Checked the catalog but couldn't find a thread. When is this happening?

Checked the catalog but couldn't find a thread. When is this happening?

Other urls found in this thread:

samharris.org/podcast/item/the-power-of-belief
soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/61-the-power-of-belief
newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Dialectical_materialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Essence_of_Christianity
youtube.com/watch?v=_r8eDIIo3fw
youtube.com/watch?v=YnEFt20qe0o&t=642s
jordanbpeterson.com/2016/12/new-years-letter/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

is this streaming live

it's tomorrow, right?

Ignore all rhetoricians.

It's today on Harris' podcast according to his Twitter, but I don't know what time his podcast is.

Bump

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

why?

bump for interest

samharris.org/podcast/item/the-power-of-belief

Soon

soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/61-the-power-of-belief

Peterson might make one of the only winning arguements for religion.
A part of me wants Peterson to 'win' if it's a debate.

The problem with this whole thing is that Harris views it as a conversation and Peterson views it as a debate. I think there's going to be a lot of talking past each other (albeit in really interesting subjects and in fascinating ways) but unless that fundamental point gets agreed upon (what is the nature of this discourse) then it may be kind of a letdown.

We must send Peterson our energy!

Get your crackers ready.

Same. He's actually made me interested in becoming Christian

>The problem with this whole thing is that Harris views it as a conversation and Peterson views it as a debate
Peterson isn't Noam fucking Chomsky.
He's fine with either a debate or conversation.

Actually I think Harris might see eye to eye with him. The guy wrote a book on spirituality for fedoras after all.

Holy fuck that is pathetic.

Why?

oh yea I forgot about that.
They might not even disagree on anything then. That'd be boring.
I don't have a fedora folder for this post.

for someone with such a distaste of bloody marxists Peterson talks just like a dialectical materialist

I don't strongly believe in God, I think it's more likely he doesn't exist than he does, but Jesus Christ are all mainstream atheists cringy as fuck. I hate Harris and any other preachy atheist because they just come off as so aggressive and ridiculous. Its embarssing

>dialectical materialist
What?
explain
Harris is tame as fuck, I don't know what atheists you are familiar with but he's not the type of guy who wants to end religion because it's "the opiate of the masses" or anything.

fingers crossed for good kermit performance

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Dialectical_materialism

>"progress occurs through struggle." - Peterson has described history as a meat grinder
>"no spiritual world, heaven, or hell, beyond the material world." - even when using spiritual language, Peterson describes hell practically only in materialist psychological terms (Gulags, ghettos, masochists, drug addicts, schizophrenics)
>"All things are interconnected and develop in accordance with natural law. The physical world is an objective reality and exists independently of our perception of it." - reality doesn't care what your dogma is, Peterson has explicitly used this to describe sjw's concerns with biology and the need for people to rid them of their delusions

the only difference between Peterson's worldview and a dialectical materialist (classical marxism) is his Jungian stuff, which is still very Hegelian

t. mong who has failed to realise the decline of the west corresponds to the decline of christianity and that "science", "reason" and "logic" don't fulfill the innate spiritual need of the people and simply leaves a vacuum which has been replaced by mass consumerism and general nihilism

but DUDE there's like a contradiction or something in the bible so lets discard centuries worth of our history amirite?

DUDE post enlightenment values LMAO

You need to message him brother.
Send a message to him now or during the livestream see how he responds. Post results.

>muh innate spiritual need I just made up
>muh fee fees: the post

Subscribe to Harris' youtube channel, he uploads everything to it.

I am not him and I don't know his reasoning for saying this.

However, people like Sam Harris are able to convince people of their beliefs because of their eloquence, not the soundness of their arguments. It sounds good, so people agree with it. It's the same thing with people like Stephan Molyneux, Noam Chomsky, etc.

"The Essence of Christianity" by Feurbach, another writing that influenced marxism (fun fact, Stirner's Ego and It's Own was a response to this book)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Essence_of_Christianity

>Treating of God in his various aspects "as a being of the understanding," "as a moral being or law," "as love" and so on. Feuerbach talks of how man is equally a conscious being, more so than God because man has placed upon God the ability of understanding.

