“Religion gives people bad reasons to be good, where good reasons are available. That’s a problem, good reasons scale better than bad reasons”….mic drop!
Good reasons have only shown to be scaling and enduring over large groups of people through religion due to the ability to tie that reason to story/myth, to text across large chunks of time and to a deep and one on one accountability for that “knowledge” or reason.
the other two aren't much better... I liked Sam Harris before tribalism took him over, regarding Palestine. And Weinstein is a fraud. That's the IDW for you, the best the 2020's could do 🤣🤣
I find Jordan Peterson excruciatingly smug, condescending, willfully ignorant, a dishonest arguer - and invariably. misguided and wrong. Kudos to Harris' stoic refusal to be cowed by him for even a second.
Peterson will never give up asking, "What's the basis for the universal ethic?" (21:04 above) If you follow his "reasoning" he NEVER provides us with a clear and explicit link to this so-called 'basis'. In everything Peterson argues, you're only hearing Plato's philosophy of the transcendent ideal. Plato's philosophy is the foundational mistake that all Christianity is founded on (read your Augustine!). If you remove Plato's philosophy from medieval Christian theology, any excuse for accepting the truth-claims of the church (or the truth claims of Jordan Peterson for that matter) collapse to dust. Friedrich Nietzsche put it this way: "Christianity is just Plato for the masses." Educate yourself and you will see right through this clever sounding charlatan.
The Israeli-Palestine issue is about someone stealing land not about which religion anyone involved is part of. Britain perceived its interests in the Middle East which was a stop along the important path to the jewel in the empire India needed protecting by the presence of a state founded by (Jewish) Europeans. Later as oil became important and the British empire collapsed the American empire took over. Again the position of the US with regards to oil and the ME is not about religion.
@@markgobrien9791blah blah blah.. America supports Israel despite Israel attacking a US naval and committing espionage against us .most of it revolves around “ Christian “ Americans. It has zero to do with oil , if it did , we’d have allowed Saudi and other Arabs to invade and take Israel over. There was Palestine until European Jews fled Europe due to antisemitism from Nazis , who had complicit help from who? Christians . The entire middle east is insane due to religious crap . Islamist’s fight over the spelling of Mohammad vs Muhammad, Israel thinks it has biblical rights to land due to a book of myths. There wouldn’t be this level of violence if it wasn’t due to an imaginary sky daddy
@markgobrien9791 Religion, or perhaps more specifically, religious identity, is a huge divider in this situation. Take out the "God Said" stuff.....and it would lessen the stubbornness that religion encourages. Religion by its very nature makes groups immisible, like trying to mix oil and water. Things would be a lot easier without it.
12:00 Jordan is talking about how without religion.we are without hope. That's how I hear it..nihilism is just one aspect of peoples journey. Most people can find something good in life to help come out of that and most of us do that without religion. Love is the biggest cure.
Yes, the folks in the least religious countries seem to be leading the way on most measurable facets of a healthy society. Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, UK, Australia, New Zealand. These countries are all among the least religious, and are all among the safest, best educated, wealthiest, and most tolerant nations. Where is the loss of hope that Peterson alludes to?
Not quite. He is saying that even if you leave your religion the "things that religion did to you" are still there. This is why he said the bit about "leaving at a superficial level." He thinks that Christianity has affected how we are and who we are to our core. like how we in the west value the individual so highly where as for example in the east there is a big focus on being one amongst many and doing right by your company and your family. there are values the west has that came from religion and even the atheists here are coloured by it. So while he isn't quite saying that without religion you are without hope, he is indeed, as you say, saying that if we lose our underpinning value structure that we become nihilistic. I.E. he would say that even an atheist that has purpose and has meaning is "living like a Christian." The thing he thinks leads to nihilism isn't not being religious in the "i go to church and say there is a god" kind of way, it's losing the underpinning values that we mostly all have. Sam's point though is that any of those good things that we have from religion can be gotten from elsewhere. and that yes perhaps it did originally come from religion. But like many things that happen in nature, but that we understand are abhorrent, the origins of a thing might not justify it's reason to exist. Ultimately I think that JP just reframes things until he is right. Sam talks about not believing in god and JP basically says that the person is still Christian in their actions. Which might be true in the way that JP thinks but it isn't what everyone means by "Religious." This is a reason I always find it funny now how JP had this bit where he talks about one day becoming very careful with his words and being very sure not to misspeak. I was something I admired about him at first. But eventually I just realised that he might only ever say things he thinks are true, but I realised this is really easy to do if you just reframe everything to serve your purposes. Sam on the other hand is always clear about what he means and he doesn't mince words. When someone uses a word, Sam replies based on what the person meant. This I find is far far more honest and clear.
@@wyrdplae8586 can you imagine such a thing as a hopeful nihilist? Or a religious nihilism? I mean what's the armageddon all about. Is that a hopeful end or a hopeless end? If you believe in it..if its the ending for abrahamic religion then what is the hope in that? They disagree in this aspect a lot in the daily dogmas..
Notice JBP answer at 17:53 through 18:07. He's correct there, however, what he attributes that to, the divine, God, whatever it is seems to be at the core of his beliefs. Here's an example: "someone who profesess not to believe in God but it's good and acts good and does good in the world, is doing so at an unconscious level religiously." An unconscious"God believer". Even if you don't believe in God, you act good because unconscious processes and therefore God. I've found people who believe some version of this do not accept "good" can come out purely selfish game systems, the "why we just don't murder one another, must be placed there by God". Yes, for the most part, we don't go out there and kill each other, just why makes us think it's coming from whatever you think this God thing is but capital letters nature, everything, the Universe. "Quarks enable us to be good, you know what, Quarks wants us to be good and therefore enables it to happen", you could say, with more conviction and not entirely being wrong (except for the case of Quarks volition), and we have more evidence of quarks existence than again whatever this God thing is.
@@CMDRZero01 hardwired to be social, for reasons that are unknown to me, we just see the outcome in our personal lives, families, communities, societies, not perfectly nor on every single instance, individual and their psychological situations (because if one is a violent a**hole, maybe you won't live enough to pass your a**hole genes around, who knows why it lands)
The biggest problem is that he's using a completely different personal definition of "God" that nobody else uses. Your playing poker with a man holding Pokémon cards. You have to recognize this and either switch to his definition or at least acknowledge it. He will not budge or make a good faith effort to explain that he's having a completely different conversation. I'm not even sure what his definition for God is, but I know he's not talking about a being like everyone else. I've seen him define God more as a core set of principles, motivation, and whatever you value most.
Sooo the gist im getting is that JP [wants to say] human beings are intrinsically bad and need rules in order to be good. SH is saying human beings are intrinsically good but need to be free of rules in order to reach their full potential…? They’ll NEVER agree.
As soon as Peterson jumps in it’s just a litany of words as he tries to sound better than Sam. Sometimes I can’t listen to him. But, I will clearly have to listen twice to really understand what Harris is saying around isreal/Palestine. It’s quite intuitive and deep thinking.
When Jordan says "what is it?" referring to Sam's "transcendent rationality", he knows what it is, he claims to have read Sam's book. He's just so rhetorical it comes off as argumentative.
He just thinks that which Sam proposes is rooted in what JBP reasons causes us to be good and look how prosperous it is, Christianity, or the belief in God, the right one, that is.
@@ltzminhe must think europeans/judeo-Christians are the reason that native Americans are so rich. We gave them casinos and free school!!!! How awesome for them!!!
..."every Palestinian, in Gaza and throughout Palestine, can prove his Arab roots - whether from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, or anywhere. We have blood ties. Personally, half my family is Egyptian. We are all like that. More than 30 families in the Gaza Strip are called Al-Masri ["Egyptian"]. Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis. Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called Al-Masri, whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians." Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hammad, aired by Al-Hekma TV on March 23, 2012.
"There is no such country as Palestine. Palestine is a Zionist invention" - Awni Bey Abdul Hadi, a Jerusalemite Arab leader, 1937. "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not." - Prof. Philip K. Hitti, distinguished Arab historian, author of the authoritative book "The Arabs", 1946. "Such a creature as Palestine does not exist at all...." - Ahmad Shukeiri, 1956.
Exactly- Arab roots to areas NOT ‘Palestine’! Jews are the indigenous people- thousands of years before ANYONE else - in the area we now call Palestine. Jews are the historical people of Palestine. Just history and facts…
pure bullshit and it was debunked at that time by Palestinians , some idiot said that doesn't reflect anything close to truth. he told that lie that thinking that he will gain Saudi and Egyptian support. it may apply to few families but not the vast majority of Palestinians. we have different accent , food , dance , folklore , and DNA that is way different than most Egyptians and Saudis.
@@CanaaniteGuy Why is there no book from before 1964, which mentions the fake nation of PaIestnians? The newspapers which report the wars in that land before 1964, don't mention PaIestnians!
@@CanaaniteGuy Zahir Muhsein was a Palestinian leader of the pro-Syria As-Sa'iqa Ba'athist faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization between 1971 and 1979. In an interview with Trouw Magazine, 31. March 1977 he stated....."The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new tool to continue the fight against Israel and for Arab unity."
That's what I like about a Christian-atheist debate it's like a f*cking hectic tennis match when you don't even allow yourself to catch a breath for fearing of missing a point, not like the debates that we, atheist from Muslim background, have with Muslim apologists, it's like you're a criminal in a trial waiting to be executed for the audacity of questioning their doctrine, and all of this in the name of a god so obvious they can't even understand what he was trying to say. I arrived to the point where I think that not all religions are the same or deserve the same degree of respect, there are some religions (cough isllamme cough) that have to start to show us that they really are worthy of respect instead of same old lame FEAR.
'A bad tool is better than no tool at all' --Actually, no; if you aren't given a tool at all, you will make one. And your tool will probably be better than a bad one, because you'll have to understand the problem in order to solve it.
He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 'He has a name only he knows.' Means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. It also means he has superior knowledge and is in a superior position. It also means he brings the most relevant information in the whole play. Why are you guys listening to Tom and Jerry? Are you using helmet so you don't get brain damage? Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12. There is no other Christ! Ask Tom and Jerry what it means? O, they don't know? Then I ask you again, why are you listening to them? Who is dumb? Do you need Tom or Jerry to confirm this? If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows,' then it must also be true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is that objectively true? 'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein. 'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation. Can belief open the door the truth closes? No. Can belief close the door the truth opens? No. Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes. Can the truth open the door belief close? Yes. Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth? Is it objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief, or is it a subjective opinion? And if it is objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Is it not also objectively true, that Wittgenstein is wrong? Now that we know the difference between objective and subjective position. Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Is this claim an objective truth or a subjective belief? We know what people imagine, because the other would mean that you all know who Christ is. In the absence of knowing his name. We know your understanding is equal to subjective belief. Now you understand the consequence of this claim, if the opposite is true: you know who Christ is for a fact. The opposite of this being a subjective claim, means it's objectively true. That means, you know who Christ is. If it's true he has a name only he knows. One way to demonstrate it, is what I do now. We already determined that Tom and Jerry doesn't know, Pangburn doesn't know, the audience doesn't know. The atheist's position is no one knows or can know, because it's impossible, no one can know except a delusional man who is wrong about what he thinks he knows. Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. If this is objectively true, not blue 12.11, but what is in it's place, then you can bear witness to the fact, indeed the rider did arrive first and the world could only arrive after. At that point, you will know that I am Christ. It will be the end of faith. Now you don't know what blue 12.11 is. So you believe it's subjective. As example, if I said, blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples do blue 12.11 have? And blue 6 answers, four. And red 6 says, he is lying and deceiving you, it's based on belief. You would all say, blue 6 is telling the truth and red 6 is false. And if I asked, does blue 6 have a subjective opinion, or is the claim an objective reality? You say reality and not opinion. In other words, when red try to close, exclude that blue 6 is telling the truth, he would open so no one can close. If the dynamic is the same when we plot the testimony of the bible on the clock, don't get the same result, except we know the identity of the one who opens so no one can close? What do atheists claim to believe in? Logic, reason and truth. And if this claim, Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11... is the same as logic, reason and truth and not belief and it reveals who Christ is. What will the atheist believe in then? If logic leads to Christ, if reason leads to Christ, if truth leads to Christ. What shall the atheist believe in? How shall you deny me tomorrow? Do I make you Christians or are you something else? What becomes of the the self-proclaimed atheists, who believe in logic, reason and truth (Christ unknowingly) who refuse to believe in Christ? What do we do with all of you? What to do with the cognitive dissonance? Which one among you have the brain-capacity to understand the rider himself is more relevant than Tom and Jerry and it's my dilemma you all most face? Who among you refuse to be an idiot? Only a complete and utter idiot would refuse to understand the rider is more relevant. Who among you is not an idiot? Is there no one?
2 people fundamentally disagree on truth, good and evil. Each credits a different god as the source of their understanding... How would a 3rd party reconcile their views? Impossible. So, no religion offers objective truth (inter-subjectivity). Reason gets much closer, as Sam notes, to scalability. But even pure reason must be informed by an accurate epistemic correlation*. For example, a worldview based on the assumption that reality is fundamentally relative (as understood by Einstein, heraclitus, and thales had it in the west; and Lao Tsu, Confucious, Chung Tsu, and the Buddha in the East). Specifically, matter and energy, good/bad, male/female, objective/subjective, and all other opposites share a sameness. Put differently, there are no perfectly absolute truths. No perfect gods. * An epistemic correlation is a relationship between concepts of different types, which can be used to make empirical verification possible.
He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 'He has a name only he knows.' Means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. It also means he has superior knowledge and is in a superior position. It also means he brings the most relevant information in the whole play. Why are you guys listening to Tom and Jerry? Are you using helmet so you don't get brain damage? Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12. There is no other Christ! Ask Tom and Jerry what it means? O, they don't know? Then I ask you again, why are you listening to them? Who is dumb? Do you need Tom or Jerry to confirm this? If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows,' then it must also be true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is that objectively true? 'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein. 'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation. Can belief open the door the truth closes? No. Can belief close the door the truth opens? No. Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes. Can the truth open the door belief close? Yes. Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth? Is it objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief, or is it a subjective opinion? And if it is objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Is it not also objectively true, that Wittgenstein is wrong? Now that we know the difference between objective and subjective position. Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Is this claim an objective truth or a subjective belief? We know what people imagine, because the other would mean that you all know who Christ is. In the absence of knowing his name. We know your understanding is equal to subjective belief. Now you understand the consequence of this claim, if the opposite is true: you know who Christ is for a fact. The opposite of this being a subjective claim, means it's objectively true. That means, you know who Christ is. If it's true he has a name only he knows. One way to demonstrate it, is what I do now. We already determined that Tom and Jerry doesn't know, Pangburn doesn't know, the audience doesn't know. The atheist's position is no one knows or can know, because it's impossible, no one can know except a delusional man who is wrong about what he thinks he knows. Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. If this is objectively true, not blue 12.11, but what is in it's place, then you can bear witness to the fact, indeed the rider did arrive first and the world could only arrive after. At that point, you will know that I am Christ. It will be the end of faith. Now you don't know what blue 12.11 is. So you believe it's subjective. As example, if I said, blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples do blue 12.11 have? And blue 6 answers, four. And red 6 says, he is lying and deceiving you, it's based on belief. You would all say, blue 6 is telling the truth and red 6 is false. And if I asked, does blue 6 have a subjective opinion, or is the claim an objective reality? You say reality and not opinion. In other words, when red try to close, exclude that blue 6 is telling the truth, he would open so no one can close. If the dynamic is the same when we plot the testimony of the bible on the clock, don't get the same result, except we know the identity of the one who opens so no one can close? What do atheists claim to believe in? Logic, reason and truth. And if this claim, Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11... is the same as logic, reason and truth and not belief and it reveals who Christ is. What will the atheist believe in then? If logic leads to Christ, if reason leads to Christ, if truth leads to Christ. What shall the atheist believe in? How shall you deny me tomorrow? Do I make you Christians or are you something else? What becomes of the the self-proclaimed atheists, who believe in logic, reason and truth (Christ unknowingly) who refuse to believe in Christ? What do we do with all of you? What to do with the cognitive dissonance? Which one among you have the brain-capacity to understand the rider himself is more relevant than Tom and Jerry and it's my dilemma you all most face? Who among you refuse to be an idiot? Only a complete and utter idiot would refuse to understand the rider is more relevant. Who among you is not an idiot? Is there no one?
The problem with the argument is to pretense it with religion versus living in a hostile war zone and straight up occupation. Religion becomes a dog whistle of men with power intent just like anything else to motivate people to stand their ground. And that is because Harris is predisposition to argue from the "remove the religious reasoning and it's settle" when that's disingenuous. What isn't taught is how applied meaning to boundaries creates this mindset when these territories actually never exist in reality, hence the need for all the walls and weapons and military along the borders - it's all made up. Even Judaism can't figure out what Israel means in the current day: some say "strives with God" other "wrestles with God" then "God perseveres." But once you establish a government structure and people get a taste of that power, mmm baby it happens every time: see America and all the deals they made and broke in its bloody history. What shouldn't be overlooked is people with a substantial advantage in technology are bullying people off their once held property and again See America. It's Humans that can't learn their lesson, leave God and religion out of it - you're the ones who cannot even tell us why in the world is there a pyramid sitting in the desert which really should zero any claim on anything that predates any sense of record keeping. But if you see any masonic symbols, then you got a cause to question - again see America and the Statue of Libertah - it's not even a "theory," it's a conspiracy.
Israeli's have been staunch stewards of religious freedom and equal rights to all it's citizens. Including 2 million Arab and Muslim citizens. Evidenced by thriving Mosques and bahai temples in Israel. The same human rights and freedoms have not been bestowed to non-Muslims by the Iranian and Palestinian leaders. Keep Israel free.
The Romans renamed the province of Judea as Syria Palaestina, or "Palestinian Syria", in 135 CE. The Romans did this as punishment for the Jewish people after suppressing the Bar-Kochba Revolt. The name was meant to erase the connection between the Jewish people and the province, which was previously known as Judea. The term "Palaestina" refers to the Philistines, who were traditional enemies of the Jews and were based on the Mediterranean coast. The name "Palestine" continued to be used long after the Roman Empire fell. In 629 CE, Muslim armies conquered the region and Arabized the name to "Filastin". The term "Palestine" became common in early modern English during the Middle Ages. The modern contours of "Palestine" were established after World War I
Yes, and Italy and Germany had their nationalistic movements in the second half of the 19th C. It doesn't mean that Italian people were "invented"- much as the Palestinians have been in the Levant since the Canaanites ( Pre-israelite). You're playing a semantic game- the name of a region is immaterial.
@CanaaniteGuy "There is no such country as Palestine. Palestine is a Zionist invention" - Awni Bey Abdul Hadi, a Jerusalemite Arab leader, 1937. "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not." - Prof. Philip K. Hitti, distinguished Arab historian, author of the authoritative book "The Arabs", 1946. "Such a creature as Palestine does not exist at all...." - Ahmad Shukeiri, 1956.
I liked Jordan years ago before he strolled into theosophy. His first interview with Russel Brandt I think in Nov 2019 was fantastic no mention of religion - life changing podcast
When children end up in crisis situations they tend to use magical thinking. "I did something the wrong way this morning and that's why the earthquake happened". Instead of being a priori assumptions it might be related to children naturally defining themselves by the relationship and judgement of their parents. In that way they imagine a sort of judgemental inner parent figure watching their inner thoughts and actions. Religion seems to be this kind of magical thinking retained in adulthood. Religion is also common among the more vulnerable parts of earths population.
Basically if you boil it all down get rid of all religions let everyone pull their head out of their ass and just go about life logically and all this dumb s*** will probably fade out religion does not work anymore people know things now.
Here's one irrational thing that one must take on faith to live a better life: "Things will be better, they might be bad now, but they'll be better". I'll leave you to think why it's important to believe this, regardless of the evidence, and what could happen if one doesn't believe it'll get better, but worse and worse and worse for oneself.
Harris is always worth listening to on a variety of topics. Where he contradicts himself, is his clear bias towards Muslims. His argument is a generalisation. He would really come undone arguing the Palestine/ Israeli reality with the likes of Dr. Finkelstein. His claim to Objectivity would be shown to be Subject on this topic.
Dr. Finklefuch is what we call an Israel particularist and a joke in academic circles. Forget Isreal, fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the strange death of Europe and all the restrictions on freedom coming soon as the demographics change in the decades to come.
Besides being a punchline in the academic community, Dr. Finklefuch is an Israel particularist with an deranged pathology on all things Israel. Forget the tiny matchbook on the football field that is the Arab Muslim world, and focus instead on the impending storm in Europe as the demographics change. We have seen all the wholesome spasms of violence that have signaled what lay in wait for these soon to be former democracies. 😔
He thinks both sides are fighting over elton John's glass. I don't think that's "biasd". And if u want to dig up history don't ask others to stop at the place u want it to stop. Either u and both sides get to an agreement taking into account things as stands today and palasthenians stop being hell bent on killing jews, the very idea of a solution is irrational. I mean look at the palastine children. They're openly taught to kill jews and being a shahid. Do u think that'll ever lead to a solution? Look at hamas bringing forward literally newborns and other children as thrir poster boys.. That's gonna lead to solution? What the hell did palastinainas got by 80 odd years of armed fighting? Don't u think fighting is not the way forward for them?
Imagine if instead of in the middle east, this conflict was happening today in Greece between the Zeusians and the Poseidonians. Both groups lay claim for the sole right to make offerings at the Parthenon in Athens. They both lay claim to Mount Olympus, based on their interpretations of their Holy texts, the Iliaad and the Oddesey. UN officials hold meetings between the groups over how to divide up the regions of Troy and Sparta. With reports of Trojan youths attacking Spartan police, security personnel, and civilians. The Spartan Defence Force have been conducting operations in Trojan territories. Now you may laugh....but it's not too far off what we have today.
First they came for the Palestinians and I said nothing:-( Then they came for those who spoke up about the Palestinians and I was glad I said nothing (-; The Sargent Schultz defense
There where no terrorist in Palestina before, Jewish and allies injustifiedly took their land and force them to run away as mere leseer beings... isoleted, harass them, and opress them. ¡They robed their land! Then terrorism came, and just in a faction or group of them. But, the question is ¿Why doesn´t this race the question of, who´s really, defending themselfs "their house", and their land?
Based on Sam Harris. Any claim on anything is not rational. And the Israeli Palestinian conflict has been going on since 1948..Not thousands of years...
..."every Palestinian, in Gaza and throughout Palestine, can prove his Arab roots - whether from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, or anywhere. We have blood ties. Personally, half my family is Egyptian. We are all like that. More than 30 families in the Gaza Strip are called Al-Masri ["Egyptian"]. Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis. Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called Al-Masri, whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians." Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hammad, aired by Al-Hekma TV on March 23, 2012.
I keep getting this video in my feed. My response is that this is not a debate focused on clear examples of how people behave. Peterson momentarily mentioned the core issue (of defending one’s house) but quickly got sidetracked by Harris. An example of the core issue; the USA made multiple treaties with Native tribes and broke every treaty. Why? Human beings are an expansive species and will fight for territory. Harris thinks this obsession with controlling land is only based on religion. Wrong. Communist China took Tibet and will never allow Tibet to be independent again. There is something very basic with human behavior going on. Applying that to the Palestinian and Israeli negotiations during the Camp David process. This ultimately broke down because both sides wanted more land than the other side was willing to give. Neither side conceded because each side believes it can win its preferred control in the long run, meaning in decades or centuries.
Does Peterson realize that everybody knows every single time he interrupts with the question it's not because he has a question it's because he wanted it wants to interrupt. He's got the subtlety of a nuclear explosion and he actually thinks he's being slick.
Very difficult to comment on the behaviors of the Hamas Muslims, even if the comment is intelligent, without getting your comment deleted by TH-cam. Only pro Palestine, anti semitic comments are allowed.
Hamas are a product of illegal occupation and were funded by Israel so I don’t think commenting on their behaviour is actually necessary because their actions are a response to being forced into a concentration camp
It's irrational to still disputing ownership of land that has been settled through wars. For example, The Greeks lost war to the Turks, they lost their territory, it's irrational for The Greeks to keep claiming that the Turks occupying their land, even though the Greeks have more strong reasons than Arabs Palestine, their ancestor owned the land.
@matthewbazeley2984 Israel as country has won the wars with surrounding neighbours countries, there was no palestinian arab state, only arab settlers in west banks and gaza. Get your history right before making any comment, therefore i suggest you to watch the documentary.
@ What history have I got wrong? I never said Israel didn't win wars. I never mentioned a Palestinian state. My point remains that those wars didn't settle the dispute. That's why there are still two groups with ancestral ties to the land who refuse to accept each other.
I've been a fan of JP for a while but his religious reasoning all just seems willfully ignorent to me. Especially at the closing where he says he'd rather worship Batgirl than no God at all 🤷♂️
15:20 Personally I would trust more someone doing goodness for goodness sake, than someone doing it to score some points with God and get rewarded for it.. not that ethical for me.
I love that "literal" needs specifying. What do you mean by literal? But somehow mathematics being taken on faith is perfectly fine and unambiguous. And I quite like Jordan but he does get abstracted into nothingness pretty frequently nowadays.
Calling this a religious war is the most midwit uninformed take possible. There are thousands of muslim soldiers in the IDF fighting for Israel. This is only about religion for one side.
Sorry but Mr Peterson seems to be working under the assumption that mankind is better of to live in ignorance then to risk trying exploring questions. Too easy an assumption for me.
He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 'He has a name only he knows.' Means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. It also means he has superior knowledge and is in a superior position. It also means he brings the most relevant information in the whole play. Why are you guys listening to Tom and Jerry? Are you using helmet so you don't get brain damage? Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12. There is no other Christ! Ask Tom and Jerry what it means? O, they don't know? Then I ask you again, why are you listening to them? Who is dumb? Do you need Tom or Jerry to confirm this? If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows,' then it must also be true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is that objectively true? 'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein. 'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation. Can belief open the door the truth closes? No. Can belief close the door the truth opens? No. Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes. Can the truth open the door belief close? Yes. Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth? Is it objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief, or is it a subjective opinion? And if it is objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Is it not also objectively true, that Wittgenstein is wrong? Now that we know the difference between objective and subjective position. Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Is this claim an objective truth or a subjective belief? We know what people imagine, because the other would mean that you all know who Christ is. In the absence of knowing his name. We know your understanding is equal to subjective belief. Now you understand the consequence of this claim, if the opposite is true: you know who Christ is for a fact. The opposite of this being a subjective claim, means it's objectively true. That means, you know who Christ is. If it's true he has a name only he knows. One way to demonstrate it, is what I do now. We already determined that Tom and Jerry doesn't know, Pangburn doesn't know, the audience doesn't know. The atheist's position is no one knows or can know, because it's impossible, no one can know except a delusional man who is wrong about what he thinks he knows. Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. If this is objectively true, not blue 12.11, but what is in it's place, then you can bear witness to the fact, indeed the rider did arrive first and the world could only arrive after. At that point, you will know that I am Christ. It will be the end of faith. Now you don't know what blue 12.11 is. So you believe it's subjective. As example, if I said, blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples do blue 12.11 have? And blue 6 answers, four. And red 6 says, he is lying and deceiving you, it's based on belief. You would all say, blue 6 is telling the truth and red 6 is false. And if I asked, does blue 6 have a subjective opinion, or is the claim an objective reality? You say reality and not opinion. In other words, when red try to close, exclude that blue 6 is telling the truth, he would open so no one can close. If the dynamic is the same when we plot the testimony of the bible on the clock, don't get the same result, except we know the identity of the one who opens so no one can close? What do atheists claim to believe in? Logic, reason and truth. And if this claim, Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11... is the same as logic, reason and truth and not belief and it reveals who Christ is. What will the atheist believe in then? If logic leads to Christ, if reason leads to Christ, if truth leads to Christ. What shall the atheist believe in? How shall you deny me tomorrow? Do I make you Christians or are you something else? What becomes of the the self-proclaimed atheists, who believe in logic, reason and truth (Christ unknowingly) who refuse to believe in Christ? What do we do with all of you? What to do with the cognitive dissonance? Which one among you have the brain-capacity to understand the rider himself is more relevant than Tom and Jerry and it's my dilemma you all most face? Who among you refuse to be an idiot? Only a complete and utter idiot would refuse to understand the rider is more relevant. Who among you is not an idiot? Is there no one?
