So does he believe in God or not?

So does he believe in God or not?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bz3dsLkP8vE
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

yes

Got a vid that is

Watch his talk called Strengthen the Individual: A counterpoint to Post Modern Political Correctness. Also watch the follow up Q&A. He is asked about how we can know that the Logos exists and works the way he says it does. This doesn't answer your question directly, but I think it's related to your question.

...

He believes in God in that believing in God is evolutionarily advantageous.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

In a video of him recently he said, verbatim, "I'm not an atheist anymore."

Nonetheless, he does like to be elusive about his exact beliefs.

Don't think so.

he changed the normal definition of God to convince himself that he believes in God

He believes in things he doesn't speak about openly, too. He took psilocybin.

>normal definition of God
Enlighten me on what this is.
>nobody has ever believed in fedora straw god
Color me surprised

...

I alone can answer your question...

If mankind dies out, then everything he believes is not true.

youtube.com/watch?v=bz3dsLkP8vE

God exists, and that's that, bucko.

It's not lupus, OP.

He IS god.

Yes, neurologically speaking, everyone believes in god.

If he does, it's clearly not in the conventional God of the Bible. In his interview with Joe Rogan he literally said "like the stories in the Genesis, they are obviously not scientific theories". In my opinion, he's just an atheist at heart who draws morality lessons from Christian myths.

Your mind is flawed in this case then

No substance to this post

Plenty of greek philosophers also asserted tht the logos exists and then said plainly that they were atheists

BASICALLY YOU ARE BEING JEWED

The Logos just literaly means the rational guiding law or principle, or person of the world

It can be the meaning of life
a bunch a rules
a machine
a person with infinite power
ect
It doesnt matter it just makes the world tick in an orderly fashion

AAAnd the idea that the Logos is a person was a new idea

the stoics had a hindue thing going on with the logos so that doesnt count

Christians and Jews were the ones that really pushed the idea that it was an actually fucking Deity

>It doesnt matter
Well, the Christian faith starts and ends with the belief that Jesus died for your sins. For Christians at least, this is very important.

No it doesnt start there it starts at genesis you moron
What the hell you think is on the first page of the bible anyways

And IT DOESNT MATTER
the LOGOS DOESNT HAVE TO BE GOD

IT CAN BE A FUCKING CAT SHAPED COMPUTER COMPUTING EVERYTHING


PETERSON IS NOT A CHRISTIAN OR EVEN A THEIST

Can we get him to run for office?

Any leaf bros actually in contact with him?

I know it starts with Genesis... I didn't literally mean it starts and ends with the aforementioned, how did you miss that?

And I said FOR CHRISTIANS the belief that Jesus died for your sins, the belief in God, is FUNDAMENTAL.

Do you disagree with that?

Who cares?
Peterson should sort himself out before he starts lecturing others.
Practice what you preach Mr Peterson.

YOU FUCKING DUMBASS

MY faith begins with God making the earth
How the fuck do I justify Jesus dying for anyone if you dont state first that God created the earth?

This is first order logic you fuckign "rationalist"
I am being very technical here

YOU MUST START WITH GENESIS

NO ITS NOT FUNDAMENTAL
ITS SECONDARY

1. GOD MADE EVERYTHING
2. GOD ...
3. ....
4....
....
Nth. Jesus Died for your sins

Is that the set of RedLetterMedia's Half in the Bag? It sure looks like it

It's Dogmatic but not a fundamental
Fundamentals you start with the most basic truths and then work down from there

Oh and Peterson is an atheist

You can believe in the existence of the logos and be an atheist

In fact most Greeks were

he believes in himself, duh

If you watched his videos and you might be less of a fucking autist

Do you feel the chronology of the Bible determines what is fundamental vs. what is secondary?

Give an example of fundamental vs. secondary beliefs in the Christian belief, in your opinion.

Nice trips but this is not about Chronology at all Doctor Peterson

I just told you I am ordering things from first order logic
So this is order of X Causing Y Causing Z ect

so
1. God made everything
2. God gave Adam and Eve the choice
3. Adam and Eve choose death and degeneracy
4. ..
5...
... Moses, Israel, old covenant and so on ect
Nth Jesus Died for everyone's sins

Fundamental I mean the first things
so

1. X or Y
2. Not Y
Therefore
3. Y

3. is secondary from order of logic
It is still important
But you can't have 3 without 1 or 2

I and 2 are needed or you are a heretic

Sorry I mean

Therefore
3. X

Interesting points.

I still don't feel comfortable saying some are fundamental vs. secondary. I mean, could you believe everything up until (Nth-1), not believe Jesus died for your sins, and still be a Christian? I guess is what I'm getting at.

Yes, he understands that "God" is a pronoun for the underlying order of the universe.

>inb4 autistic Christians sperging out

If you are not comfortable then you should not be in the field of theology
Since thats all it is.

No you are no longer a christian if you deny the prior assumptions and what follows from that

Denying any of that while asserting the final conclusion means you are no longer a christian

This is a very legal definition of what a heresy is but it allows me to stake who ever I want on fire by proving it ina court of law and no one can deny it

ITS GREAT

Do you interpret everything in the Bible literally?

>heh it says here you deny statement 18?
>yes rabbi

>INTO THE FIREYOU GO YOU FILTHY GOY

KEK

>literally
>allegorically

Plainly little goy
I read it plainly

I chose option #3

People have NO RESPECT for the Roman Catholic Church

You think we just threw any shlomo in to the pit

NO

We had beauracracy
We had paper work
We had lawyers
You had to get it stamped
You got interrogated by HANS

What are you even trying to say, you spastic?

>denying knowledge of foresaid statement
>conclusion follows that you have plausible deniability of crime of heresy

Nah I don't buy it