How evolutionists caused the holocaust

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

How it works is:

1. People are under tremendous psychological pressure to do their best.

2. Due to this pressure, people start to conceive of "choosing" in terms of figuring out the best result, instead of correctly conceiving of it in terms of spontaneity (that a decision can turn out one way or another in the moment).

3. This then results in a pattern of corruption in the mind of people, of all concepts that are based on the concept of "choosing", most importantly the concept of subjectivity becomes dysfunctional.

4. Corruption of the concept of subjectivity leads to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness.

5. This pattern of corruption can be identified by:
* objectifying emotions and personal character (such as nazi racial science)
* exaggerated doing your best for everything, ruthless rationalization towards optimums in every aspect of life
* diminished function of conscience, because people believe themselves to be doing their best all the time, per definition of the verb "choose"

It is very obvious that throwing out the entire subjective part of reality, would inevitably lead to catastrophe. It is not just religion which emphasizes the importance of the subjective part of reality, a large share of pop-songs also emphasize that.

It's not going to work out okay, when emotions are objectified, as being some kind of objective electro chemical processes in the brain.

Certainly the holocaust was entirely consistent with science, because it all did in fact happen. People were in fact led into gas chambers, where in fact gas was released upon them, which they then in fact breathed in, at which point they then in fact died. So that is all scientific fact.

But for the complete story there is also subjective opinion in what spirit the decisions were made to do it all.

But of course at the time the holocaust occurred, subjectivity was ignored by everyone, because people at that time were convinced that science demonstrated that personal character, the spirit, is objective.

So then there was no issue of choosing a personal opinion on the personal character of people who perpetrated the holocaust, because that was considered a matter for scientific fact, not a matter of chosen opinion.

There is no guarantee that learning fact & opinion would stop evil, but it would certainly stop this particular kind of evil that is related to misconceiving of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion

2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

Where choosing is explained in terms of spontaneity, that a decision can turn out one way or another in the moment. And choosing is also the mechanism of creation, how a creation originates. And subjective means, identified with a chosen opinion, and objective means, identified with a model of it.

Atheists go out of their way to deny the entire subjective part of reality. So the atheist idea about the holocaust, consists just of a number of facts about what occurred, and they do not have any personal judgment on the spirit in which decisions were made.

Atheists generally reject creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. When asked, atheists uniformly reject the basic logic of subjectivity, as wordsalad nonsense.

It is very clear that atheists systematically go out of their way to marginalize subjectivity, personal judgment, and then pretend that scientific fact is all that matters.

And this is what must inevitably lead to total catastrophe.

Evolution theory is held in opposition to creationism, which means evolution science causes people to deny the entire subjective part of reality, because subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept.

Moreover, evolution science appropiates subjective terminology for science, and re-assigns the subjective words an objective meaning. Words like differential reproductive "success", and "selfish" genes. Basically the entire life cycle of oranisms is explained using all kinds of subjective terminology, in respect to this "success".

Which then obviously means that the proper subjective meaning of subjective words is replaced, with a new objective meaning. Leading to marginalization of subjectivity.

[Öö Tiib]

On Friday 16 February 2024 at 00:13:11 UTC+2, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> How it works is:
>
> 1. People are under tremendous psychological pressure to do their best.
>

They are not. Only you seem to have tremendous mental pressure to do
your worst. No need for anyone else to to do anything to marginalize it,
just look into mirror to see success level of that behavior from that
illustration. Of course you can choose opinion that you are doing great,
but all choosen opinions (instead of actual opinions) are lying. You are
just lying to yourself.

[erik simpson]

Many people (often prominent) choose to believe they're doing great when
it's obvious they aren't. Nando clearly does.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 19:07:14 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

Bad example; choice involves thinking, and I've yet to see
any persuasive evidence that Nando thinks.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Nando Ronteltap]

I'm sure you know you are the liar yourself, in rejecting the entire subjective part of reality, which is the part of it that chooses.

As well do all these people expressing their tired arguments in the free will topic, know they are liars.

It is easily shown that in common discourse people do use the logic of making one of alternative possible futures the present, in the moment, in relation to the word "choose". And they also use subjective terminology to identify the decision maker, their emotions and personal character.

And then intellectually to deny it is true, means there is duplicity between what you say is true intellectually, and what you say is true in common discourse in daily life. Which duplicity means you are a liar.

You know there is no essential difference betwen you and nazis objectifying personal character, and then explaining personal character in terms of heritable factors.



Op vrijdag 16 februari 2024 om 03:18:11 UTC+1 schreef Öö Tiib:

[Richmond]

"mohammad...@gmail.com" <mohammad...@gmail.com> writes:

> It is very obvious that throwing out the entire subjective part of
> reality, would inevitably lead to catastrophe. It is not just religion
> which emphasizes the importance of the subjective part of reality, a
> large share of pop-songs also emphasize that.

What about the subject of psychology?

[Nando Ronteltap]

Psychology is just part of academics, and is just as well corrupt, denies the entire subjective part of reality. Used to be psychologists were all racists. Then after the holocaust, when racism became unpopular, academics turned to postmodernism. Which postmodernism asserts that subjectivity is inherent in statements o fact. Postmodernism assumes subjectivity from common discourse, but it does not validate it. So then really the current state is the racism of old, but then shrouded with postmodernism, disabling the racism. So it is still saying personal character is objective, like nazis said it can be identified as fact, but then now it says that statements of fact have inherent subjectivity.

Op vrijdag 16 februari 2024 om 15:23:12 UTC+1 schreef Richmond: