense described above. Darwin himself had religious belief which he lost over time.

When applied to humans and society, "Social Darwinism" has some deeply unpleasant outcomes because people are evaluated based on biological or genetic traits. However, not all forms of social Darwinism necessarily are 'collectivist' in the ways the Nazi's used them. The US had eugenics laws which were based on individual competition and therefore "freedom" and this was compatible with free market economics. This therefore meant that those who were undesirables were often the poor or disabled and therefore unable to work. If I'm not mistaken, the US Eugenics laws were a major inspiration for the Nazi's own program of forced Euthanasia.

Keep in mind that Social Darwinism is actually a more sophisticated version of many of the theories which had existed before, such as the belief that the differences between European and African civilisations were derived from inherent traits; hence it was "god's will" that blacks be slaves because they were 'racially inferior'; the slave trade was also defended in terms of the "freedom" of Europeans to own human beings as property and to trade "it".

Nazis:
Nazi's believe in "Freedom" but mainly in terms of the "freedom of the Aryan race" and the "freedom" of the Furher to make the world in his own image. In case you think otherwise, the Nazi's were not 'Atheists', but were religious (Hitler was a Catholic) and were often mystics. This is why the Indiana Jones Franchise focuses on Nazi's trying to find Archaeological objects such as the The Ark of the Covenant, etc, as a means for them to increase their own power. Hitler himself said he made decisions with the "reassurance of a sleep walker" because of the mysticism and therefore subjectivity in Nazi Ideology.

Depending on the Nazi, "free will" and conceptions of moral responsibility associated with it are over by the "laws of natural selection" as happened in social darwinism. The problem with Nazi's was not that they didn't have ethics; they did- but they came to the conclusion that what was necessary was right (like the communists) and therefore the advancing of the interests of the Aryan race made is "necessary" to have a "final solution to the Jewish Question" (i.e. the Holocaust). The Nazi's believed in freedom, subjectivity and morality and this did not stop them from committing genocide.

Communists;
Communists rejected the theory of evolution that is widely accepted amongst the scientific community today because it wasn't Atheist enough. The theory of evolution conflicts with biblical accounts of 'creation' in Genisis, but does not rule out the possibility of some 'original cause' like God in explaining the Origin of Life. Scientists are still debating how life actually began because of this.
Communists rejected Genetics as well as the theory of mutation as a source for evolution is not wholly "materialist" either as it leaves some degree of probability or chance- which could also be explained by god if taken to an absurd extreme. Genetics was banned in the USSR (along with Eugenics) in favour of a theory of the heritability of aquired traits known as "lysenkoism". This was accepted primarily on ideological grounds rather than what could be described as 'scientific' ones.

Communists reject "Free Will" catagorically in favour of a form of determinism. Freedom is the realization of necessity. As with the Nazi's what is necessary is right. Whereas the Nazi's believed in the law of racial conflict, the Communists believed in the law of class struggle. For Communists, the "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" was an expression of the "freedom" of the proletariat to wage a class struggle against the oppoents to it's rule.
Communism also has a belief in subjectivity; in that it is a product of the 'romantic' movement in philosophy and therefore places a high value on emotions in determining what is the true nature of man. The belief in innate goodness comes from Rousseau who believed that man was good because he was hedonistic. it's still there and that's why accusations of communism being a religion have such currency (even if there are substantial differences). In the case of Communism, there is a bizzare combination of subjectivity of indivdiual belief and emotion, and objectivity of overarching 'historical laws', but there is still "freedom" and "subjectivity" of a sort.
This is why Orwell in 1984 could accuse Communists of "doublethink" (a reference of dialectical materialism which holds that phenomena is contradictory) and "2+2=5" because the abuse of Marxist conception of ideology can be deeply corrosive to conceptions of objective truth such as how the USSR denied the existence of the Ukrainian Famine as a hoax by "agents of fascism".

As with all cases, not all Atheists, 'evolutionists', Nazis and Communists are the same; but all have some belief in Freedom and subjectivity- as these are universal attributes of man and not unique moral qualities belong to one political or religious position. But they were used differently and depending on where you stand- are debatably "immoral".

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This is probably futile, but...