I find this discussion useless. A piece of land is claim by two people, who have inhabited this peace of land. One of them have inhabited the land uninterruptedly and the other have an enormous time laps from living in their land, feeling that the land is their and want the land back. War is the way people have acquire land in the past. Today it is a bit more complicated. Surely the Palestinians would be more attached to the land since they have never left it. I understand that the Juif population need their own land but a different method must be be use. Today the two population have to find a peaceful way to share the land as they are both attached to the land. There is no other way.
Yes, abandon all monotheism. It is all astronomy anyway. None of it is literally true. That's why the monomyth exists. Every religion owes its wisdom to Hermeticism.
He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 'He has a name only he knows.' Means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. It also means he has superior knowledge and is in a superior position. It also means he brings the most relevant information in the whole play. Why are you guys listening to Tom and Jerry? Are you using helmet so you don't get brain damage? Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12. There is no other Christ! Ask Tom and Jerry what it means? O, they don't know? Then I ask you again, why are you listening to them? Who is dumb? Do you need Tom or Jerry to confirm this? If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows,' then it must also be true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is that objectively true? 'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein. 'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation. Can belief open the door the truth closes? No. Can belief close the door the truth opens? No. Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes. Can the truth open the door belief close? Yes. Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth? Is it objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief, or is it a subjective opinion? And if it is objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Is it not also objectively true, that Wittgenstein is wrong? Now that we know the difference between objective and subjective position. Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Is this claim an objective truth or a subjective belief? We know what people imagine, because the other would mean that you all know who Christ is. In the absence of knowing his name. We know your understanding is equal to subjective belief. Now you understand the consequence of this claim, if the opposite is true: you know who Christ is for a fact. The opposite of this being a subjective claim, means it's objectively true. That means, you know who Christ is. If it's true he has a name only he knows. One way to demonstrate it, is what I do now. We already determined that Tom and Jerry doesn't know, Pangburn doesn't know, the audience doesn't know. The atheist's position is no one knows or can know, because it's impossible, no one can know except a delusional man who is wrong about what he thinks he knows. Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. If this is objectively true, not blue 12.11, but what is in it's place, then you can bear witness to the fact, indeed the rider did arrive first and the world could only arrive after. At that point, you will know that I am Christ. It will be the end of faith. Now you don't know what blue 12.11 is. So you believe it's subjective. As example, if I said, blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples do blue 12.11 have? And blue 6 answers, four. And red 6 says, he is lying and deceiving you, it's based on belief. You would all say, blue 6 is telling the truth and red 6 is false. And if I asked, does blue 6 have a subjective opinion, or is the claim an objective reality? You say reality and not opinion. In other words, when red try to close, exclude that blue 6 is telling the truth, he would open so no one can close. If the dynamic is the same when we plot the testimony of the bible on the clock, don't get the same result, except we know the identity of the one who opens so no one can close? What do atheists claim to believe in? Logic, reason and truth. And if this claim, Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11... is the same as logic, reason and truth and not belief and it reveals who Christ is. What will the atheist believe in then? If logic leads to Christ, if reason leads to Christ, if truth leads to Christ. What shall the atheist believe in? How shall you deny me tomorrow? Do I make you Christians or are you something else? What becomes of the the self-proclaimed atheists, who believe in logic, reason and truth (Christ unknowingly) who refuse to believe in Christ? What do we do with all of you? What to do with the cognitive dissonance? Which one among you have the brain-capacity to understand the rider himself is more relevant than Tom and Jerry and it's my dilemma you all most face? Who among you refuse to be an idiot? Only a complete and utter idiot would refuse to understand the rider is more relevant. Who among you is not an idiot? Is there no one?
Obviously Sam and the moderator, do NOT connect the totality of all of Arabism's empire over North Africa and Southwest Asia -Mideast nations. That is NOT separate from Arabism's empire over north of Mazhur Desert Nejd and Hedjaz, north of the 27° parallel of latitude north of The Arabian Peninsula Arab homelands. Either everybody else, under Arabist empire occupation, does or does NOT have equal rights to sovereign ownership of their motherlands. Moral equivalent analysis of The Arab-Israeli dispute, is NOT sny more legitimate than moral equivalent analysis of The Kkklan dispute against Jews and Blacks. That is NOT a superficial, coincidence. Arabism's empire is disputing Africa and Southwest Asia -Mideast nations' motherlands. So far, Sam and the moderator, do NOT seem to get the common denominator of Arabism's kkkkansmen empire and The USAmerican kkklanmen invisible empire. That is NOT separate from PalestineArab kkkkansmen, being the self-defined vanguard of Arabism.
In fact the conflict may trace back 1500 years, at most, Jewish books didn´t existed before. The 3 thousand year tale, was written and popularized between 300/500 B.C. And this, is a fact. ¿Or do you wanna base your analysis of reality based on myths?
He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 'He has a name only he knows.' Means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. It also means he has superior knowledge and is in a superior position. It also means he brings the most relevant information in the whole play. Why are you guys listening to Tom and Jerry? Are you using helmet so you don't get brain damage? Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12. There is no other Christ! Ask Tom and Jerry what it means? O, they don't know? Then I ask you again, why are you listening to them? Who is dumb? Do you need Tom or Jerry to confirm this? If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows,' then it must also be true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is that objectively true? 'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein. 'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation. Can belief open the door the truth closes? No. Can belief close the door the truth opens? No. Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes. Can the truth open the door belief close? Yes. Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth? Is it objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief, or is it a subjective opinion? And if it is objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Is it not also objectively true, that Wittgenstein is wrong? Now that we know the difference between objective and subjective position. Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Is this claim an objective truth or a subjective belief? We know what people imagine, because the other would mean that you all know who Christ is. In the absence of knowing his name. We know your understanding is equal to subjective belief. Now you understand the consequence of this claim, if the opposite is true: you know who Christ is for a fact. The opposite of this being a subjective claim, means it's objectively true. That means, you know who Christ is. If it's true he has a name only he knows. One way to demonstrate it, is what I do now. We already determined that Tom and Jerry doesn't know, Pangburn doesn't know, the audience doesn't know. The atheist's position is no one knows or can know, because it's impossible, no one can know except a delusional man who is wrong about what he thinks he knows. Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. If this is objectively true, not blue 12.11, but what is in it's place, then you can bear witness to the fact, indeed the rider did arrive first and the world could only arrive after. At that point, you will know that I am Christ. It will be the end of faith. Now you don't know what blue 12.11 is. So you believe it's subjective. As example, if I said, blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples do blue 12.11 have? And blue 6 answers, four. And red 6 says, he is lying and deceiving you, it's based on belief. You would all say, blue 6 is telling the truth and red 6 is false. And if I asked, does blue 6 have a subjective opinion, or is the claim an objective reality? You say reality and not opinion. In other words, when red try to close, exclude that blue 6 is telling the truth, he would open so no one can close. If the dynamic is the same when we plot the testimony of the bible on the clock, don't get the same result, except we know the identity of the one who opens so no one can close? What do atheists claim to believe in? Logic, reason and truth. And if this claim, Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11... is the same as logic, reason and truth and not belief and it reveals who Christ is. What will the atheist believe in then? If logic leads to Christ, if reason leads to Christ, if truth leads to Christ. What shall the atheist believe in? How shall you deny me tomorrow? Do I make you Christians or are you something else? What becomes of the the self-proclaimed atheists, who believe in logic, reason and truth (Christ unknowingly) who refuse to believe in Christ? What do we do with all of you? What to do with the cognitive dissonance? Which one among you have the brain-capacity to understand the rider himself is more relevant than Tom and Jerry and it's my dilemma you all most face? Who among you refuse to be an idiot? Only a complete and utter idiot would refuse to understand the rider is more relevant. Who among you is not an idiot? Is there no one?
