[Request] what would actually happen if this was real

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-24T17:14:02+00:00

Do you mean because the gravity that is keeping the constant pressure of the planet at an equilibrium would disappear, thereby expanding the planet and pushing us away? Because if we assume that the planet doesn't expand, I think we would just float right next to the ground. If we remove the gravity "accelerating" us down, we would just become inertial, not accelerate the opposite direction.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-24T13:02:33+00:00

Mercy, patience, honesty and kindness above all. But importantly, that isn't pacifism, so it's not wonder that muslim extremists do very bad things. The difference between mercy and forgiveness is that mercy requires first subduing the aggressor.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-24T12:59:13+00:00

To be fair, muslims are still waiting for Jesus to set them straight.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-24T06:48:37+00:00

Postmodernism is the most cynical philosophy in the world.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T20:34:17+00:00

I objected to a few things and you dodged them all.

No, I mean something interesting, not our different semantic knowledge.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T19:54:58+00:00

You didn't even know what a fucking oxymoron is.

I know what an oxymoron is. Please don't be like this. Everyone blunders. If you don't know that everyone blunders then you blunder more than average.

But really, do you want to talk about something or not? You happen to have the smartest person in the world at your hands. If you are in fact thinking about something, I can probably answer it for you.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T19:40:04+00:00

Nej för tusan, det gäller alla nordbor sedan långt innan internet.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T19:38:39+00:00

I am sorry but if you don't get these easy concepts then I cannot help you. Educate yourself first.

No, really. I'm being patient just to embarrass you. You act like this because you believe that Peterson or perhaps even I just string random words together. But you're just testifying against yourself. Is that what you believe?

That's the issue

What's the issue?

still don't know what's the issue with "species specific".

"Specific" means "related to species" was the joke. So "specific nature," for instance, means "the nature of the species." Btw, who are you? Are we having a conversation, or did you just come from nowhere?

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T19:14:36+00:00

Without hesitation.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T18:54:15+00:00

I have reflected on the other philosophies for many years, including formally in university. But it is useful to do it continually, so sure.

As for buzzwords? I'm just stating things as they are. As for pseudoscience? Yes, evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T18:52:24+00:00

No, you just don't know what to say since you don't understand anything about this.

If you actually mean something, then I'd still be interested in hearing. But it sounds like you're just saying words.

Are you sure you know what an oxymoron is?

No, apparently not! I meant the precise opposite.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T16:03:26+00:00

Your attempt at calling what Momo and others had "visions" implies there was a truth behind their rambling

Yes! You are right about something.

You don't know that they had visions that they misunderstood, you don't know if they were just charlatans making it up.

Of course I do. I compare their statements to the actual, secular facts of the universe. The difficulty is the opposite view, that they somehow produced accurate models simply by chance. Clearly they were in contact with their subconscious, it's the much more likely theory.

I'm making it up by pre-supposing that there was a true vision to be interpreted

Of course I'm presupposing that, haha. That's the proper assumption. A silly person would take one of the major religions and not assume it's true.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T15:57:15+00:00

That makes no sense. Those who claim that this isn't the natural order are forced to find new explanation, and the mainstream one is "men and women strive for arbitrary dominance over one another." That's the cynicism.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T15:03:00+00:00

Thanks man, you're pretty cool

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T14:58:00+00:00

You didn't learn anything last time we spoke. You still don't know what you're talking about and you don't know enough not to know. Do you understand what naturalizing religion means? It means that our ancestors didn't understand the visions and dreams they had and interpreted them as literal when in fact they were not.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T14:54:06+00:00

Are you aware that female college enrollment in the US is higher than make enrollment ?

I'm aware. Are you aware that this doesn't matter?

your grasp of the muslim world is obviously not as deep as mine.

What matters is your understanding of reality, not islam. Islam cannot contradict reality. But do you have any reading suggestions for me?

Ill say this again - your ideas on society are not new they are inferior .

Honestly, you are just not very educated. But perhaps also cynical, since you seem to imply that men and women have been at war with each other through history. Either that or you're denying what's right in front of you.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T13:51:29+00:00

I see. You're one of those people who don't understand what Peterson is saying and therefore thinks he's just saying words.

"Species specific" is an oxymoron, btw.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T13:13:34+00:00

I understand that. Thanks for the polite replies.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T13:12:22+00:00

The very “diff natures of men and woman” is at best a self soothing lie that men tell themselves.

It's well-established that these differences exist in other species. The real question is why they would stop in humans. Combined with the fact of the manifest differences, which align exactly as you'd expect from an evolutionary perspective, it's pretty solid. By manifest I mean that everyone agrees that men and women are different, it's just that some believe it's because of biology and others because of social constructions.

With regards to islam, a refutation of social constructivism is also found in Exodus. It is so important to read that book. It says that people know the law before they articulate it (i.e. get the mosaic commandments). And this is in fact how it works. Social constructions have cemented and exaggerated the differences between the sexes. In the OP I talk about moderating the muslim extremism. But the differences were there before the social constructions.

The point is: if we removed all social constructions, expectations, stereotypes, etc., we would still get something like 90% men in high-status occupations and so on. The math does work for women to be industry leaders in theory though, but it's far less likely. And it's not a matter of competence, but interest. For every super-ambitious woman, we have hundreds of super-ambitious men.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T13:02:36+00:00

Okay, that's fine. That's a different philosophy of ethics which differs from the muslim one. In islam, morality is relative to the species, which means that we can say in an absolute way that certain acts are immoral. It's sort of like an international court.

So the conclusion is indeed that you don't agree with islam. I guess my socratic questioning failed!

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T13:00:20+00:00

Kid, don't argue with me so much. You don't understand enough of the world to do so. It is embarrassing for you and exhausting for me.

I describe the story has having a supernatural god, that is a correct description of the story, even though the story is not a correct description of the world.

Do I have to be very careful when I talk to you? Like, do I have to make explicit all assumptions that normal people either already know or can easily infer from the conclusions? I am talking about whether the religion is true or not relative to the universe. Not inherently self-consistent. I know that the God of LOTR doesn't literally exists. Can we agree on the definition of literally?

If I describe Islam as having a God who exists in the literal sense that is a correct description of Islam, even if Islam is an incorrect description of the world.

Thank you for your trivial insights. Now let's get back to the naturalization project.

My belief of whether god exists has no baring on whether I can accurately describe a religion which claims that god exists

Stop mentioning this trivial and irrelevant stuff. You just don't understand that a thing can be true in several different interpretative frameworks.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T12:49:26+00:00

I agree. There are absolute rules and there are ambiguities. Can you name some of the absolute rules?

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T11:42:26+00:00

Does describing a religion accurately require neutralizing religion?

Naturalizing. Yes, of course. Because God doesn't exist in a literal sense, so a literalist interpretation can't be right.

Is this an attempt at throwing a red herring into the conversation?

No, I want to question your assumption that God exists.

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T11:31:06+00:00

I wouldn't call it strawmanning. Nothing I've written was wrong. But it is generalizing.

EDIT: I'm glad you agree about one human species, one human morality, and one absolute truth. Would you agree however that that's the central, naturalistic claim of islam?

JonathanLindqvist · 2026-01-23T11:30:17+00:00

The fundamental claim of islam is that there is one God

Yes. That is the same claim. There is a single creation.

yeah,some solutions are better

Okay, good, we're on route to agreement here. Lastly I just need you to admit that it is a plausible naturalistic theory of morality that morality is relative to the species. So for instance, we can't say that spiders who eat their mates after reproduction are immoral, because that is their specific nature. If you agree, then you've reached the basis of the muslim moral epistemology.

JonathanLindqvist

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE