Peterson caved Sam Harris's ass hole

Peterson caved Sam Harris's ass hole.

Other urls found in this thread:

samharris.org/podcast/item/what-is-true
soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/what-is-true
m.youtube.com/watch?v=sHQ_aTjXObs
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

link?

link to interview?

i dont think it's out yet. OP is a faggot as usual. move along

Jordan Peterson is a religious nutbag

His religious perspective is the only one that makes sense on this entire planet.

>t. godless moron

all men must submit to higher powers. submit to god now or satan later. your choice

...

LINK samharris.org/podcast/item/what-is-true

Be careful it's epistemological nitpicking to death.

You mean, he blathered like a fool and embarassed himself.

>all men must submit to higher powers. submit to santa now or tooth fairy later. your choice

That's how retarded you sound.

t. someone who hasn't listened to a thing the man has said

> MUH universal moral truths

he doesn't argue for universal truths

he argues for new kinds of truths not based on observable facts

What do you think is better societies or communities with shared values and goals or no one agreeing on anything?

fucking sam harris and his crazy ass hypotheticals. how do people take this dude seriously?

funny how you conflate real things, like good and evil, with childhood stories. you seem a bit obsessed with the media you consumed as a kid, maybe you should go to the reddit place where thats acceptable.

soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/what-is-true

He loves using analogies.

nod n arg00mend

Brazil-bro is pointing out that your God is media you consumed as a kid, to harden your psyche from the truths of the world.

...

[autistic metaphysical screeching]

i think i am smart because I use buzz words.

the irony is palpable

>Be careful it's epistemological nitpicking to death.

Goodee.

>if a person held a gun to your head and said to recite the order of presidents in his head, even if it was wrong, would it be true?
>yes
the absolute madman

Proven by evolution.

actually i wasnt exposed to very much religious material as a child outside of old childrens bible tale books my great grandma gave my sister. i only started beliving in christ when i turned around 21 and my brain was developed enough to not need organized religion anymore. gnosticism is the true path in life, god is everything.

you think 'metaphysical' is a buzzword?

No but the faggot matches the description.
too much reddit lately.

well it can be but i think you used it properly.

Sam Harris was a retard

Haven't listened yet but as much as I like Peterson his arguments on morality are on shaky ground. Myths are useful in articulating that which is difficult to articulate otherwise, but they don't contain their own kind of truth. Furthermore, if religion isn't literally true, then you can't choose one (in his case, Christianity) and proclaim it superior to all the rest and say its moral code is objective. At best his argument is that Christianity crowd sourced a refinement of morality. It takes the problem of moral relativism and extends it to a group rather than individuals.

My problem with Harris is I simply don't trust him. He once claimed Jesus told his disciples to bring non-believers to him so he could slay them. Harris dishonestly did this by quoting a parable and making it sound as if Jesus was personally saying what were actually the words of a character in his parable. This was far from an honest mistake or something that could be interpreted broadly. It had to be purposeful. With all the good arguments he could make, that he resorted to this shit signals that he's a fraud not to be trusted.

And I'll listen later but why were they arguing so hard about what is true? It's better to discuss what isn't true and what isn't necessarily true. It's not like we have access to the whole truth of things.

Sam Harris is the worst of the new atheists. Doesn't have the logical facade of Dawkins or the eloquence of Hitchens. All he does is strawman religion and make ad homs, and try to sell the package with social capital.

welcome to arguing with marxists. atheist are untrustworthy just like communists and feminists. they will twist facts and language to fit their undeniably incorrect worldview. they rely entirely on rhetoric and underhanded tactics to 'win' debates.

Muh Atheism

You honestly believe that religious people are stupid? They know everything about atheism (at least the elite do).

Harris is a predictable sort who goes along with whatever the popular consensus is. You can tell he cares about how others perceive him. Everything he does and says seems calculated to keep him in the good graces of high society. Like his support for Hillary Clinton. Maybe it's because he has no free will.

I also don't like his forced placid cadence. He comes across like someone who is trying too hard to sound calm and reasonable.

>Myths are useful in articulating that which is difficult to articulate otherwise, but they don't contain their own kind of truth.
Yes they do. It might not be the literal truth but they still reflect elements of truth.

>Furthermore, if religion isn't literally true, then you can't choose one (in his case, Christianity) and proclaim it superior to all the rest and say its moral code is objective.
Yes you can because Christianity is the religion of the West. Therefore it makes the most sense, for societal stability, that we remember the principles of Christianity which built our society.

"but jordan b-b-but jordan but jordan"

m.youtube.com/watch?v=sHQ_aTjXObs

listening right now. Peterson is legend

shut the fuck up

The religion is the only thing that can unite us against 2,5~3 bill of muslims.

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS?

> religious nutbag
no, peterson is a philosopher.

whats up user? can't tell the difference between philosophy and religion?

here i'll help:
religion is a static version of specific philosophical ideals, packaged up with entertaining stories for retards to lap up.

make any more sense yet?

...

>Yes they do. It might not be the literal truth but they still reflect elements of truth.

That's just a worse way of saying what I already said. They help to articulate ideas that are often difficult to explain. Aesop's fables are a good example. But they are not and can not be based in something outside of what he calls scientific truth. There are truths science is incapable of understanding. Take God for instance. People always ask for evidence of God. The irony of that is that if God exists, everything is evidence of God, it's our inability to recognize it as such that is the problem. In that sense, I do understand believing in truths outside of science, since science is more useful for telling us what isn't true than what is true. And that's why I'm wondering why they spent so much time arguing over truth. I'm assuming Sam Harris was being autistic and stupid but I haven't listened yet.

>Yes you can because Christianity is the religion of the West. Therefore it makes the most sense, for societal stability, that we remember the principles of Christianity which built our society.

That's fine but that isn't really what I've heard from Peterson. His argument is broader than what is best for social stability in the west. That's a utilitarian argument anyway and a great deal of what he considers evil could be argued for on the basis of stability.

Jesus Christ, there are people who believe in objective good and evil, haha, man what the fuck? These guys. Wow. Fucking slaves. What the fuck? What is good? What is evil? You retards. Those things that hurt you or your nation are evil, those things that are beneficial are good. That's it. It's all subjective and it's ok. Motherfucking faggots what's wrong with all of you.

No, because they're well thought out and expansive. If you want to know his beliefs go listen to the man. It's not easily put like he believes in god or heaven because he would just ask you wtf you mean by god and heaven.
However he identifies as a christian.

Peterson is GOAT.

I forgot a sentence in the first part. When Jordan says religion isn't scientifically true, I am assuming he means to say it isn't true in a literal sense. As in they really are just myths and no real events. I see no basis for arguing for their moral superiority if you think they are simply stories, unless you're making a utilitarian argument which he is not.

>He's a Christian.
See, that wasn't too hard, now, was it?

>My problem with Harris is I simply don't trust him. He once claimed Jesus told his disciples to bring non-believers to him so he could slay them.

Holy fuck this. I heard this from him, looked up the quote, and read it without context. Later I used it in an argument with a Christian and looked like a complete idiot. This was many many years ago and I still regret having misrepresented Jesus like that.

I'm going to have to listen to this at least 3 times before I understand what the fuck they're talking about when it comes to truth

> all men must submit to higher powers. submit to santa now or tooth fairy later. your choice

fucking hell user. your about 1/2 way through the middle ages in your mental development.

i'll help:
> If all men must submit to higher powers
> But there are many so called "higher powers" out there
> For example santa or tooth fairy
> How is one to know which is the "higher power" to follow?
> Is it possible that "higher powers" could be broken down into True higher powers and false.
> By what test do we divide them?
> Of the True "higher powers", is it possible that they all have a common motif.
> Is it possible the "higher powers" we see, are mearly mortal reflections of abstract detached "ideals".
> What would these ideals be?
> Is there a cosmic sense of justice?
> ...

sort your life out user. your lack of critical thinking skills will bite you in the ass later on in life.

Yes actually, it is hard because when you see christian you have assumptions about his believes, perspective and probably even intelligence. Chances are the majority of assumptions you'd make about jordan are wrong outside of extremely basic ones. He's more of a philosopher, psychoanalyst and psychologist more than he is a christian

>Those things that hurt you or your nation are evil, those things that are beneficial are good. That's it. It's all subjective and it's ok.

how does that make ANY sense? the things that hurt and help us are VERY objective. clean water, nutritious food, and sturdy shelter help us immensely and there is nothing subjective about that, its a biological fact. killing your fellow man outside of certain cases does nothing good for society, therefore it is bad, and objectively so.

society cant function if everyone is murdering each other and having anal sex in the street. thats the point of the bible. its a strong oral tradition backed by natural spirituality found in non-brain damaged humans. r/atheists are simply incapable of understanding that fact.

I honestly get the feeling Peterson believes Christianity is true. When he was talking to Joe Rogan he said we don't know what the effects of living a life perfectly in line with the truth could have on our health. He had recently responded to a question about the resurrection too. I wondered if he was implying that he believed Jesus actually did resurrect.

Some of the little problems I have with his arguments would make sense if he's hiding the extent of his beliefs to retain credibility.

...

He believes religion and mythology are an expression of ancestral knowledge, important to the survival of groups, encoded in DNA, represented as understandable stories for the societies that pass them on.

I think he believes in an underlying base religion from which all others derive, not any specific example.

i think its hilarious how being a christian in (((academia))) is somehow supposed to be some embarrassing thing. marxism is so deeply rooted in american intellectualism. western society is fucked if we dont stop this atheist nonsense now.

>108262542

>you have assumptions about his believes...
Well, yeah, I assume he believes in a Christian god and most likely in Jesus Christ.

>... perspective and probably even intelligence
Absolutely not.

Depends on the society. The Mongols raped their way across the world and Genghis Khan was, in genetic terms, very successful.

Or assume black widow spiders evolved human level intelligence and their own sort of morality. How would they deal with the act of eating their male mates? Humans are animals too right? And our morality is a product of evolution so it would be ever changing. There's no good argument for objective morality unless you believe in a God who sets those standards.

Your post is good.

>Myths are useful in articulating that which is difficult to articulate otherwise, but they don't contain their own kind of truth
Can you elaborate?

>and proclaim it superior to all the rest and say its moral code is objective.
You can say that it is better then the rest. Its making a value judgment. "i think this is better then the others because..." When you say objective, what do you mean?

>At best his argument is that Christianity crowd sourced a refinement of morality.
I wouldn't say at his best, but this is true. He says something like Christianity is the work of the collective human kind and it has been improved and improved upon over the times so that it has become pretty good.

How many of his lectures have you watched?

Atheists never read the Bible that's the problem.

>peterson is a philosopher.

No, he's a psychologist. You fucking idiot.

Do you not know the difference between psychology and philosopher? Fucking Christ.

>religion is a static version of specific philosophical ideals, packaged up with entertaining stories for retards to lap up.

Philosophy graduate here and you're a complete fucking moron. And completely fucking wrong. Holy fuck you COULD NOT BE ANY MORE FUCKING WRONG IF YOU WANTED TO BE

Clearly you haven't heard of theology then? Clearly you aren't familiar with the fact that Christian theology has significantly changed over hundreds and hundreds of years?

St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Anselm, Immanuel Kant, Descartes, they were all religious and they all had different ideas about religion, and they all moved Christian theology forward.

Keep your fucking mouth shut if you have no idea what you're talking about which very clearly you don't.

*between psychology and philosophy

Fair enough, I'm just accustomed to be surrounded by haters of Christianity who pass them off as lesser people

>No, he's a psychologist.
He is both..

I'm not an atheist, because atheists are just retarded christians ahah. Most of them have same morals and believe in human rights.

You're such a moron, that's really unbelievable, how is it hard to understand that different nations and peoples have different ideas about how they want to achieve all that. Muslims for example have great instructions in the Quran about hygiene and political life and all that shit, that shit works. But you'd all it barbarianism. Dude, I despise all of you fucking retards, muslims, christians, atheists you are fucking brain dead. Can't understand shit.

Christianity is fucking globalism dude, it erases borders between nations, peoples and anything really. Boy, do I despise all of you idiots you don't even know what you're believing.

Anyone who wants to save his race, nation, ethnicity CAN NOT be christian or muslim or whatever. This shit hurts your identity. Wake up, retard.

Psychology and philosophy have many overlapping topics. Ever heard of William James you fucking faggot?

>Harris is a predictable sort who goes along with whatever the popular consensus is
>I also don't like his forced placid cadence. He comes across like someone who is trying too hard to sound calm and reasonable.
Exactly my thoughts user.

honestly calling the spoils of war 'rape' is a bit of a stretch. thats was VERY common amongst many ancient and medieval civilizations.

and like father maxi of critically acclaimed series 'south park' said, "maybe we dont need to worry about what works on psychic black widow world, maybe we should worry about what works for us humans here on earth"

i bet you just got it all figured out huh son, you obviously know enough to assume im 'christian' (whatever you think that means). maybe you should go back to the little white alien website and show them how smart and unspooked you are? we'll be here in the real world maintaining our biology and spirituality through methods used by white men for millennia.

Good post.

>Philosophy graduate
>Whole argument is "wow you are wrong wow"

I think you might be lying my dude.

>Can you elaborate?

Aesop's fables, which I mentioned elsewhere in the topic, are a good simple example. Ever have an idea that is easier to demonstrate than analyze dryly? Stories allow people to reflect on multifaceted and complex ideas.

>Its making a value judgment.

Yeah, but his judgment is an opinion. That's the point. It doesn't fundamentally alter the basic problem.

I've watched probably 15 of videos of his but not the maps of meanings stuff. I like the guy but he can be a bit strange and passionate and weird but I do like him. I think he's well meaning but so long as he doesn't believe religion is literally true then I don't get what he's arguing for. Does he believe in God? If so that would explain his ideas more but I never heard him say he actually does.

I get the wrinkle he's aiming at here. Maybe there is an objective universal truth that religion and mythology helps us discover but that would imply there's a God who instilled it in us. In that case he would have to at least be a deist. This is why I'm wondering how much of his power level he's hiding. It would

maybe he doesnt have to argue with some teenage-minded faggot on a cambodian heroin smuggling chatroom

>Philosophy graduate here
I was just about to make a post to the effect that I always realize I've been taking Sup Forums too seriously when I stumble on a thread of people talking about something I actually know something about (philosophy).
What's your take on this?
Look at someone like for example.
Doesn't the insane level of opinionated ignorance in threads like this just blow Sup Forums's credentials for you regarding all the shit it talks about that you didn't actually study?

the good thing about Sup Forums is the lack of credentials. all opinions are on common ground and its up to YOU to form you own opinions or suffer extreme cognitive dissonance.

>was VERY common amongst many ancient and medieval civilizations.

So you're a moral relativist? If so I have no problem with your position. I think it's silly to focus on whether rape is appropriate or not since the heart of the issue is unaffected by it, but that's fine.

Maybe you explain to me how Christian values are compatible with racialism or nationalism? Isn't Christianity universalist? Aren't God's servants all equal before him?

> with racialism
They aren't.
> nationalism
Christianity doesn't concern itself with statecraft.

> No, he's a psychologist.
Oh jesus user. I know his job. It makes no difference on the man.
According to your logic: Einstein was just a pattern clerk right?

He IS a philosopher, you can tell by the way he speaks, the stories he tells, the emotion he shows. Do you really think he's going through all this for a pay check? please wake up user and see the battle thats going on around you.

> You fucking idiot.

> ...
> I will be brief: your noble son is mad.
> Mad call I it, for, to define true madness,
> What is ’t but to be nothing else but mad?

To know "an idiot" you must be an idiot, no?

> Philosophy graduate here ...
okay okay, clam down... i should have said
> religion is a more static version
to imply religions CAN change.
However, my point still stands, when religion crumbles out of use, philosophy is used to patch the holes or rebuild from scratch to move forward.

> theology
yes, the retarded half cousin of philosophy, and somewhat flawed by definition.
calling it "the science of religion" exposes its weaknesses.

> Keep your fucking mouth shut
no, make me :P
> [[[ TRIGGERED ]]]

> no idea what you're talking about which very clearly you don't.
in your opinion


if he were asked to put them in order.
i personally think he would pick philosopher first then psychologist.

Since Freud, a healthy sense of psychology is a common interest for philosophers.

No he fucking doesn't. Peterson says himself he's a scientist. He just thinks you shouldn't shit on something that serves a darwinist purpose. He calls himself a darwinist for fucks sake and also says Dawkins isn't a darwinist. Listen to all his podcasts

Yes. All children of God are equal before him.
That means a nigger will be punished if he acts like a nigger just as much as a white person will be punished if he acts like a nigger.

The bible is nationalist in tone. I mean, apart from the obvious like the tribes of Israel being chosen. There are specific traits the tribes will have, even Ishmael and Esau's descendants. The idea that different groups have different characteristics is pretty nationalist.

To favor your nation is like favoring your family. It doesn't mean you have to hate everyone else.

Nations still exist separate from each other after the end of the age in biblical prophecy. I'm not sure how people miss the obvious here.

>Christianity doesn't concern itself with statecraft.
I have terrible news

felt more like harris btfo peterson a few times, it was more of a meeting of the minds than anything else though. I appreciate harris and peterson.

> He is both..

> fucking faggot
kek'd

> I think you might be lying my dude

these people get it user?
what's so hard to understand, for a philosophy graduate?

>"the things that hurt and help us are VERY objective. clean water, nutritious food, and sturdy shelter help us immensely"
>all of those things in abundance make us passive and apathetic
>savages without those things are able to destroy civilized nations easily without resistance because people are so comfortable
>no such thing as too much of a good thing?
>struggling/working to obtain a thing is not import, the only thing that matters is the presence of the thing?
>"the very presence of clean water, nutritious food, and sturdy shelter is objectively good"

stay dumb senpai

>Christianity doesn't concern itself with statecraft.

did you just skip over romans or what

>Stories allow people to reflect on multifaceted and complex ideas.
He also says that ideas are better to act out. If you believe something then you are acting it out. The religious truths have to be acted out, and if you do act them out then the results of those actions are most likely going to be positive, or at least such that you can live in this world without suffering your self to pieces. Not because you are acting like "God" wants you to, so that god rewards you, but because the results or consequences of acting in that particular way is often positive. This is the knowledge that are found in religion and myth and why it has been passed down. Myth and religion was something like an attempt of our ancestors to write a manual for life or something. "if you this then the results of that are usually these and these..." If you cheat lie and steal then god is not going to punish you but the people you stole, lied and cheated to most likely are.

Religious stories have these stories of ethical and moral dilemmas and maybe those that where chosen to be preserved where the stories where the character acted in the best way given those circumstances and something which they thought the next generation needed etc.

>Does he believe in God? If so that would explain his ideas more but I never heard him say he actually does.
His definition of God is not like anything else i heard. He defined God in numerous different ways and none of them where supernatural or anything like that. God is something like the highest ideal person, that person that everyone is trying to act like.

> Maybe there is an objective universal truth that religion and mythology helps us discover but that would imply there's a God who instilled it in us
Or maybe the truths are just observed actions and consequences and some beliefs, thoughts and acts lead to certain consequences while others lead to others

Doubt it. Sam Harris is probably the smartest person alive

im saying ITS NOT RAPE, ITS WAR. YOU are the moral relativist here, since you seem to be eating up the feminist concocted 'nu-rape' that is plaguing society today. the suffrage of women is one of the first and biggest dominos the the line of societal collapse. whether its rape used to depend on whether she had a male family member that cared enough to do something about it. in the game of life, sometimes your husband gets murdered and you get 'raped' because your society chooses to burn babies to increase your favor with some horned god.

im just saying that biologically, the bible lays out a framework for sustaining yourself. buttsex is bad for men and women's colons, masturbation is bad for men and women's dopamine systems, and killing another person in cold blood is bad for men and women's mental health. there are SCIENTIFIC STUDIES proving these facts (though some are a bit shaky) and you cant deny these facts. i believe in the christ=god=souls thing and all but i kinda consider myself a 'gnostic' rather than a traditional christian. i've only been to church once and the megachurch vibe freaked me out. i just think the bible is a good book to live by, thats all. it will aid you in your biological goal of spawning and raising children that are capable of spawning and raising their on children (and so on and so on).

LMAO

Harris can't understand the is/ought dichotomy and was for Hillary.

>He calls himself a darwinist for fucks sake and also says Dawkins isn't a darwinist.
Could you elaborate on this?

You are not answering the question, my man.
Look, the concept of equal rights, of natural rights is inherently christian, it is based on belief, because there is no way to back up the existence of natural rights, or that everyone should have equal rights, with anything. People assume everyone has rights. Like a right to live. But who granted it? You feel me?

So, a fucking shiptar or a turk, can come to your country, get a serb girl and fuck her? Or be equal to you? Is that what you're talking about, bre? Like, it's not about behavior, do you feel like you wanna keep being a serb?

My man, what's there to miss? You haven't answered me. The result of christian morals being the morals of modern europeans is the concept of human rights. And it's bullshit honestly. What if I tell you that marxism is based on these same values? That your modern day leftists, that ''fight for justice'' fight for values that are pretty christian? I mean, really, look at it from a different angle, and yeah, bruh, you haven't answered the question. ''Bible is nationalist in tone" come on man, really?

He is a Jew. He was against Drumpf