As Sam points out, this 'g' thing and each middle east factions version of their sky deity and its prophets, always gets in the way of human progress and a coming together for our species! Jordan's rhetoric is always to NOT recognise the root cause of such - middle east religions is simply not our species start point, it is so beyond that!
Idk man we usually refer to the beauty generated through religious worship. Art, poetry and music, all dedicated to dieties that don't exist. Religion might have huge downsides but its not all bad.
@@ChristianJay7 Human beings were creating art, telling stories, developing their culture, recognizing their own worth and standing on their own two feet well before the middle east disruptors got in the way of everything.
@neilfletcher1841 yes. Absolutely. But some art is undeniably religious in nature. The sistine chapel and Dantes inferno would not have been created without religion. It's ok to be atheist but stop trying to force it on everyone else. Enjoy religion like christmas. You don't have to have faith to enjoy the holiday.
@@ChristianJay7 Yet the majority of art is undeniably 'human expression and creation' without the need for any religious influence. I must admit I do enjoy the secular festival of Xmas - Santa Claus, as a kid and as a fabled story to be told, was just one of my magical wonderous moments in life that will never be taken away from me!
@neilfletcher1841 same brother. I'm an atheist as well. I'm trying to be less smug and calm when discussing religion. That being said, I absolutely do not accept people using legislation to conform others to their religious views.
Peterson needing his medecine, again and again. Exhausting to see him overtaking, interrupting, dropping fallacies and sophisms like an entitled teen drinking redbull.
He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 'He has a name only he knows.' Means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. It also means he has superior knowledge and is in a superior position. It also means he brings the most relevant information in the whole play. Why are you guys listening to Tom and Jerry? Are you using helmet so you don't get brain damage? Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12. There is no other Christ! Ask Tom and Jerry what it means? O, they don't know? Then I ask you again, why are you listening to them? Who is dumb? Do you need Tom or Jerry to confirm this? If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows,' then it must also be true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is that objectively true? 'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein. 'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation. Can belief open the door the truth closes? No. Can belief close the door the truth opens? No. Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes. Can the truth open the door belief close? Yes. Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth? Is it objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief, or is it a subjective opinion? And if it is objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Is it not also objectively true, that Wittgenstein is wrong? Now that we know the difference between objective and subjective position. Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Is this claim an objective truth or a subjective belief? We know what people imagine, because the other would mean that you all know who Christ is. In the absence of knowing his name. We know your understanding is equal to subjective belief. Now you understand the consequence of this claim, if the opposite is true: you know who Christ is for a fact. The opposite of this being a subjective claim, means it's objectively true. That means, you know who Christ is. If it's true he has a name only he knows. One way to demonstrate it, is what I do now. We already determined that Tom and Jerry doesn't know, Pangburn doesn't know, the audience doesn't know. The atheist's position is no one knows or can know, because it's impossible, no one can know except a delusional man who is wrong about what he thinks he knows. Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. If this is objectively true, not blue 12.11, but what is in it's place, then you can bear witness to the fact, indeed the rider did arrive first and the world could only arrive after. At that point, you will know that I am Christ. It will be the end of faith. Now you don't know what blue 12.11 is. So you believe it's subjective. As example, if I said, blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples do blue 12.11 have? And blue 6 answers, four. And red 6 says, he is lying and deceiving you, it's based on belief. You would all say, blue 6 is telling the truth and red 6 is false. And if I asked, does blue 6 have a subjective opinion, or is the claim an objective reality? You say reality and not opinion. In other words, when red try to close, exclude that blue 6 is telling the truth, he would open so no one can close. If the dynamic is the same when we plot the testimony of the bible on the clock, don't get the same result, except we know the identity of the one who opens so no one can close? What do atheists claim to believe in? Logic, reason and truth. And if this claim, Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11... is the same as logic, reason and truth and not belief and it reveals who Christ is. What will the atheist believe in then? If logic leads to Christ, if reason leads to Christ, if truth leads to Christ. What shall the atheist believe in? How shall you deny me tomorrow? Do I make you Christians or are you something else? What becomes of the the self-proclaimed atheists, who believe in logic, reason and truth (Christ unknowingly) who refuse to believe in Christ? What do we do with all of you? What to do with the cognitive dissonance? Which one among you have the brain-capacity to understand the rider himself is more relevant than Tom and Jerry and it's my dilemma you all most face? Who among you refuse to be an idiot? Only a complete and utter idiot would refuse to understand the rider is more relevant. Who among you is not an idiot? Is there no one?
Both countries are wrong and irrational on this, but one culture produces Nobel prizes while the other throws gays off buildings. 🇮🇱 > 🇵🇸 and it isn’t a question
@@theCommentDevil The answer is easy. Palestine is not wrong for not wanting to be colonized. It is everyone else that is wrong that insists that Palestine has no right to that, and make excuses for what is happening now. Because, if anyone condones the response that Israel has conducted, then there is something more evil and wrong than what is going on there.
@@theCommentDevilThey are not being colonized, they are attempting the genocide of Israel and Jews and are suffering the consequences of their abhorrent behaviour.
I was seduced for a couple of minutes. That was, until I realized that I want to know whether Sam does or does not take the moral equivalent attitude, towards the Kkklan? That specifically goes hand in hand with Arabism's empire over North Africa and Southwest Asia -Mideast nations. Either Sam is or is not connecting the dots of Arabist empire kkklanmen, holding African slaves and Arabist empire colonial settler occupation over Zion Judaean Hebrew Israel
Super heroes are much better, they simply don´t go killing everybody becasuse they believe they are superior, some god comands it, or whatever. They also don´t justify bad deeds on any belief system, don´t make excusas, they learn, they progress, they change for the better, they are, in fact, pretty super. Can´t say the same about groups of religius people that have been doing the same BS for hundreds or thousands of years.
What an absolute shallow take. I'm Palestinian, we don't throw gays off buildings!! 50 years ago it was illegal in the us for gays, are you saying we can't progress like the rest of the world? You have an insane superiority complex that needs yo be dismanteled. As the others said. We simply resist ybe colonial power and want OUR freedom the same way your founding fathers wanted to be free from UK impersialism.
Amazing how two completely self absorbed people, blown away by their own supposed intellect, can take an issue that is not that complicated and turn it into something only ‘geniuses like themselves’ can grasp. It ain’t that complicated. The majority population in that land, for millennia, haven’t taken kindly to a group of people from another continent violently displacing them, simply because they share a religion with some of the people who live there.