Peterson describes God as the force which brings order to chaos and the harbinger of conciousness

>Thus God is nothing else than man: he is, so to speak, the outward projection of man's inward nature.

Peterson has described God and Jesus as the divine Logos towards which the good man strives to fuffill

How do I do this?

If people like Harris, Molymeme and Chomsky convince with big words, then practically nobody convinces anyone with sound arguments.
You can write off the whole commentariat, the TV stations, all Newspapers, and the rest of it.

While Harris has some points on which he seems to be really stuck in one mode of thinking, like the Trump = literally Hitler, and Atheism trumps all religion, he is often willing to entertain more politically incorrect notions than virtually all other intellectuals.
I feel like Harris is similar to Niall Ferguson, in that both these men are very intelligent, have clear conceptions of the world, and are very strongly expressing these thoughts, but they are at least willing to change their views publically.

youtube.com/watch?v=_r8eDIIo3fw

Here is Ferguson honest about being wrong about Brexit. It might not seem much to us on this extremely politically incorrect Taiwanese Pizzadoughtwirling Business Conference, but for someone whose whole social circle consists of the politically correct elites and sycophants, it takes some balls to say, what he said.

He's got a YT channel, you could pm him first, then comment on his video announcing that he's going to sit down with Sam Harris on his show "Waking Up".
youtube.com/watch?v=YnEFt20qe0o&t=642s

If it's during the show I guess. It's tomorrow
>On January 16, I am going to talk with Sam Harris, on his podcast, Waking Up with Sam Harris. Dr. Harris is one of the so-called New Atheists, of which there are four. Like the other three Christopher Hitchens, Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins – who, by the way, I have always wanted particularly to debate — Dr. Harris is a smart guy, and I’m certainly not complaining that I will encounter him, instead of Dawkins. So I am preparing my arguments, carefully (although I have been doing so for years. The specific ideas I am going to share with you today were obsessing me the moment I woke up, somewhat fitfully, this morning, so I dictated them to my son, and then edited them.
That's the first paragraph of his new year's letter. jordanbpeterson.com/2016/12/new-years-letter/

We'll be waiting, hopefully this thread is still up.

Also, to add to that materialist point:
He seems really passionate and emotional when he talks about the individual, liberty, and how hell is something you make for yourself.

He's talking to him on the 16th but that doesn't mean the podcast will be released on the 16th.

17th innit. What time?

Same here. He's been pretty worn down lately though.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>what is symbolism

"Catholics believe that they actually become the body and blood of Christ."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist


>>>>>> what is knowing things

stupid faggot

who here /antitransubstantiationalist/?

Harris is so annoyingly close-minded that it will be tough to listen to. Hopefully the frog-man will go hard.

Who cares? It's going to go no-where, there's nothing these two share intellectually they could have a productive debate on. All that's going to happen is they'll both be talking past eachother as Harris lists off the atrocities of Christianity while ignoring positives and Peterson lists off positive values of communal stories ignoring negatives.

A much more interesting debate would be Matt Dillahunty vs Stefanie Molymeme on the value of Christianity to the West versus atheism's fragmentation of the West.

Calvin was born a Cathar-roasting catholic and died a Cathar-roasting catholic, people who misread him and called themselves Calvinists then got roasted by Catholics or fled and founded the Greatest Fucking Nation in History

>implying Christians believe this "symbolically"

There's as many Christians who believe a snake spoke to some bint in a forest and ruined humanity forever as there are Christians who don't even believe in God but think some things Jesus said were nice even if he didn't exist.

there's no such thing as god you dumbies we are literally just barely intelligent enough apes that only get any significant breakthrough and advancements due to either super autists or horrible cunts being ruthless immoral conquerors and expansionists

you're gonna feel stupid when we discover that we're in a simulation that was literally built by a god (alien) for us.

I dont know, but all these theories are making me nihilistic and primed to be turned into a cow from our Jew overlords.

...

F U L L H O U S E
Checked.

Literally not an argument

Atheist Cringe: The Post

What's he closed-minded about?