Atheists:
The majority of Atheists today are secular liberals who believe in free will and therefore accept Judeao-Christian notions of moral responsibility. Most are also individualists and therefore accept the role of subjectivity in the form of empathy in weighing up moral arguments. Nietzsche is somewhat an exception, but his philosophy was a direct response to Nihilism; he none the less still believed in subjectivity ("the will to truth") and freedom ("the will to power").

Evolutionists:
"Evolutionists" believe in a process of 'natural selection', in which animals compete with one another over resources. Philosophically, this does imply some measure of free will in choosing the means by which to survive, but in the struggle for existence. Most "Evolutionists" only apply the theory of natural selection to the natural world and the animal kingdom. They are often Atheists in Liberal sense described above. Darwin himself had religious belief which he lost over time.

When applied to humans and society, "Social Darwinism" has some deeply unpleasant outcomes because people are evaluated based on biological or genetic traits. However, not all forms of social Darwinism necessarily are 'collectivist' in the ways the Nazi's used them. The US had eugenics laws which were based on individual competition and therefore "freedom" and this was compatible with free market economics. This therefore meant that those who were undesirables were often the poor or disabled and therefore unable to work. If I'm not mistaken, the US Eugenics laws were a major inspiration for the Nazi's own program of forced Euthanasia.

Keep in mind that Social Darwinism is actually a more sophisticated version of many of the theories which had existed before, such as the belief that the differences between European and African civilisations were derived from inherent traits; hence it was "god's will" that blacks be slaves because they were 'racially inferior'; the slave trade was also defended in terms of the "freedom" of Europeans to own human beings as property and to trade "it".

Nazis:
Nazi's believe in "Freedom" but mainly in terms of the "freedom of the Aryan race" and the "freedom" of the Furher to make the world in his own image. In case you think otherwise, the Nazi's were not 'Atheists', but were religious (Hitler was a Catholic) and were often mystics. This is why the Indiana Jones Franchise focuses on Nazi's trying to find Archaeological objects such as the The Ark of the Covenant, etc, as a means for them to increase their own power. Hitler himself said he made decisions with the "reassurance of a sleep walker" because of the mysticism and therefore subjectivity in Nazi Ideology.

Depending on the Nazi, "free will" and conceptions of moral responsibility associated with it are over by the "laws of natural selection" as happened in social darwinism. The problem with Nazi's was not that they didn't have ethics; they did- but they came to the conclusion that what was necessary was right (like the communists) and therefore the advancing of the interests of the Aryan race made is "necessary" to have a "final solution to the Jewish Question" (i.e. the Holocaust). The Nazi's believed in freedom, subjectivity and morality and this did not stop them from committing genocide.

Communists;
Communists rejected the theory of evolution that is widely accepted amongst the scientific community today because it wasn't Atheist enough. The theory of evolution conflicts with biblical accounts of 'creation' in Genisis, but does not rule out the possibility of some 'original cause' like God in explaining the Origin of Life. Scientists are still debating how life actually began because of this.
Communists rejected Genetics as well as the theory of mutation as a source for evolution is not wholly "materialist" either as it leaves some degree of probability or chance- which could also be explained by god if taken to an absurd extreme. Genetics was banned in the USSR (along with Eugenics) in favour of a theory of the heritability of aquired traits known as "lysenkoism". This was accepted primarily on ideological grounds rather than what could be described as 'scientific' ones.

Communists reject "Free Will" catagorically in favour of a form of determinism. Freedom is the realization of necessity. As with the Nazi's what is necessary is right. Whereas the Nazi's believed in the law of racial conflict, the Communists believed in the law of class struggle. For Communists, the "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" was an expression of the "freedom" of the proletariat to wage a class struggle against the oppoents to it's rule.
Communism also has a belief in subjectivity; in that it is a product of the 'romantic' movement in philosophy and therefore places a high value on emotions in determining what is the true nature of man. The belief in innate goodness comes from Rousseau who believed that man was good because he was hedonistic. it's still there and that's why accusations of communism being a religion have such currency (even if there are substantial differences). In the case of Communism, there is a bizzare combination of subjectivity of indivdiual belief and emotion, and objectivity of overarching 'historical laws', but there is still "freedom" and "subjectivity" of a sort.
This is why Orwell in 1984 could accuse Communists of "doublethink" (a reference of dialectical materialism which holds that phenomena is contradictory) and "2+2=5" because the abuse of Marxist conception of ideology can be deeply corrosive to conceptions of objective truth such as how the USSR denied the existence of the Ukrainian Famine as a hoax by "agents of fascism".

