This will be the last thing Sam sees tomorrow

Jordan Peterson will be on Sam Harris's podcast tomorrow. What strategy will he employ?

Other urls found in this thread:

righteousmind.com/why-i-think-sam-harris-is-wrong-about-morality/
youtube.com/watch?v=Ixc9i1G7eew
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I am very excite!!!

Oh fuck it's tomorrow?

I thought he said it was weeks away. Peterson is going to cream him. He's going to perfectly and plainly employ the same tactic everyone uses to destroy atheism: 18th century Russia.

Is it going to be a debate? Don't they broadly agree?

Jordan is super humble so I doubt it'll be a battle more like a humble logical man and a fedora autist

He will say something about the gulags. Then cry for 20 minutes as he discusses Pinocchio.

Shortly after he will start passionately claiming he's "spent 2 decades thinking about this!".

Then he'll get his act together and claim that Christianity has moral wisdom inside that no other book on the planet has, which is why he is a christian.

Sam will agree there is moral wisdom in the Bible, but will say that is no evidence for a God that cares who you fuck.

Sam will say we need more spirituality in our lives, but that believing in a sky daddy isn't the best way to find it.

Peterson will then cry some more.

Harris tweeted about it earlier. Asking for discussion topics.

Sam Harris is a fedoramaster. Peterson is going to bring the hammer of God down on him.

>this idea made people do bad things
>therefore this idea is false

not quite logical is it.

Peterson is passionate and articulate, but doesn't have that autistic spok ability to see logically at the most fundamental levels.

Sam will win. Assuming they even debate seriously.

I know who the Leaf in the OP is, but who's Sam Harris?

>Sam will agree there is moral wisdom in the Bible, but will say that is no evidence for a God that cares who you fuck.

>Sam will say we need more spirituality in our lives, but that believing in a sky daddy isn't the best way to find it.

Wow you're retarded and have no idea what is actually being said.

...

Perhaps I don;t really listen to Peterson. What is being said then?

The idea leads to moral relativism, which leads to chaos. The idea isn't bad in and of itself.

I find it funny that neither of them are arguing for the existence of the supernatural, but rather the function of religion as an establishment. Harris is the optimist here and thinks everyone can sing kumbaya while meditating to become more moral and rational while Peterson is more of a realist in thinking that people still need the control aspects of a religious heirarchy

Strategy? Surely Sam Harris sees the bigger picture about censorship and isn't about to muddy the water by getting sanctimonious about religion. He wouldn't be so stupid as to do that, I'm sure.

Sort him out, Jordan

He voted for clinton cuz Trump is racist or rather 'is supported by racists'

If atheism leads to moral relativism, that doesn't mean its false.

Am I not understanding Peterson's stance here? Is he a Christian simply because he wants to avoid moral relativism?

Also Sam wrote a whole book explaining how you can ground morality in an objective scientific framework.

>If atheism leads to moral relativism, that doesn't mean its false.

Saying someone can destroy atheism isn't the same thing as saying it's false.

Atheism leads to moral decay.

FUCK SAM HARRIS

100% wont work in a multi racial, multi cultural society

I find it hilarious how in rebellion against edgy, fedora-atheists, the so called new """Christians"""" of Sup Forums have themselves become full-blown fedorautists.

His actual argument was that Trump is bad because the fucking KKK supports Trump. I'm not even misquoting his shit, listen to his post election episode to hear for yourself

FUCK SAM HARRIS

Don't those two agree on on almost everything.

I think Nazism is the future, state tribalism....tribalism works

Reasonable post/10

Thanks buddy.

>Atheism leads to moral decay

If that is the core of their debate, that will be entertaining.

However,

its gonna be rough on Peterson considering the most atheistic nations are the wealthiest, healthiest and most civilized. While the most religious nations are living hells.

Kermits gonna cry I'm calling it now

Except Jonathan Haidt blew his idea about morality out of the water.

>If atheism leads to moral relativism, that doesn't mean its false
Define God, and define 'true'.

Oh, his book The Righteous Mind was nice. Very interesting stuff.

Harris is going to strawman the fuck outta him and make the whole thing stupid

nice, at what time is it going to be lad? I may need to set up an alarm to awaken from my neet slumber.

sam harris is a joke that uses his "phd" as a "i'm smarter than u card"

he really isn't that smart. his logic is nearly bro-tier.

on the other hand, jordan peterson is one of the most brilliant minds of the 21st century. the type of thinker that comes once in a generation. he is very underrated and is only recently being discovered

quote me on this. peterson will fucking destroy harris. harris will be reduced to a babbling fool and forced to employ shitty arguments. you'll see

We are already seeing moral decay right now, extreme greed, extreme sexual deviancy destroying families, talk of pedophilia, talk of legalising bestiality, abortion, gassing disabled, nihilism. Is all this worth it? Maybe, but the metaphysical lessons of religion was an attempt to solve all these moral issues. There is value in religion is that sense.

Most of Peterson's argument are not even wrong. This is going to be an annoying conversation.

I hope Peterson doesn't end up crying.

Are you refering to this?
righteousmind.com/why-i-think-sam-harris-is-wrong-about-morality/

On point one he is getting confused and lost in the details. It is clear some actions cause people to be more happy, and some actions make them less happy/suffer.

That is all the moral landscape claims.

Point 2 is just stupid. You can easily argue that OBJECTIVELY humans don't like being set on fire.

Again, this kind of claim is all you need to agree to to accept the moral landscape.

Haidt is smart, but not Sam Harris levels.

>I hope Peterson doesn't end up crying

What a fag right? Crying about the collapse of Western Civilization. Look at him and laugh!

>atheistic nation

such as?

>Wah! Pronouns lead to Nazi Germany

what time?

Also do I have to subscribe to harris's faggot podcast to listen? I really don't want it to shit up my podcast collection.

I've never listened live to Harris before. I know he does it in the morning but I can't find the exact time.

>being this retarded

And you are the exact reason why the rest of us are fucked. No morality, no sense of right and wrong, no sense of reality.

Just feel good politics that leads to absolute chaos.

>collapse of Western Civilization

It's not collapsing, it's flourishing. We are all healthier, happier and wealthier than 99.9% of humans that ever existed.

You are falling for the "end of the world is near" meme.

It gets every generation so don't feel too bad.

>It's not collapsing, it's flourishing.

Wrong.

His argument was closer to "Trump will energize conservatives, and currently conservatives have bad ideas, so dont do that" Not entirely misguided considering the cultural cursades of the early 2000's, but he really failed to adequately assess the potential impact of the rise of leftists

Come back when you have something constructive to say. And no, metaphysical nonsense doesn't count.

>but the metaphysical lessons of religion was an attempt to solve all these moral issues.

Confucianism maybe, but religions are formed for a variety of reasons.

>we have high GDP so everything must be better

>"Hope he doesn't cry"
>constructive argument/criticism

Wow.

All the white parts are the most religious, they also happen to be 3rd world shit holes.

t. mohammed who sees the dole check in the mail so everything must be going well

fuck (you)

>It's not collapsing

Sweden and China sure are great examples of moral arbiters, huh?

Kek, blatantly ignoring Canada, Australia, Sweden, France, Germany, Switzerland, etc...
Also, implying monoglia is not a shithole

Harris has his moments of interesting thought and don't doubt he is well read. But Peterson has clarity and sophistication that come from years of experience talking to people in clinical practice and teaching in the university.

>A token Ph.D (purely experimental) with a podcast
>World renown academic with expertise in psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, history, theology, and how they interact, and a soft sultry Canadian voice

Maybe the argument isn't that Atheism will solve everything, but that Religion wont?

Because all religions are the same, right?

...

>wealthiest, healthiest and most civilized

things that were already happening before the shift away from religion

Read "The Metaphysics of Technology" by Skrbina, you are categorically wrong.

Religion has already solved the problem of morality as best as it could, especially Christianity.

What does Atheism bring to the table except for nihilism 9 times out of 10?

((intellectuals)) cannot be trusted

The Kermit tone is his trump card.

Harris is pretty cringe so it'll be good to see him get smacked around a bit. How did arming the moderate rebels work out for you, kike?

(((who))) could be behind this post

Sure I will read that.

Do you have a summary of why I am wrong?

I believe wealthiest is true.

Healthiest is also true.

Most civilised is definitely true.

