zurew

You are not even remotely equipped to make arguments, im sorry dude. First of all , the conclusion doesnt necessarily follow from the premises (the argument is invalid - you couldnt even establish a deducitvely valid argument) and aside from that , every atheist can accept the conclusion and maintain their atheism. There are a bunch of other issues with the argument, because almost each premise can be easily challenged and you presumably have no supporting argument for any of those premises. This is one issue with actualized.org , some of you guys are way fucking overconfident in what you can offer and how much of a deep thinker you are. This is supposed to be a layer 1 argument and its already fucked and the conclusion is something that isn't even something that you want to establish and we havent even talked about supporting arguments and supporting arguments for the supporting arguments.

Im 99.99999999% sure you are not a Christian because you were intellectually persuaded. -- Even if all of what you said is granted thats all is compatible with jesus being a wizard with supernatural abilities and him not being God. Its also compatible with aliens staging the whole thing and Jesus was beamed up when he "resurrected" Its also compatible wuth jesus being some multidinensional entity who fucked with us and he actually resurrected but he wasnt God and he didnt create the Universe And we can generate a bunch of other hypothesis that can explain all the data wuthout needing to necessitate that Jesus was God

Sam shamoun LOL, that is one of the worst you could bring up. At least try to pick some philosophically literate apologist

Not just that but if they have a non-universalist view (where its not guaranteed for everyone that they will go to heaven), then having children is basically immoral, because you gamble with your kid going to hell. I have no clue why non-universalist christians are not anti-natalists.

Yeah thats a good way to give an intuition pump about the difference between propositional and procedular knowing. You can read 10 books about how to ride a bike and learn all the facts about it without developing the necessary skill to do so. I mean procedular knowledge is literally stored in a different memory. You can have a brain injury where you forget a bunch of facts about bicycles and still not lose your ability how to ride a bike.

It seems to me that John Vervaeke's framework of different ways of knowing would be very useful if it was applied to other things (not to just philosophy and cognitive science). Like when it comes to dating the idea that you can solve your issues with propositional knowledge is just false. You dont just need to learn skills but to when and how to apply those skills in a dynamic environment. For that to work you need to be in a completely different way of being (the things you find relevant and how your brain aspectualize the world and people is completely different) . So you either need to go through some serious self transformation (where most of the work can be done well from your subsconscious mind) or you need to be good at actually playing certain roles (where you can embody a given character so fully that you see and process everything through that character).

There is only one thing that is absolute and I very much appreciate you bringing it to my attention. This is the fact that men are spiritually superior by their nature compared to women. I feel dumb, since this is common sense and obvious. If anyone will challenge me on this, I will just go meta and show them how much they dont appreciate how deep relativity goes. No one understands how deep relativity goes (especially women).

Let me combine neo-advaita with Jordan Peterson to drive home how much I appreciate your intelligence when it comes to going meta. What do you mean by each of the following terms [you, how, do,know,that,exist,thats,relative]? After you answered that my next questions would be: Who is the you in that question? What is the 'you' that is knowing? Where is the 'you' that suppose to exist ?

How do you know that me not being sure is actually relative? Thats relative. Please go on and continue this - I want to virtue signal how meta I can go to other actualizers as well (its not just you).

Im not so sure about that since everything is relative. (I thought you knew this already)

Thats right. Next time I will eat concrete to up my dental health and my nutrition game.

You can go with whatever epistemic standard you want to have and you can relativize these things as much as you want and you can question it if you want to , no one is stopping you from doing that. But dont forget that going meta when someone is questioning you wont impress or persuade anyone. If you want to - you can have an epistemic stance where drinking poision is as likely to kill you as eating a carrot. "Ohh , so since we are questioning my standard about drinking poision and eating a carrot, who gets to say when the questioning should end? Will it end ,bro ? Why cant I question you questioning my standard, bro? Do you see how meta I am going here bro?" No you should say "You go on entertaining nonsense possibilities. You can play those games, existence allow for it" as a response when they question your standard.

Yeah its not at all that OP explicitly emphasized "nature" multiple times in his post. Its not at all that the fucking title of this thread is about women's nature. Like please tell us more about how we misread the situation. Its also not at all like you showed resistance multiple times to the idea that the collected facts should be questioned. The idea that women werent forthcoming with their spirituality and that there were witch trials and the idea that women didnt want to become gurus - those are nonsencial to you and shouldnt even be entertained and you are super confident that the collected facts are an accurate representation on this issue. It would be very hard to say "given the limitation of the data we have, the indication is that men are more oriented/likely to pursue spirituality". No, for some reason we have to say that we have very high quality data on this.

Since we know that testosterone is what makes you a truth seeker, have you guys seen that highly advanced and conscious guy called Ronnie Coleman? If you want to advance your spiritual game, you need to take some shots.

You can fuck with conservative Christians with bringing up the argument that since Jesus only had a mother (and no biological father), he probably only had xx chromosomes, so he must have been a trans man. And if Jesus taken to be God, then God is a trans man.

Its not just that, but the serpent must have had female nature as well.

"lets not even entertain these possibilities because just the thought that something can threaten the idea that Im superior by my nature makes me feel incredibly uncomfortable" So what empirical evidence do you have that establish that in general men are spiritually superior than women?

The "boys will be boys" phrase actually means "boys will be enlightened masters thanks to their nature" according to highly secure and confident men.

Men must be superior otherwise we feel emasculated and since we are very confident and highly rational and advanced truth seekers by our nature, the conclusion has to be that women are dumb , bad, unconscious creatures . Yeah and women are also evil since they make us feel insecure. There is no way that women can score higher on metrics that we care about.

Im sure that you have an argument that shows why the difference is explained by nature and not by social conditioning and culture. And that goes under the assumption that the difference is as big as you try to make it to be. Im also sure that since you have done the research and thinking on this you have a good response to this: You can rule out the possibility that a bunch of women were and are spiritually advanced its just that they dont want to be gurus and they dont and didnt want social recognition.

A secure , highly confident man casually sharing his feelings about how men are born truth seekers and how women aren't. Buddy, its fine if you get spiritually mogged and spiritually outpaced by women once in a while. You dont need to create a big cope story about how men are spiritually superior by their nature. "Okay this woman spiritually mogged the fck out of me, but im calm because I know that men are superior anyway". This is similar to the cope some men comes up with when there is a woman who earns more than them and who has more IQ than them. "Okay, this woman is smarter and earns more than me, and all of my confidence comes exclusively from those 2 things, so let me create a cope story so that I can feel better and ignore the fact that I have a bunch of insercurities that I need to deal with".

Having different definitions for terms wouldnt necessarily be an issue (if one can desribe what he/she means by the term) - the real issue is when one equivocates (using the same term in two or more different senses).