The topic of the formal debate is the validity of myths as legitimate or illegitimate foundation for social...

the topic of the formal debate is the validity of myths as legitimate or illegitimate foundation for social organization. Who would win, /pol?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1w7TQ1KqaBY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waking_Up:_A_Guide_to_Spirituality_Without_Religion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
serendipity.li/wot/aa_flts/aa_flts.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=O0Ju0eNZp30
youtube.com/watch?v=2tjn9-qTjVE
dcclothesline.com/2015/05/02/now-boeing-refuses-to-release-email-exchange-between-them-and-hillary-clinton/
nationalcenter.org/2015/04/27/boeing-refuses-to-disclose-any-boeing-state-department-clinton-foundation-email-correspondence/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

crying frog man

All societies have a foundational myth that constrains culture and shapes development.
The purpose of debating this as legitimate or illegitimate is moot. It exists. You can't get away from the fact that we as social animals have hard wiring in place that lends us towards these things. We all have an innate capacity to be story tellers, to listen to stories, just the same we have an innate disposition towards music and singing. These two things often overlapped, some of the most pervasive stories were put to song.

In a way Peterson is right when he tries to find meaning by overlapping numerous different stories. His problem is claiming that hes finding truth, and failing to actually address the real foundational myths of our society.

Hitchens was just a Atheist NeoCon.

Hitchens is more well-read but I think Peterson has a better grasp of science, at least when it comes to his chosen field.

Peterson would probably argue along the lines of "They believe X, and the result is Y. We should care about Y, because X doesn't really matter."

While Hitchens would probably argue that if the foundation is rotten the entire structure is suspect.

But he's dead so it doesn't matter.

Hitch wouldn't have a problem with Myths, only when they become Religion.

People matter long after they're dead when they leave an ideological legacy. Though I have plenty of problems with Peterson I can recognize that he'll be remembered long after hes dead. The cultural impact he has already had is immense. He may not be remembered as a significant thought leader, but hes definitely a footnote of modernity.
Hitchens however left behind nothing of real value. Hes was a mouth piece of the contrarian Atheist vein which is still around. Like a hydra it doesn't matter what mouth espouses it. What else did he do in his autumn years? Support the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Everyone recognizes this as grave mistake of US foreign policy. Hitchens has no legacy.
His Christian brother on the other hand can frame himself as sort of a tragic hero for trying to remain faithful during the decline of society. When society outgrows its pathological apathy and begins to believe again he'll be remembered for holding his ground.

Hitch was a Trotskyist international socialist scum for most of his life, and only begrudgingly admitted that Marxism had its problems after he himself finally watched peasants starve in the streets in easter Europe. Somehow I don't think that this ego-maniac intellectual will have kind words to say about myths. They'll probably fall between "harmless superstition" and "dangerous delusion", but not meant for the likes of him of course. Dialectical materialism baby.

Peterson is basically a cult leader at this point. I really liked his series on the bible since im a lapsed catholic, but he is really saying the same shit over and over again essentially selling products. And before you say muh capitalism, as a clinical psychologist sure he can charge for stuff that betters your life but I need to put the breaks when he starts selling limited edition rugs for 2 grand. Thats a charelton selling holy relics. I listened to him debate Harris on truth. I dont like Harris but fuck Peterson just rambled saying nothing to frame everything to support is religion of "truth" He is really dead set that he knows truth or something which is delusional. Its like he has no academic respect for others at this point. He goes a debates normie new castors who he can just mop the floor with linguistically as blood sport to feed his cult. I dunno about this guy.

Sam Harris likes to argue that you can use reason and logic to deduce truth, or at least something that for all intents and purposes is equally as useful as truth.
Peterson tries to argue that we can find truth in synchronicity, but he can't actually define what truth is.
That debate between the two of them was a compete embarrassment for Peterson, and thats a shame because Harris isn't an intellectual fortress like leftists think he is. His position if full of cracks and flaws.

You're right that theres something off about Peterson. He loves making colorful and verbose statements that have no factual value. Everyone is capable of emulating the way he speaks, but nobody is really thinking about it an analyzing it. He'll say things like
>and thats the think about X, it likes to Y
>and thats no joke
>and heres the thing about that
>because thats what it does

He presents totally subjective opinions as facts to support an initial premise which isn't necessarily a factual one. He asks the audience a positive question to engage them afterwords. As in he'll make a statement and follow it up with "Right?" Hes asking the audience to agree and this encourages the viewer to receive the message favorably.
This way of speaking is persuasiveness. The author of Dilbert speaks about this a lot, and he practices it himself. I don't believe Peterson is doing this subconsciously, I don't believe its just his normal speech patterns. Given his extensive work in psychology I believe he does this all intentionally, and thats a big part in why he has this irrational and overzealous cult following.
Hes a manipulator and doing so intentionally.

Social sciences is shit anyway so in a honest debate Hitchens would always win because he would just be honest about the irrelevance of whatever Peterson says.

I think Peterson defined truth really well
he clearly stated he was talking about the Darwinian pragmatic truth
Sam Harris argues that we have access to the "objective reality"
Jordan Peterson argues that the way we see reality is a result of natural selection
here's a good take on the subject
youtube.com/watch?v=1w7TQ1KqaBY

This would only make sense if you are convinced by Harris' barrage of autistic thought experiments. For an admitted atheist he really strolls across the is/ought barrier without a care in the world. Sam might like talking about "objective" reality but he's not discussing science, he's referring to pure Reason. You call JBP manipulative (he is) without batting an eye at Sam's "CAN YOU AT LEAST AGREE WITH?" rationality. Given Sam's extensive work in autism I believe he does all this intentionally to keep the conversation within the domain of his carefully controlled logical experiments.

Yes very manipulative speaker. Real down home folksy wisdom persona. He isn't aggressive. Very disarming. I find his cadence hypnotic. After a few minutes my brain shuts off and I really dont know what he is saying. When I come to it seems its the same shit like being at church, and thats the thing really you need to not worry about protecting yourself against outside forces eh, clean your own room just accept the world for what it is and try your best. He also has a proclivity to use the same words over and over again and thats the thing.

Folksy? Gerry Spence is folksy.

Peterson would absolutely destroy Hitchens.
I like Hitchens, even though he's Marxist scum, he has some decent opinions - but he is clearly in the morally inferior position having been retarded enough to identify as Marxist.
Not even an argument, if you think that's victory you're retarded. Better and far more influential thinkers than Hitchens were against religion and the only thing we've found from that path, as was warned to us a century ago, was a nihilistic cosmopolitan world searching for novelty.

That isn't to say religion is required, or that it should set the standard, but it isn't something we should haphazardly throw out every facet of because we are living in the garbage bin of where that takes us, the world Hitchens believes in.

Peterson, while I don't agree with him on everything either, is far beyond Hitchens in that regard. Absolutely destroys his Marxist understanding of the world by recognizing the importance of Christianity as a facet of Western civilization and reinvigorating the myths that surround it in a way where they retain application without actually needing to believe it to gain utility.

So we gonna argue the meaning of words game? How ironic. I think I communicated the idea I was trying to convey. Also he raises his voice at the end of every sentence. Its not an Alberta thing. Its a JP thing.

Both Hitchens would maul this leaf in an instant.

Neither

Peterson's loose definition of truth isn't academic or concrete. Its a convenient one, and its a feel good one.
Peterson's preferred method is to make a lot of feel good statements that are easy to agree with. This is luring you in to casting off your critical thinking when he floats outright fallacious conclusions in front of you.

I have no problem calling Harris a manipulator, I just presume that everyone already agrees on this point. The man evades honest discourse like an eel slipping around a JAV film set.
The issue is that Harris despite being a huge champion of the left is still criticized by the left. He isn't a cult leader who commands near God like worship from his audience. Peterson has this. Peterson works in the field of psychology, and he knows that hes manipulating a susceptible and mentally fragile audience into dogmatic overzealous adoration. His fanbase cannot take any criticism of him whatsoever.
The target audience of each of these people is a key component.

I love the fact that you chose the word "proclivity." Top tier subtle humor in that last sentence.
He absolutely is a disarming figure. When he was first starting to get big attention that was something a lot of people noted about him. His whole persona is very easy to digest.

>He isn't a cult leader who commands near God like worship from his audience.
Are you serious right now? Hold old are you exactly? He has been known as one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse (dawkins, hitch, dennet) ever since fedoras started sperging out all over the internet, at least as far back as 2007. You could even see his fans come out of the woodworks when the JBP debates were happening. Besides JBP isn't only interested in winning debates but is open about wanting to change people. His "tell the truth" schtick is also manipulative, but what are you gonna do? I think the dude's a cult leader mostly because our world is a barren wasteland of ideas right now.

>clean your own room just accept the world for what it is
That's never actually what he said though.
The entire point of saying "clean your room," is that disfunctional, disorderly fucking losers of the left(and some illiterate far right fucktards who were offended by this statement because it hit to close to home despite not being dirrected at them) are always trying to enforce some drastic change in the world to make it in the way they want it to be yet they can't even make up their rooms.

The other point of it is that its the first step toward being somebody others should listen to. That if you can beautify your own world in the way you want to see it then you can begin to step outside it and bring about that change.

Saying it meant "accept how the world is," is exactly the opposite of what was meant.

then you're stuck in a mind loop because the definition of truth is subject to itself

Daily reminder

I'm 32, and I've been balls deep in the internet for a very, very long time. I'm well aware for the LARPy four horsemen thing, I remember when Atheism+ fags were babbling about it and spreading it around.
None of these people were worshiped like Peterson is. Fedora tippers loved to sing their praises, but they were also constantly debating their positions among themselves. Their word wasn't just taken as divine truth. Hitchens and Dawkins both have always had contingents of Atheists in the community who abhor them.
The way that reddit obsessed millennials worship Peterson isn't similar to how Atheist communities view any of their big figureheads.

>peterson teaches his follower to shut down arguments by saying clean your room
the guy who made these posts is a literal retard

Whoa. So this is the power of white nationalism....
I mean...
STOP TALKING SHIT ABOUT PETERSON!!!! HE BTFO'S THE LEFTISTS AND ESS JAY DUBLE EUGHS !!!!!! HE IS /OURGUY/!!!!!! YOU'RE JUST A SHILLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They're both zionist neocon shills, who cares.

Um, the one that's not dead?

Well I have to disagree with you then. I still believe that fedoras were and are the most insufferably smug retards that ever lived on the internet, and no JBP fans get even close. Their word WAS divine truth, especially when aimed at the Christians they all hate from the bottom of their hearts. Their subreddit was such a disgusting circle jerk of Enlightenment that everybody stood back and watched in awe. I'm getting the feeling though that you are a little partial to those Atheist communities, since it seems to me their blatant hero worship is as obnoxious as it is obvious. Anyway the four horsemen were there way before Atheism+ ever existed, and the euphoric enlightenment of Skepticism and Rationalism was started by these atheists.

For all his ideas, Peterson has the stuttering in-eloquence of a pissed Irishman with palsy at the pub on payday. At the best of times, he is borderline unwatchable. A clever philosopher? Sure. A skilled orator? Christ no.

Hitchens would have an absolute field day tearing him to shreds for sport.

You're joking right? People like Hitchens and Dawkins have been dicksucked so fucking hard that it created smarmy holier than thou fedora tippers who do nothing but shit in the faces of Christians that don't actually do anything to them and this is a big problem. I can appreciate both of these figures but I'm also not going to deny that anti-Christian rhetoric has created a lot of shitty fucking people who treat their lack of belief in a god as much as a religion as if they would have. These people religiously reference their patron saints of anti-Christianity daily.

>Who would win, /pol?
It's like the tale of two wolves

the one who's in bed with the jews

Nice bait.

>Its a convenient one, and its a feel good one. Peterson's preferred method is to make a lot of feel good statements that are easy to agree with. This is luring you in to casting off your critical thinking when he floats outright fallacious conclusions in front of you
this itself is a feel good truth statement
you cannot demonstrate it, in a way that it rules out all of the different possible interpretations
but you choose it because it feels good, because it is coherent with your other beliefs

I'm actually not a fan of Atheists at all. I'm a Catholic and still maintain my faith.
Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and the old fag no one cares about anymore never presented themselves as self help gurus. Peterson does this. His whole "clean your room" schtick is appealing to mentally damaged millennials who haven't gotten their lives together. Thats why he has this fatherly internet persona, hes a surrogate father figure to these kids.

These Atheists were trying to academically argue their premise that stayed within the realm of academic discussion. They actually debated theologians and famous Christian professors. Peterson isn't doing this.

>this itself is a feel good one truth statement
Its a description of a persuasive speaking technique that Peterson intentionally employs.

You should ask yourself why you feel compelled to defend this man on the internet instead of actually critically receiving his statements.

>defend this man on the internet
He was just pointing out what you were doing.
I tried to actually have some discussion with you but my posts are ignored because they weren't "feel good" enough for you. AKA confirming your biases.

Who cares.

Peterson just wants fame based on what I've seen of him.
Make a thread perhaps when you find someone who actually changes the world rather than bloody talks about it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waking_Up:_A_Guide_to_Spirituality_Without_Religion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
I'd also add that these are self help works.

You made one single post quoting me and I haven't responded to it yet.
You're just outting yourself as a shill when you get butthurt like this.

If you can't see the difference between some Atheists thinking they're intellectually superior because their favorite eceleb does well in debates, and tens of thousands of misguided youth claiming that a psychologist is literally saving the world, then you're woefully dishonest.

Well yeah the self-help thing is kind of creepy, but I don't think that there's anything wrong with that per se. It doesn't just appeal to mentally damaged millennials but also to those who already hate the alternative leftist version of fuck-all morality. He also has a Jungian theory of psychology and religion that is more elaborate than anything Hitchens ever came up with, and Dawkins is completely embarrassing when it comes to human nature. All of them spent so much of their time in public debates with "Christian theologians" as you say, only to mostly mock and condemn them. Peterson isn't debating academics as much as he could, but he's involved in the culture war and honestly believes that his politics will be good for the world. These political "leaders" always get a dumb cult following and JBP turns out to be exceptionally good at it. Even if there are lost millennials who need a father, there is something to be said for giving them one (Christianity?). You can't tell a manipulator from sincerity in this way, and to my mind his insistence on family above all is a good sign he's not interested in a cult. The cultish aspects come from criticism about his politics, cause nobody really disagrees that "cleaning your room" is a good idea. On the other hand, Harris and his cohorts simply love the idea of a godless materialistic universe where the best we can hope for is this sea of hardcore individualist skeptics. They only pay lip service to Christian aesthetics or morals, and still attribute their very existence to simple meme evolution. Also as a final note, it's really quite impossible to argue against your charge of "he's manipulative".

He says Trump is a really smart guy.

...

>try to have an honest discussion
>Y-YOURE JUST A SHILL DEFENDING YOUR LEADER
This is really pathetic. You can't even formulate a single argument that isn't just a long string of compounding straw-men.

>Rolls sleeves up
>Not even past the elbow

Subhuman

Because I agree with him and you seem too since you're using his definition of Truth to make truth statements

>Implying that the fat slob Hitchens is anything other than a glorified Neo-con

WAKE UP AND STOP BEING SLAVES

Neither of the two.

It bears being said that Peterson is also an Atheist. I have a feeling that he may be agnostic and have some vague Deist leanings, but hes identified himself as an Atheist.
One of the things I found particularly interesting about his Biblical series is that he doesn't actually believe in God. He'll take these Biblical stories, deconstruct them, claim there is meaningful symbolism in the, but he doesn't believe they're divinely inspired. His way of removing elements of stories and totally ignoring their context is awfully disingenuous. To ignore the explicit text and subtext of a book while only cherry picking a few convenient elements as proof that it holds some vague esoteric truth is bizarre no matter how you approach the subject.
This sort of thing should be viewed critically rather than just taken on face value. It find it incredibly odd that Christian fans of his eat this up instead of calling it out as heresy.

You made a single post at me, I didn't respond to it fast enough, then you immediately cry about me ignoring you.
You're a shill. You're not trying to have an honest discussion. You are one of these brain washed millennials defending self help savior internet daddy.

Calling people brainwashed babies isn't a good defense against legitimate counter-arguments to what you asserted. It's just projection you massive stupid faggot. You write a lot of garbage and say absolutely nothing. Your whole response to the other user hinges on trying to convince him that Peterson is a heretic because he discusses meaning in Christianity without believing in God. Revealing your own zealotry and blind idiocy that was a part of what I'd been discussing all along.

You are exactly why people like Hitchens and Dawkins made such a following mocking Christians to begin with, because nobody likes people like you.

Do his Christian fans really eat it up though? I have the feeling that there are untold numbers of "Christians" who are not red-pilled in the slightest, so they view the bible's stories as somewhat allegorical already. They can't pick out heresy like that, they're happy enough that someone is willing to take their stories seriously. His brand of Jungian analysis is very postmodern in nature, you're right about that, and obviously heretical. I think he's not so much an Atheist (though strictly true) as he is a full-blown Deist. To him there is no essential difference between religious myths and Disney cartoons, since they come from the same meme battleground that humans have been working on.

The man read his Nietzsche and like the original is trying his best to transcend his nature, but doesn't know where to turn. So in his confusion he turns to the Logos, the part of Christianity that inspires him most, and applies it even to Christianity itself, seeing it as a product of the Logos over time. Well, I wish the man luck but not even Nietzsche could figure out what his uberman should look like, and the liberal "market place of ideas" will always remain infested with retardation. Though I'd like to give the man the benefit of the doubt since going off his book he could be open to Traditionalists like evola or Christian writers.

>now a response from Christopher Hitchens
>camera swings to skeleton with ragged strips of rotted flesh hanging off it
>...
>...
>...
I get that not everyone likes Jordan Peterson but I think he can probably win a debate against a dead man

>Who would win, /pol?
The sun made of ice.

>bears being said that Peterson is also an Atheist
he's not
he got a different understanding of God is but a there is a very strong case to be made that his definition of god is what the people who wrote the Bible had in mind, as opposed to how religious people understand God today

I called you out for being brain washed cultist because you're clearly acting like one.
Again, the posts are right there. You made a single post at me, I didn't respond to it fast enough, so you got butthurt and started attacking me. You're making it painfully clear that you're emotionally invested.
I'm just being dry and presenting my opinions, you on the other hand are visibly aggravated.

Sort yourself out.

They're definitely eating it up. Its actually become a bit of an issue in religious discussion forums around the web. Theres been an uptick in the past 6 months of people who bring up the sort of reductionist comparisons like were the basis of the movie Zeitgeist. People who see scripture itself as having no value but to line up with some other story to reveal a sort of higher truth that isn't the scripture itself.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with viewing stories as allegorical, specific books and stories in the Bible are in fact allegory. Theres not much debate about this unless you're talking to an American Evangelical, they tend to view everything as literal. The issue is in ignoring the full context that these things are presented in.
When you cherry pick things in this manner you can make absolutely anything fit your narrative. I have no problem with an Atheist stating they see certain things in the Bible as conveying a useful moral message, secular humanists have done so for a very long time, I take fault with this deconstructionist approach specifically because Peterson claims hes finding truth.

He could be making a much more clear cut argument by taking these things all in context, but that wouldn't be nearly as persuasive. It wouldn't make him seem as important for revealing this esoteric higher truth. There is always the element of ego in his presentations, and thats incredibly obvious from the way his audience is engaged. Its not the ideas hes presenting, its him personally.

>Its a description of a persuasive speaking technique that Peterson intentionally employs.
no, that's just your interpretation of what's happening

>I called you out for being brain washed cultist
Says the Christian zealot who 'literally can't even' at the idea of someone being sympathetic toward Christianity while simultaneously not practicing it.
>all the rest of that shit
Pure rage and irrational tantrum throwing. You STILL haven't even addressed the fact that I've addressed to you. The culture created by people like Hitchens and Dawkins and what massive anti-Christian figures they'd become. Really, all you'd done is justify their work in calling Christians retarded by being a caricature of the type of people who they paint all Christians as being.

user, look at your posts. Look at mine.
I'm not the one upset here. You're sperging out like a child.

Selfish gene isn't self help, waking up is barely (all it is just stating that you could be spiritual without believing in religion).

>Its actually become a bit of an issue in religious discussion forums around the web.
Could you be a little more specific by way of example? I doubt that any Orthodox circles are threatened by the man. Also the uptick of JBP-style reductionist "Jungian myth" analysis might come from those cultural Christians that are interested in joining some denomination, so like the insufferable reddit faggot they are they don't lurk and just jump straight in with their arguments and facts.

>There is absolutely nothing wrong with viewing stories as allegorical
This is some very dangerous and unstable ground to be walking on. The difference between hubristic deconstruction and sincere study is impossible to make, and relies on the person's own judgment of himself. In fact I would say that the entire idea of adapting bible stories to a modern context is an exercise in Talmudic deconstruction.

Also secular humanists are really just Atheists in disguise my guy, I really have no respect for such people. They want to have their cake and eat it too, and they go around loudly proclaiming they happen to agree with Christian morality by having assessed it with their mighty intellect alone. Yes anything can fit your narrative if you cherry-pick, but this is MUCH WORSE among Atheists than among people like JBP who at least acknowledge the bible as almost divinely inspired due to the longevity of its ideas. You keep coming back to him being manipulative yet don't give Atheists the same treatment, and I don't understand why. Would it be more accurate to say that Atheists are more proficient at hubris? You really seem to have a strange soft spot for Atheists given that you're a Catholic.

I like formal debates

It’s like boxing but with your brain instead

What’s funny is that debating isn’t always about the facts, sometimes it’s just a clash of personalities. Like the 2016 debates, often there wasn’t even any debating going on. It was just trump telling everybody that he has a big dick and the whole world can fuck itself, which won him every debate

Another recent one was Roosh debating Anika on baked Alaska’s show. That was a huge redpill.

Anika was actually making points and proving Roosh wrong, but he just sat there mocking her and telling her she’s wrong because she’s a woman. He actually looked like the victor

because you're being a hypocrite
because you're hallucinating some fantasies about JP being a cult leader
while trying to present yourself as an advocate for "objective rational(tm) nonfeels truth" at the same time

>and I don't understand why.
Because he doesnt suck someone's dick for being a false prophet of his religion.

Angry-fedora-posting isn't as fun as it used to be aussie. Take your smugness elsewhere.

There have been probably hundreds of threads on a couple big Catholic forums about people bringing up Peterson and Biblical truth. It seems like a lot of secular Christians and agnostic types are wanting to explore religion more in depth and their only real primer is what Peterson is saying.
It definitely is the reddit type, theres no question about it. It becomes a problem because they think they have something concrete and they're capable of then understanding the rest of the scripture because they continue to apply this some reductionist logic. It creates pointless arguments because these redditors think they're absolutely right and they're incapable of accepting the fact that they might be wrong because Peterson apparently can't be wrong about anything.

Allow me to correct myself: There is nothing wrong with taking explicit Biblical allegory as allegorical. I don't support the view that prophetic scripture or poetry should be reduced to just a metaphorical tool.
I'm aware that humanists are just Atheists and Agnostics, but a lot of them are willing to admit that the New Testament teaches moral lessons where other Atheists dismiss it entirely. Maybe I do have a soft spot for them because I think they could come to see the light one day. I understand that faith is a difficult thing to grasp when you're brought up in a world that tells you everything can be viewed through the lens of empiricism.
I suppose its a bit of having respect for the enemy general. When people can be honest about their positions I can understand why they hold it.

>It seems like a lot of secular Christians and agnostic types are wanting to explore religion more in depth and their only real primer is what Peterson is saying.
That sounds like a perfect description for the kind of reddit locusts that swarm some new community thinking believing their good intentions and manners should make other people welcome them with open arms. They are STILL the same old insufferable fedora faggots that have learned nothing, since everything they've ever heard tells them that they are capable of judging reality and themselves. Like
>I understand that faith is a difficult thing to grasp when you're brought up in a world that tells you everything can be viewed through the lens of empiricism.
The whole point of these Atheists is that they already believe in a great number of things that they did not reason themselves into, but received from society. Despite this they maintain they are individuals and skeptical, rational and reasonable, and in so doing claw back 100% of the judgment over morality. The weaker among them might proceed to delegate this judgment to Reasoned theories, like universal moral concepts in a darwinian sense and other retardation. Until they realize that the essence of Christian faith is to SERVE an authority that is infinitely wiser than you, they will never understand. They will keep approaching both religions and their texts with an à la carte attitude. The worst form of this is when they become polytheistic pagan LARPers, a visible Frankenstein abominations that they themselves stitched together from others' most sacred ideals.

>When people can be honest about their positions I can understand why they hold it.
See, my problem with Atheists of all kinds (including pagan larpers and Jungians) is that they simply don't have the humility to try and admit/understand how they don't know the first thing about the faithful. They don't even understand how someone can serve, since they will maintain "it's your choice"

>think they're absolutely right and they're incapable of accepting the fact that they might be wrong
The irony behind this statement made me realize Christ was wrong because his followers are this stupid. I have now chosen an alternative reform Judaism.

Its essentially a more modern take on the old "Why can't I just be a good person" argument. They want to pick and choose things that they like while just rejecting or ignoring others. Its a pretty bad precedent to set because their own personal ego is always going to be involved. What passages and story elements a person cherry picks is always going to be influenced by their own dispositions and lifestyle. This sort of view attacks and attempts to invalidate the basis of the faith, its not much different from Critical Theory in society at large. Undermine the base premise of something and slowly dismantle it.
Its hard for me to see someone who constantly complains about neo Marxists then essentially applies Critical Theory to religion as genuine.

>they don't know the first thing about the faithful
>they will maintain "it's your choice"
Isn't the entire point of "faith" that it is, in fact, a choice. You -choose- to believe that the Hebrew prophet has risen, fulfilled the Jewish prophecy and became the Jewish Messiah, Jesus, King of the Jews. The choice you make, in Christian mindset, is passed down from God himself, who allows people, in his agape sense of love for people, to not be "good Christians" and "burn for eternity."

I actually agree with that assessment completely, and I would go even further than
>pretty bad precedent
Especially to a Christian it should be clear that this kind of intellectual hubris is if not the primary human sin (pride) then at least close to the top. There's nothing wrong with trying to figure out how to be a good person, but there's everything wrong with believing you yourself get to be the judge of that on your own or in your echo chamber. It's also very wrong to believe that such considerations can be delegated to Reason™ or Empiricism™ like so many people do. But like I said before, I think that JBP is ware of his postmodern methods in dealing with religion, and it doesn't sit well with him. But despite trying his best he simply can not conceive the mental framework that makes someone faithful, and probably unconsciously resists it as more "slave" stuff like Nietzsche said. He doesn't want to be like this and he hates the neo-marxists for doing it to everything else. At least he's not like the "cultural Christians" who claim the can handle the truth while the plebs should wallow in their opium of the masses. That also tends to be the attitude of those secular humanist Christians, who have no problem taking morality lessons from Christians and then turning around to call them backwater bigots when their precious liberalism is challenged too much. These people are not interested in religious conversion or even someone to follow, it's more narcissism.

No, you are another one of those fedoras that has no real interest in understanding how other people's minds work.
>You -choose- to believe
Yeah you certainly chose to believe the things you believe, like how you couldn't resist throwing in that little snark at the end. If you actually wanted a conversation then i'm sorry cause I don't have the energy.

>like how you couldn't resist throwing in that little snark at the end. If you actually wanted a conversation then i'm sorry cause I don't have the energy.
Are you denying that our Hebrew Jewish baby Jesus, King of the Jews, is our Jewish lord and Savior? This heresy.
Its essentially a more modern take on the old "Why can't I just be a hardcore star wars fan" argument. They want to pick and choose movies that they like while just rejecting or ignoring others. Its a pretty bad precedent to set because their own personal canon is always going to be involved. What passages and story elements a person cherry picks is always going to be influenced by their own dispositions and lifestyle. This sort of view attacks and attempts to invalidate the basis of the cult of George Lucas, its not much different from Critical Theory in fanbases at large. Undermine the base premise of something and slowly dismantle it. Its hard for me to see someone who constantly complains about hipsters then essentially applies Critical Theory to Star Wars as genuine.

Kill yourself you idiot.

give it up, user, you got btfo. you sound like a child.

Narcissism is a good way to put it. What is narcissism other than a perverted and misplaced pride?
I've wondered about Peterson's deeper motivations, if he actually has any, its part of why I wonder if hes an agnostic or deist. A lot of what he gets at is basically Gnostic fanfic, but hes presenting it as if its rooted in reason. His audience is convinced that what hes presenting is just totally logically sound and factual.
I wonder if he really does hate Marxism and all its fruits. I wonder if he doesn't just hate certain fringe elements of it like the pronoun SJWs. A lot of people adhere to these modern progressive values and simply dislike one or two of the extremes, but if they're presented another idea system other than progressive Liberalism they reject it entirely.

To me it seems like a lot of the people speaking out against these social ails would be perfectly happy to live in the 1990s forever. It seems like they don't hate the root of the mater.

To be fair, it’s essentially a more modern take on the old "Why can't I just be a Rick and Morty fan" argument. They want to pick and choose episodes that they like while just rejecting the very high IQ to understand it. Its a pretty bad precedent to set because their own feeble grasp of theoretical physics is always going to go over a typical viewers head. What of Rick’s nihilistic ouotlook, deftly woven into his characterization, what of his personal philosophy which draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya, could they cherrypick to see it’s not just funny, it’s something deep about DISPOSITIONS AND LIFESTYLES. This sort of view is a consequence of people who attack and attempt to invalidate the basis of Rick and Morty, idiots, its not much different from Critical Theory in appreciation of, for instance, Rick’s existential catchphrase “Wubba Lubba Dub Dub,” at large. Undermine the base premise of Turgenev’s Russian epic Fathers and Sons and slowly dismantle it. II’m smirking right now to see addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion about Dan Harmon’s genius wit unfold itself on their television screens, then essentially applies Critical Theory to Rick and Morty as genuine. What fools... how I pity them.

>A lot of what he gets at is basically Gnostic fanfic, but hes presenting it as if its rooted in reason.
In his lectures he has talked about how his words "click" with people, how in a way they've always known some of the things he says about morality and fiction. This is undistilled Jungian archetype theory, and I find it amusing to watch him handle the conflict between "memetic evolution" and "eternal archetypes". So is Jesus in all of us or did he emerge victorious from cultures clashing, all of whom had their own version of Jesus? There is no answer to this and he won't attempt to give it, so he admits his colors by sticking to the Jungian theory of eternal archetypes.

I'm fairly convinced that he truly hates Marxism in all its forms, but it strikes me as the hatred of the disillusioned. It's more frustration than actual rage over crimes committed and damage done. Marxism and its spiritual successors are pure poison to the mind, and hence his hatred of postmodernism. But while an ordinary person would disregard pomo immediately as obvious intellectual wankery, he felt compelled to try and get to the root of that system of thought. Why? I don't believe it's simply because he's a Canadian that saw one SJW too many in his neighborhood. I think there is a real chance that the recovering liberal in him hasn't been able to shake it all off and it frustrates him. He wants to believe in democracy, liberalism, marketplace of ideas, discussions, education, universities, and all the associated stuff. But then there are these clearly poisonous modes of thought that seem to infect people and ruin the system, so he would like to purge them (by campaigning, like he does). In this way the red-pill is still stuck halfway down his throat, as it is with his cultish fanbase that want to be classical liberals (with Christian morals, of course) again.

I would give my left testicle to see this debate.

why can't we have nice thing Sup Forums?

Fucking 10/10

>I got btfo, now I'm gonna pretend to be retarded

...

You, earlier in the thread, describing yourself:
>smarmy holier than thou fedora tippers who do nothing but shit in the faces of Christians that don't actually do anything to them and this is a big problem.
Better start spamming the thread cause at least you can still sabotage!

You need to realize how you and fedora tippers are mirror images of each other. You act intellectually superior and morally self-righteous because instead you attribute the scent of your own farts to God. You dismiss anything that isn't in absolute agreement with you, and now you're mad that I just make fun of the suckfest you and that other brainwashed fag are going over?

You aren't even having a real discussion, you're just confirming your own bias as you shut out the rest of the world around you.

All I want to say, is that

The 9/11 planes don't exist in the aviation bureau records.

__

"According to the official story of what happened on September 11, 2001, four commercial jetliners were hijacked by Arab terrorists, two of them were flown into the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center and a third was flown into the Pentagon. This article presents evidence obtained from US-government-supplied records whose implication is that this cannot be true."
serendipity.li/wot/aa_flts/aa_flts.htm


Former Bush Advisor
Dr. Morgan Reynolds - No Real Planes Used on 9/11
youtube.com/watch?v=O0Ju0eNZp30

___

The lawsuit against NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology)

911 Directed Energy, NIST Data Quality Act - Jerry Leaphart
youtube.com/watch?v=2tjn9-qTjVE

___

Now Boeing Refuses to Release Email Exchange Between Them and Hillary Clinton
dcclothesline.com/2015/05/02/now-boeing-refuses-to-release-email-exchange-between-them-and-hillary-clinton/

27 APR 2015 BOEING REFUSES TO DISCLOSE ANY BOEING-STATE DEPARTMENT-CLINTON FOUNDATION EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE
nationalcenter.org/2015/04/27/boeing-refuses-to-disclose-any-boeing-state-department-clinton-foundation-email-correspondence/

______
>>>>>>>>>>

>I've been utterly BTFO and made to look like a fool, I'll pretend to samefag and act like I WANTED to get humiliated

To be fair, it’s essentially a more modern take on the old "Why can't I just be a Rick and Morty fan" argument. They want to pick and choose episodes that they like while just rejecting the very high IQ to understand it. Its a pretty bad precedent to set because their own feeble grasp of theoretical physics is always going to go over a typical viewers head. What of Rick’s nihilistic ouotlook, deftly woven into his characterization, what of his personal philosophy which draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya, could they cherrypick to see it’s not just funny, it’s something deep about DISPOSITIONS AND LIFESTYLES. This sort of view is a consequence of people who attack and attempt to invalidate the basis of Rick and Morty, idiots, its not much different from Critical Theory in appreciation of, for instance, Rick’s existential catchphrase “Wubba Lubba Dub Dub,” at large. Undermine the base premise of Turgenev’s Russian epic Fathers and Sons and slowly dismantle it. II’m smirking right now to see addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion about Dan Harmon’s genius wit unfold itself on their television screens, then essentially applies Critical Theory to Rick and Morty as genuine. What fools... how I pity them.

Except I'm not a Christian, and the only ones who act superior are people like you that pretend to be above it all while the rest wallow in bias. Isn't it interesting how the radical centrist rationalist always claims everyone else is dogmatic? I was having a good talk with the Catholic and you jumped in to shit on us both. Yeah I'm mad for you "making fun" of people, you're just a fucking troll dude and you deserve to be called a faggot.

Im not a WHITE nationalist. I know what nations my family came from. We are not BLACK. Black people dont know their origin. WE SHOULD EMPATHIZE WITH THAT. By accepting being merely called WHITE we will suffer the same fate as them. You are so stupid or a shill that you dont even see the error of your ways. Maybe you need to clean your room user.

hitchens would get angry and his fans would think he won

peterson would put forward better ideas

nobody would actually win

I've read a handful of books about the hero archetype and the hero's journey, how these things are basically universal across cultures. E
veryone has their hero myths, everyone has these figures who are larger than life. This theory of eternal archetypes always interested me, but I saw it in a much more pragmatic light. Part of our social hard wiring inclines us to look for and follow strong leaders. I don't apply this sort of thing universally and make religion fit it. Christ can be said to fit the hero archetype but in a way he was also the antithesis of it. The humility, self sacrifice, being soft spoken but righteous rather than proud and overtly strong. It just goes back to cherry picking things to fit a convenient narrative.

It stuck out to me when I heard Peterson first talk about archetypes after I saw him the first time wearing a frog hat while talking about memes and synchronicity. It just looks to me like he'd be willing to say or use anything to further his narrative.

I've heard similar arguments like yours raised before about Peterson struggling with some inner boundaries. Some people have pointed out that being an old boomer type he has certain mental walls built up, that he has his own ideological taboos which he can't ever violate. Like when he says that he studied mass genocides for a full decade of his life, that he obsessed over the topic, and he had nightmares about it. That just seems like a silly thing to say. It could be that because of this, like you said, he can't accept anything but this western liberalism.

I called him out for being a Peterson cultist. Seems like I was spot on.

Rome and Greece win

>One of the things I found particularly interesting about his Biblical series is that he doesn't actually believe in God
>It find it incredibly odd that Christian fans of his eat this up instead of calling it out as heresy.
>I called you out for being brain washed cultist
>the only ones who act superior are people like you
You can't even come off logically consistent enough to not come off as a dishonest shill.

To be fair, it’s essentially a more modern take on the old "Why can't I just be a Rick and Morty fan" argument. They want to pick and choose episodes that they like while just rejecting the very high IQ to understand it. Its a pretty bad precedent to set because their own feeble grasp of theoretical physics is always going to go over a typical viewers head. What of Rick’s nihilistic ouotlook, deftly woven into his characterization, what of his personal philosophy which draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya, could they cherrypick to see it’s not just funny, it’s something deep about DISPOSITIONS AND LIFESTYLES. This sort of view is a consequence of people who attack and attempt to invalidate the basis of Rick and Morty, idiots, its not much different from Critical Theory in appreciation of, for instance, Rick’s existential catchphrase “Wubba Lubba Dub Dub,” at large. Undermine the base premise of Turgenev’s Russian epic Fathers and Sons and slowly dismantle it. II’m smirking right now to see addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion about Dan Harmon’s genius wit unfold itself on their television screens, then essentially applies Critical Theory to Rick and Morty as genuine. What fools... how I pity them.

To be fair, it’s essentially a more modern take on the old "Why can't I just be a Rick and Morty fan" argument. They want to pick and choose episodes that they like while just rejecting the very high IQ to understand it. Its a pretty bad precedent to set because their own feeble grasp of theoretical physics is always going to go over a typical viewers head. What of Rick’s nihilistic ouotlook, deftly woven into his characterization, what of his personal philosophy which draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya, could they cherrypick to see it’s not just funny, it’s something deep about DISPOSITIONS AND LIFESTYLES. This sort of view is a consequence of people who attack and attempt to invalidate the basis of Rick and Morty, idiots, its not much different from Critical Theory in appreciation of, for instance, Rick’s existential catchphrase “Wubba Lubba Dub Dub,” at large. Undermine the base premise of Turgenev’s Russian epic Fathers and Sons and slowly dismantle it. II’m smirking right now to see addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion about Dan Harmon’s genius wit unfold itself on their television screens, then essentially applies Critical Theory to Rick and Morty as genuine. What fools... how I pity them.

>Replying to the wrong person
>Spamming the thread with cringe pasta
>Calling anyone else a shill
It's the big brain and superficial superiority through universal disdain that really impresses the ladies.

>take the moral stance of defending and dicksucking a total hypocrite
>expect not to actually have to defend the viewpoint also being attributed to you when the text is presented

You're fucking retarded mate.

I'm no Christian, but if you want to know just how intellectually vapid the atheism movement is, consider that what it took Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris to say in many books, it only took Hitler 20 pages of Table Talks to say. And Hitler said it much more convincingly, profoundly, and provokingly than those clowns.

I know it was indefensible and I didn't expect you to actually have the backbone to acknowledge you were wrong. I really just don't think there's any attempt to reason with a person who automatically dismisses everything said to them because you aren't in the cult of christ. Really no point in reasoning with you, and that's alright, Jewish baby Jesus would want me to forgive you.

Did you already forget that I just told you I'm not a Christian? And what's with the passive-aggressive victory dance like a little bitch? I did not defend the other user nor sucked his dick you autistic raging kid. What is wrong with you. You're taking your rage against the Catholic out on the whole thread with your trolly tantrum.

Just kiss already, faggots. Both of you are autistic perma-virgins fighting over nothing that will end up killing yourselves. Pathetic.

>I did not defend the other user nor sucked his dick
Now, I'm doubtful that in your whole tirade against me criticizing the dogmatic moral superiority of that user were you not defending his view, but I'm absolutely certain you were sucking his cock.
>You're taking your rage against the Catholic
I don't really have anger against christians, aside from the fact that I dont care for any form of Judaism. I had already stated that I don't think Christian culture is worth entirely dismissing since in many peoples heads losing the belief of a god simultaneously causes them to lose decency. Neither of which are conditional to the other.

I'm just saying that user is a fucking asshole and exactly why Hitchens and Dawkins made such a following treating christians like assholes. When people are too brainwashed to talk to like a human being you make fun of them, so I made fun of him.