As with all cases, not all Atheists, 'evolutionists', Nazis and Communists are the same; but all have some belief in Freedom and subjectivity- as these are universal attributes of man and not unique moral qualities belong to one political or religious position. But they were used differently and depending on where you stand- are debatably "immoral".

One can make things appear any which way one likes by picking picking some facts, while ignoring other facts.

Atheists generally conceive of love and hate as electrochemistry in the brain. When love and hate are fact, this precludes subjectivity. Atheists simply will not accept the existence of anything by a way of expression of emotion, choosing it is there. All wellknown atheist intellectuals reject free will is real in the sense of having alternative courses of action available. They have redefined free will to make it use a logic of being forced, which is called compatiblism. Dennett, Harris, Blackmore, Kraus etc. The only functional concept of free will which posits alternative courses of action requires that the existence of the agency is regarded as a matter of opinion. That is exactly what atheists are against.

Nazi's talk about the spirit, but they conceive of the spirit as measurable and heritable. That is simply the same logic as what atheists do with love and hate as electrochemistry in the brain, but then attach the word spirit to it. It is still outright rejection of subjectivity, and the idea is instrumental in the genocides. And because they conceived of the spirit of people as a matter of fact issue, they then had no recourse but to conceive of people as being forced. Forced by their heredity, their genetics to act the way they do. Rejecting free will. Freedom to a nazi means the uninihibited forces of nature, across artificial manmade borders of nations.

Communism, or scientific socialism, as it was advertised, relies upon an idea of evolution of social classes. They have simply some variation of evolution theory in which the environment directly acts on the heridity of the organism.

Darwin promoted the pseudoscience of physiognomie, which is to measure what emotions an organism or person has by measuring the expression on the face. Presentday evolutionary psychology conceives of emotions as software running on the brain hardware. And as before, making emotions into a matter of fact issue, automatically means that freedom is also of the table. When love is in fact x, then x can only force the result y. But if it is regarded as an opinion what love is, then an action can turn out any which way.

And what you do is write tons of nonsense, while still you do not accept any fact of any decision in the entire history of the universe.

 

[Laika]

One can make things appear any which way one likes by picking picking some facts, while ignoring other facts.

Atheists generally conceive of love and hate as electrochemistry in the brain. When love and hate are fact, this precludes subjectivity. Atheists simply will not accept the existence of anything by a way of expression of emotion, choosing it is there. All wellknown atheist intellectuals reject free will is real in the sense of having alternative courses of action available. They have redefined free will to make it use a logic of being forced, which is called compatiblism. Dennett, Harris, Blackmore, Kraus etc. The only functional concept of free will which posits alternative courses of action requires that the existence of the agency is regarded as a matter of opinion. That is exactly what atheists are against.

Nazi's talk about the spirit, but they conceive of the spirit as measurable and heritable. That is simply the same logic as what atheists do with love and hate as electrochemistry in the brain, but then attach the word spirit to it. It is still outright rejection of subjectivity, and the idea is instrumental in the genocides. And because they conceived of the spirit of people as a matter of fact issue, they then had no recourse but to conceive of people as being forced. Forced by their heredity, their genetics to act the way they do. Rejecting free will. Freedom to a nazi means the uninihibited forces of nature, across artificial manmade borders of nations.

Communism, or scientific socialism, as it was advertised, relies upon an idea of evolution of social classes. They have simply some variation of evolution theory in which the environment directly acts on the heridity of the organism.

Darwin promoted the pseudoscience of physiognomie, which is to measure what emotions an organism or person has by measuring the expression on the face. Presentday evolutionary psychology conceives of emotions as software running on the brain hardware. And as before, making emotions into a matter of fact issue, automatically means that freedom is also of the table. When love is in fact x, then x can only force the result y. But if it is regarded as an opinion what love is, then an action can turn out any which way.