That 2 + 2 makes 4 is an "intuition" it is not an intuition. There are peoples on earth now who cannot count past 3, so they would never understand that "intuition" (meaning not based on "known" knowledge). They would interpret it as 2 + 2 makes many and the same for 3 + 3, 3+1 etc. Your intuition is that you learned it so early that it feels natural to know 2 + 2 = 4, but it is not.
Full discussion here: th-cam.com/video/GEf6X-FueMo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=EmGl-4SpIQvvGct1
shame on jorddan peterson for inviting murderer and killer butcher of humanity and children women
“Religion gives people bad reasons to be good, where good reasons are available. That’s a problem, good reasons scale better than bad reasons”….mic drop!
Define good and bad reasons
Good reasons have only shown to be scaling and enduring over large groups of people through religion due to the ability to tie that reason to story/myth, to text across large chunks of time and to a deep and one on one accountability for that “knowledge” or reason.
@@Sophiaenrose if a reason scales well (is easily built upon based on every-days usual costume ) it is not bad
@@liborsupcik7195 alright! How did he decide that the reasons religion give to be good are bad reasons ?!isn't that just his subjective opinion?
JP’s 15000 words with 20,000 hand gestures makes no sense most of the time😂
There's definitely an inversely proportional amount of finger-twitching to sense being articulated 😅
He is a verbose nut case.
Old magicians trick. Look at the hands not what I'm hiding from you.
8:49 the way he responded with hand gestures as Bret Weinstein was talking.
Right
Love that the very beginning of this is Peterson purposefully (or perhaps accidentally, but probably not) misinterpreting Harris’ position.
Lol
Jfk was thinking " my Nephew is gonna be in charge of healthcare in 2,025 !? ".
Jordan Peterson is such a tool - so dishonest
the other two aren't much better... I liked Sam Harris before tribalism took him over, regarding Palestine.
And Weinstein is a fraud. That's the IDW for you, the best the 2020's could do 🤣🤣
I find Jordan Peterson excruciatingly smug, condescending, willfully ignorant, a dishonest arguer - and invariably. misguided and wrong. Kudos to Harris' stoic refusal to be cowed by him for even a second.
Peterson will never give up asking, "What's the basis for the universal ethic?" (21:04 above) If you follow his "reasoning" he NEVER provides us with a clear and explicit link to this so-called 'basis'. In everything Peterson argues, you're only hearing Plato's philosophy of the transcendent ideal. Plato's philosophy is the foundational mistake that all Christianity is founded on (read your Augustine!). If you remove Plato's philosophy from medieval Christian theology, any excuse for accepting the truth-claims of the church (or the truth claims of Jordan Peterson for that matter) collapse to dust. Friedrich Nietzsche put it this way: "Christianity is just Plato for the masses." Educate yourself and you will see right through this clever sounding charlatan.
Thanks for sharing your deeply thought out, fair and nuanced opinion.
It does get tiring hearing people only critique one side.
Sam Harris is absolutely right. Take religious identity out of the equation, and this would have been solved decades ago.
The Israeli-Palestine issue is about someone stealing land not about which religion anyone involved is part of. Britain perceived its interests in the Middle East which was a stop along the important path to the jewel in the empire India needed protecting by the presence of a state founded by (Jewish) Europeans. Later as oil became important and the British empire collapsed the American empire took over. Again the position of the US with regards to oil and the ME is not about religion.
@@markgobrien9791blah blah blah.. America supports Israel despite Israel attacking a US naval and committing espionage against us .most of it revolves around “ Christian “ Americans. It has zero to do with oil , if it did , we’d have allowed Saudi and other Arabs to invade and take Israel over.
There was Palestine until European Jews fled Europe due to antisemitism from Nazis , who had complicit help from who? Christians . The entire middle east is insane due to religious crap . Islamist’s fight over the spelling of Mohammad vs Muhammad, Israel thinks it has biblical rights to land due to a book of myths. There wouldn’t be this level of violence if it wasn’t due to an imaginary sky daddy
@@markgobrien9791 So your suggesting that the Israeli Jews are America's version of Hezbollah and Hamas.
@markgobrien9791 Religion, or perhaps more specifically, religious identity, is a huge divider in this situation. Take out the "God Said" stuff.....and it would lessen the stubbornness that religion encourages.
Religion by its very nature makes groups immisible, like trying to mix oil and water.
Things would be a lot easier without it.
@@rossini55 The Soviets tried to do what you propose.
Didn't end well.
Jordan Peterson flawlessly executes a masterclass in sophistry and deflection.
12:00 Jordan is talking about how without religion.we are without hope. That's how I hear it..nihilism is just one aspect of peoples journey. Most people can find something good in life to help come out of that and most of us do that without religion. Love is the biggest cure.
Yes, the folks in the least religious countries seem to be leading the way on most measurable facets of a healthy society. Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, UK, Australia, New Zealand. These countries are all among the least religious, and are all among the safest, best educated, wealthiest, and most tolerant nations. Where is the loss of hope that Peterson alludes to?
Not quite. He is saying that even if you leave your religion the "things that religion did to you" are still there. This is why he said the bit about "leaving at a superficial level."
He thinks that Christianity has affected how we are and who we are to our core. like how we in the west value the individual so highly where as for example in the east there is a big focus on being one amongst many and doing right by your company and your family. there are values the west has that came from religion and even the atheists here are coloured by it.
So while he isn't quite saying that without religion you are without hope, he is indeed, as you say, saying that if we lose our underpinning value structure that we become nihilistic. I.E. he would say that even an atheist that has purpose and has meaning is "living like a Christian." The thing he thinks leads to nihilism isn't not being religious in the "i go to church and say there is a god" kind of way, it's losing the underpinning values that we mostly all have.
Sam's point though is that any of those good things that we have from religion can be gotten from elsewhere. and that yes perhaps it did originally come from religion. But like many things that happen in nature, but that we understand are abhorrent, the origins of a thing might not justify it's reason to exist.
Ultimately I think that JP just reframes things until he is right. Sam talks about not believing in god and JP basically says that the person is still Christian in their actions. Which might be true in the way that JP thinks but it isn't what everyone means by "Religious." This is a reason I always find it funny now how JP had this bit where he talks about one day becoming very careful with his words and being very sure not to misspeak. I was something I admired about him at first. But eventually I just realised that he might only ever say things he thinks are true, but I realised this is really easy to do if you just reframe everything to serve your purposes. Sam on the other hand is always clear about what he means and he doesn't mince words. When someone uses a word, Sam replies based on what the person meant. This I find is far far more honest and clear.
@@wyrdplae8586 can you imagine such a thing as a hopeful nihilist? Or a religious nihilism? I mean what's the armageddon all about. Is that a hopeful end or a hopeless end? If you believe in it..if its the ending for abrahamic religion then what is the hope in that? They disagree in this aspect a lot in the daily dogmas..
What's a woman?
Two pseudointellectuals talking while a third pseudointellectual sits by quietly.