Where did i go wrong there?

Sam is only redpilled on islam because it is a threat to his meme idea of a liberal utopia.

based Jordan "We must Slay the Dragon" Peterson will btfo the buddhist jew.

Your intellectuals will never discuss the metaphysics of pepe.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ixc9i1G7eew

S E V E N S

Please, Kek, bestow unlimited power on on Peterson to annihilate and crush his intellectual enemies tomorrow.

>He will say something about the gulags. Then cry for 20 minutes as he discusses Pinocchio.

actually kek'd

...

confirmed

If Peterson is going into this intending to be open and fair he'll be at a disadvantage. Harris is dishonest and untrustworthy. He misrepresented a parable to an audience he was speaking to as Jesus actually demanding the disciples bring people to him so he could execute them. I can forgive mistakes but stuff like that indicates intentional dishonesty.

Peterson isn't even a theist

Pepeson is a good boy who deserves many tendies.

>who deserves many tendies
All of them.

Kek has been sorted out.

>Jew
>honest

Are you new?

Basically with progress (however that is defined) not much has changed for the common man. The happiness index has not changed, even with all the advances of western civilization (sources in back of book). He argues for technological determinism, in that we are shaped by the technology that surrounds us, thus our sense of success is not really our success but the technological systems progress, which has blinded us to be aligned with it's goals.

There are a few more theses to the book that are too long to type out, but take a look. It is not casual reading, it is dense and fast so keep on your toes.

source?

He said on Steven Crowder that he is a Christian.

> nothingpersonalkid.7z

>the west is busy replacing the white men who built it

>not collapsing

As we progress technologically we are less connected socially in meaningful ways, right?

FUCKING THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We want freedom.

Fuck, you're a low IQ animal.

He says he doesn't believe it is scientifically true, which means he sees it as crowd sourced morality, not literal truth.

He's right.

Harris says whatever will keep him in the good graces of high society. Once I figured this out he was extremely boring. Hillary was supported by racists, funded by the KSA, and innumerable other things that she was more guilty of than Trump, but the 'elites' supported her so fuck logical consistency.

That sounds interesting.

Of course I'm not gonna refute his whole book here, but "not much has changed for the common man" seems suspect.

Over what timescales here? If we're going back 100,000 years, then almost everything has changed for the better.

Have you read The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker?

what really gets me is how closely this mirrors the healthcare debate

Harris wants to repeal and replace the current system but he's not really sure what it would look like- only that it would have all of the benefits of the current system and none of the problems. He's sure we can figure it out though, and it'll be yuge

Peterson wants to protect the current system despite its problems because the absence of a SYSTEM is bad thing. He does tend to ignore the problems with the current system though.

Sounds like a great read from your description.

He said he was Christian on Joe Rogan too, but not before a "well, it's complicated"

He's most likely only Christian in the context that he believes it best expresses a meta-truth about the nature and moral order of humankind.

I HIGHLY doubt he actually believes any of it in the context of Jesus Christ being the literal son of God.

aka he's not really Christian at all

That is an argument he makes in some respects at the end, but being a book on metaphysics he cuts alot of sociological impacts of technology to the last chapter. It is firstly an anthology of the philosophy of technology throughout the ages from Plato to Ellul and Heidegger, analyzed through the lense of his definition of technology. Which takes 40 pages to develope and I read it like a year ago so can't give you a succinct overview. But I highly recommend everyone read it.

He had years of correspondence with Ted Kaczynski and his philosophy is closely aligned with Ted's but with a more academic and dispassionate analysis (i.e. not mailing bombs to people).

>Fuck, you're a low IQ animal.

Well perhaps, but that is neither here nor there.

I was asking for a source. Where does he say that he "doesn't believe it is scientifically true".

>communism kills hundreds of millions of people
>it must have been atheism

reminder no one has ever been killed ever in the history of humanity for atheism

>aka he's not really Christian at all

Agreed

You have to believe Jesus is the son of God to be a Christian right?

That's like, the bare fucking minimum.

Moral relativism is bad because no group of contemporaries are better than stories that often predate history yet whose adherents' progeny is still around (like don't be a fucking degenerate and you'll survive the flood)

Not mailing bombs is a good philosophy.