And what you do is write tons of nonsense, while still you do not accept any fact of any decision in the entire history of the universe.

Thanks. that is quite a substantive reply. I confess I have only a vague notion of physiognomie, but I see your point about how science can be reductive and take our the subjectivity as a basis for making moral judgements. On a hunch, I would probably disagree with evolutionary psychologists about the hardware/software distinction as I don't think it's so absolute or clear cut.

On the first issue regarding emotions (as a source of moral values), is that objectivity and subjectivity are not mutually exclusive. I would argue that what we think is objective is not wholly 'real'. Whilst our concepts do reflect reality, there remain concepts. Hence there is always a difference between reality- as it actually is- and reality- as we think it is. Our conception of reality is a reflection of the material world via our sense data and therefore what we think is objectively real or true always contains an element of subjectivity. it is therefore impossible to make moral choices on a purely rational level; some element of empathy and emotion as a basis for understanding and measuring our values is always present. emotion always plays a role in moral judgement. (e.g. Nazi hatred of Jews is still a moral judgement- just not one we like).

In the same way 'necessity' (determinism) and 'freedom' are not mutually exclusive either; if you're trying to build a plane- you have to use the laws of aerodynamics to find ways to get the right amount of "lift" so that the plane will take off and stay in flight. This "lift" constitutes a kind of positive freedom in so far as it is the freedom to do things (as opposed to the negative freedom from interference or 'liberty'). In order to be able to do things, we need to know roughly what has to be done to achieve an objective. here science can play a role in anticipating the requirements for fulfilling an objective. However, this does take out 'free will' and I'm not 100% sure what takes it's place as it depends on the conception of 'necessity'.

The problem with both communism and national socialism was that this 'freedom' ended up becoming the freedom to commit genocide as the means to achieve an "end" to class struggle or racial conflict. (The Communists should have known better as Social Class has objective causes which are re-produced, hence the violence was utterly futile because individuals belonging to a given class would simply reappear in time anyway).

I think the problem is over free will as the source of moral judgements and how they are chosen. There is a paradox in Marxism in that it is deterministic so you don't "chose" to be a Marxist/Communist. If I were using a religious metaphor; you don't find/chose god by a matter of free will, god finds you and that determines you're beliefs. In Marxism, it is class interest that determines your ideas. I think in Nazism, it is race/genetics determines beliefs (but that's a guess). So, the agency of "choice" and some measure of responsibility is lost but not completely. Whilst something is 'necessary'- it is still up to people to do it.

Marxism is not a genetic theory of class by the way. As a theory it's known as "Historical Materialism" and Social Classes are 'conditioned' by the division of labour. Roughly, people ideas change with their class position in society, and which class is in charge (and therefore whose ideas are dominant in society). The conflict between them is economic over who gets the share of resources. The economic/class structure of society determines peoples ideas.
Ivan Pavlov's research on Classical Conditioning was very popular amongst the Soviet Psychologists because it took them a step closer to understanding how people were 'conditioned' to think and feel a certain way.

What I've said is probably a heretical view amongst atheists. I'm heavily relying on Soviet "Dialectical Materialism" which is almost a dead philosophy, so you're welcome to dispute anything I've said or ask if I've left anything unclear. I think I've answered your points as best as I can.

 

[HiEv]

But I did provide a reason why to group evolutionists together with atheists, nazi's and communists.

No, you did not provide a reason at all. You merely provided an assertion which was completely without evidence, as demonstrated below:

The reason provided was that atheists, communists, nazi's and evolutionists all reject freedom is real, and reject subjectivity.

See? You merely assert that those groups "all reject freedom is real, and reject subjectivity", without providing even one shred of evidence for that claim. In fact, you've completely ignored all of the evidence given to you on the contrary.

That is not a "reasoned argument". In fact, that is the opposite of a reasoned argument, because all you've done is make baseless claims and you want us to accept them without thinking about it.

I provided evidence against your claim in my post, but I see you chose to ignore 99% of that post, and replying to a single sentence. I'm going to assume this is because all of the rest of that was something you couldn't argue against.

And as you can see half this topic is occupied by evolutionists objecting to any knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe.

No, I see no such thing. You haven't clarified what you mean by "chosen", and you haven't demonstrated any such "knowledge" yourself, since you haven't given even the tiniest drop of evidence for your assertions.

So, you're just repeating your pattern of libeling people who disagree with you, making bald assertions, and utterly failing to make an actual reasoned argument for your consistently vague claims.

If you actually want to make a reasoned argument for a change, here are the steps:

1) Don't be a bigot: Insulting entire groups of people as though they're all the same, when they're actually individuals, on the basis of something which has nothing to do with the criteria for membership in that group is, plain and simple, bigotry.

2) Clarify your terms: You keep talking about "freedom", "choice", and "free will", but you never clarify what kind of freedom, choice, or free will you're talking about. Are you talking about the freedom to kill indiscriminately? Well, then of course I don't believe we ethically have the freedom to do that. Are you talking about the freedom to violate the laws of physics? I don't believe we have the physical capability to do that? Are you talking about the freedom to choose what we have for desert? Well, we certainly have some freedom to do that. This is why you have to clarify your terms. There's a dozen different flavors of "free will"; if you want to discuss that, clarify which version of free will you're discussing.

3) Don't hijack threads: If you want to discuss free will, start a thread where you clarify what kind of free will you're talking and discuss it there, rather than hijacking every thread you post in to spread your bigotry and vague claims.

4) Provide evidence: Merely asserting things won't convince anyone. You can tell people, "X is true!", until you're blue in the face, that won't convince anyone. You have to actually provide objectively verifiable evidence and logical arguments that lead from that evidence to your conclusion, and only your conclusion, if you actually want to make a reasoned argument.

5) Avoid rants: Telling everyone how awful it will be if people don't agree with you isn't a valid argument that you're right. The idea may be awful that people falling out planes die when they hit the ground, but it doesn't make that any less true. Furthermore, it's demonstrably true that in recent times the average lifespan is increasing and that there is less crime. So attempting to insist that not believing what you believe is leading to the downfall of civilization, when the verifiable facts of reality argue the opposite, is just shooting yourself in the foot.

So far you've demonstrated yourself incapable of doing much more than making vague assertions, bigoted remarks, and insulting everyone who disagrees with you, accusing them of being incapable of making a "reasoned argument". All you've actually proven by doing so is that you, yourself, are incapable of making a reasoned argument.

Please, do try to use some of that "freedom" and "choice" to change. If you don't, I'll assume that proves that you have no free will. ;-)

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, you did not provide a reason at all. You merely provided an assertion which was completely without evidence, as demonstrated below:



See? You merely assert that those groups "all reject freedom is real, and reject subjectivity", without providing even one shred of evidence for that claim. In fact, you've completely ignored all of the evidence given to you on the contrary.

That is not a "reasoned argument". In fact, that is the opposite of a reasoned argument, because all you've done is make baseless claims and you want us to accept them without thinking about it.

I provided evidence against your claim in my post, but I see you chose to ignore 99% of that post, and replying to a single sentence. I'm going to assume this is because all of the rest of that was something you couldn't argue against.



No, I see no such thing. You haven't clarified what you mean by "chosen", and you haven't demonstrated any such "knowledge" yourself, since you haven't given even the tiniest drop of evidence for your assertions.

So, you're just repeating your pattern of libeling people who disagree with you, making bald assertions, and utterly failing to make an actual reasoned argument for your consistently vague claims.

If you actually want to make a reasoned argument for a change, here are the steps:

1) Don't be a bigot: Insulting entire groups of people as though they're all the same, when they're actually individuals, on the basis of something which has nothing to do with the criteria for membership in that group is, plain and simple, bigotry.

2) Clarify your terms: You keep talking about "freedom", "choice", and "free will", but you never clarify what kind of freedom, choice, or free will you're talking about. Are you talking about the freedom to kill indiscriminately? Well, then of course I don't believe we ethically have the freedom to do that. Are you talking about the freedom to violate the laws of physics? I don't believe we have the physical capability to do that? Are you talking about the freedom to choose what we have for desert? Well, we certainly have some freedom to do that. This is why you have to clarify your terms. There's a dozen different flavors of "free will"; if you want to discuss that, clarify which version of free will you're discussing.

3) Don't hijack threads: If you want to discuss free will, start a thread where you clarify what kind of free will you're talking and discuss it there, rather than hijacking every thread you post in to spread your bigotry and vague claims.

4) Provide evidence: Merely asserting things won't convince anyone. You can tell people, "X is true!", until you're blue in the face, that won't convince anyone. You have to actually provide objectively verifiable evidence and logical arguments that lead from that evidence to your conclusion, and only your conclusion, if you actually want to make a reasoned argument.

5) Avoid rants: Telling everyone how awful it will be if people don't agree with you isn't a valid argument that you're right. The idea may be awful that people falling out planes die when they hit the ground, but it doesn't make that any less true. Furthermore, it's demonstrably true that in recent times the average lifespan is increasing and that there is less crime. So attempting to insist that not believing what you believe is leading to the downfall of civilization, when the verifiable facts of reality argue the opposite, is just shooting yourself in the foot.

So far you've demonstrated yourself incapable of doing much more than making vague assertions, bigoted remarks, and insulting everyone who disagrees with you, accusing them of being incapable of making a "reasoned argument". All you've actually proven by doing so is that you, yourself, are incapable of making a reasoned argument.

Please, do try to use some of that "freedom" and "choice" to change. If you don't, I'll assume that proves that you have no free will. ;-)

You said I did not provide any reason, you were wrong.If you want to get into details how atheists, nazi's, communists and evolutionists reject freedom and subjectivity then I have provided some sketchy details in the post I wrote previous. The post you are now ignoring.

But ofcourse, you are incapable of honesty on the subject, I will just get more nonsense fighting to defend the reputation of evolution and atheism, and no real truth about the matter. And I believe everybody knows this, everybody knows that evolutionists will just fight for evolution regardless of the truth. Evolutionists are expected to conjure up clever counter arguments, and lots of tricks, and everybody knows that the truth of the matter will be utterly ignored.

The rest of what you write is just so much more debating tactics. It is like you first want to negotiate a political treaty before talking about how things are chosen in the universe. Grinding down an opposing point of view with lots of nonsense formalities. That is not how open and reasoned discourse works. You are basically forbidding anybody talking about how things in the universe are chosen, with your nonsense formalities.

 

[Shad]

Yes those are just debate tricks. You have no intention whatsoever of open and reasoned discourse about how things are chosen.

That you ask for clarification just means that everything I have written up to that point you have dismissed as incomprehensible. It s just a trick. When next I would write something to clarify, you will dismiss that as incomprehensible too, and so on. Somebody who argues reasonably would ask a specific question about what precisely is not understood. Would acknowledge the points that are understood. But you ask generally, in order to dismiss everything entirely.

And we can see that this is your intention by the complete absence of any established knowledge about how things are chosen.

You try to do away with all knowledge about how things are chosen. It is pure evil, no less evil than any nazi or communist. What do we expect to get if we destroy all knowledge about how things are chosen? The holocaust, why not? Global thermonuclear war? Sure! This bizarre idea to destroy knowledge which is of direct use for our conscience, the knowledge about decisions we make, and that are made, obviously provides the potential for unlimited evil.

One can not have a discussion with undefined statements. You provide no details or explanations. The issue I have is your are taking mechanic in evolution and just switching terminology. How does DNA "choose", how does an animal "choose". Do animals make a choice or is it solely instinct driven. Choice signifies intelligence with most forms of life do not have. How does forms of life with no self-awareness make a choice? Established knowledge is evolution not your idea. So you need to explain your ideas better rather than statements which are argument from a blank authority. You seem to think subjectivity is moot to evolutionist but it is not. Everyone has a subjective view. These views are corroborated by other people via peer-review. As an idea progresses subjective view which can not be substantiate are put aside until such views can be substantiated

Does a feeling/emotion become less of a feeling/emotion if it is a chemical reaction in the brain? Does a memory become less real since it too is a chemical and neurological. The fact that we can identify chemical and emotions links shows emotions are in fact real. Merely being able to understand the mechanics underlaying an emotion does not make this emotion not real. No more than understanding the parts of a whole make the whole less real