Notice JBP answer at 17:53 through 18:07. He's correct there, however, what he attributes that to, the divine, God, whatever it is seems to be at the core of his beliefs. Here's an example: "someone who profesess not to believe in God but it's good and acts good and does good in the world, is doing so at an unconscious level religiously." An unconscious"God believer". Even if you don't believe in God, you act good because unconscious processes and therefore God. I've found people who believe some version of this do not accept "good" can come out purely selfish game systems, the "why we just don't murder one another, must be placed there by God". Yes, for the most part, we don't go out there and kill each other, just why makes us think it's coming from whatever you think this God thing is but capital letters nature, everything, the Universe. "Quarks enable us to be good, you know what, Quarks wants us to be good and therefore enables it to happen", you could say, with more conviction and not entirely being wrong (except for the case of Quarks volition), and we have more evidence of quarks existence than again whatever this God thing is.
I'm of the belief that while being purely selfish and just, you can completely good. You just have to be able to reason it out.
@@CMDRZero01 hardwired to be social, for reasons that are unknown to me, we just see the outcome in our personal lives, families, communities, societies, not perfectly nor on every single instance, individual and their psychological situations (because if one is a violent a**hole, maybe you won't live enough to pass your a**hole genes around, who knows why it lands)
The biggest problem is that he's using a completely different personal definition of "God" that nobody else uses. Your playing poker with a man holding Pokémon cards. You have to recognize this and either switch to his definition or at least acknowledge it. He will not budge or make a good faith effort to explain that he's having a completely different conversation.
I'm not even sure what his definition for God is, but I know he's not talking about a being like everyone else. I've seen him define God more as a core set of principles, motivation, and whatever you value most.
@@88mphDrBrown whenever set of values is best, that's what God would be for him, or something
Sooo the gist im getting is that JP [wants to say] human beings are intrinsically bad and need rules in order to be good. SH is saying human beings are intrinsically good but need to be free of rules in order to reach their full potential…? They’ll NEVER agree.
That Elton John analogy was epic. Bravo.
As soon as Peterson jumps in it’s just a litany of words as he tries to sound better than Sam. Sometimes I can’t listen to him. But, I will clearly have to listen twice to really understand what Harris is saying around isreal/Palestine. It’s quite intuitive and deep thinking.
When Jordan says "what is it?" referring to Sam's "transcendent rationality", he knows what it is, he claims to have read Sam's book. He's just so rhetorical it comes off as argumentative.
He just thinks that which Sam proposes is rooted in what JBP reasons causes us to be good and look how prosperous it is, Christianity, or the belief in God, the right one, that is.
@@ltzminhe must think europeans/judeo-Christians are the reason that native Americans are so rich. We gave them casinos and free school!!!! How awesome for them!!!
..."every Palestinian, in Gaza and throughout Palestine, can prove his Arab roots - whether from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, or anywhere. We have blood ties. Personally, half my family is Egyptian. We are all like that. More than 30 families in the Gaza Strip are called Al-Masri ["Egyptian"]. Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis. Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called Al-Masri, whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians."
Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hammad, aired by Al-Hekma TV on March 23, 2012.
"There is no such country as Palestine. Palestine is a Zionist invention"
- Awni Bey Abdul Hadi, a Jerusalemite Arab leader, 1937.
"There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."
- Prof. Philip K. Hitti, distinguished Arab historian, author of the authoritative book "The Arabs", 1946.
"Such a creature as Palestine does not exist at all...."
- Ahmad Shukeiri, 1956.
Exactly- Arab roots to areas NOT ‘Palestine’! Jews are the indigenous people- thousands of years before ANYONE else - in the area we now call Palestine. Jews are the historical people of Palestine. Just history and facts…
pure bullshit and it was debunked at that time by Palestinians , some idiot said that doesn't reflect anything close to truth. he told that lie that thinking that he will gain Saudi and Egyptian support. it may apply to few families but not the vast majority of Palestinians. we have different accent , food , dance , folklore , and DNA that is way different than most Egyptians and Saudis.
@@CanaaniteGuy
Why is there no book from before 1964, which mentions the fake nation of PaIestnians?
The newspapers which report the wars in that land before 1964, don't mention PaIestnians!
@@CanaaniteGuy Zahir Muhsein was a Palestinian leader of the pro-Syria As-Sa'iqa Ba'athist faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization between 1971 and 1979.
In an interview with Trouw Magazine, 31. March 1977 he stated....."The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new tool to continue the fight against Israel and for Arab unity."
That's what I like about a Christian-atheist debate it's like a f*cking hectic tennis match when you don't even allow yourself to catch a breath for fearing of missing a point, not like the debates that we, atheist from Muslim background, have with Muslim apologists, it's like you're a criminal in a trial waiting to be executed for the audacity of questioning their doctrine, and all of this in the name of a god so obvious they can't even understand what he was trying to say. I arrived to the point where I think that not all religions are the same or deserve the same degree of respect, there are some religions (cough isllamme cough) that have to start to show us that they really are worthy of respect instead of same old lame FEAR.
'A bad tool is better than no tool at all' --Actually, no; if you aren't given a tool at all, you will make one. And your tool will probably be better than a bad one, because you'll have to understand the problem in order to solve it.
I wish whichever Weinstein that is would not involve himself in the conversation.
He’s a rat.
I never thought Peterson was this good.
Poor JP is no match for Sam...
He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
'He has a name only he knows.'
Means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
It also means he has superior knowledge and is in a superior position.
It also means he brings the most relevant information in the whole play.
Why are you guys listening to Tom and Jerry?
Are you using helmet so you don't get brain damage?
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12.
There is no other Christ!
Ask Tom and Jerry what it means?
O, they don't know? Then I ask you again, why are you listening to them? Who is dumb?
Do you need Tom or Jerry to confirm this?
If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows,' then it must also be true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
Is that objectively true?
'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein.
'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation.
Can belief open the door the truth closes? No.
Can belief close the door the truth opens? No.
Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes.
Can the truth open the door belief close? Yes.
Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth?
Is it objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief, or is it a subjective opinion?
And if it is objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief.
Is it not also objectively true, that Wittgenstein is wrong?
Now that we know the difference between objective and subjective position.
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11.
Is this claim an objective truth or a subjective belief?
We know what people imagine, because the other would mean that you all know who Christ is. In the absence of knowing his name. We know your understanding is equal to subjective belief.
Now you understand the consequence of this claim, if the opposite is true: you know who Christ is for a fact.
The opposite of this being a subjective claim, means it's objectively true. That means, you know who Christ is.
If it's true he has a name only he knows. One way to demonstrate it, is what I do now. We already determined that Tom and Jerry doesn't know, Pangburn doesn't know, the audience doesn't know.
The atheist's position is no one knows or can know, because it's impossible, no one can know except a delusional man who is wrong about what he thinks he knows.
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11.
If this is objectively true, not blue 12.11, but what is in it's place, then you can bear witness to the fact, indeed the rider did arrive first and the world could only arrive after. At that point, you will know that I am Christ. It will be the end of faith.
Now you don't know what blue 12.11 is. So you believe it's subjective. As example, if I said, blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples do blue 12.11 have? And blue 6 answers, four. And red 6 says, he is lying and deceiving you, it's based on belief. You would all say, blue 6 is telling the truth and red 6 is false. And if I asked, does blue 6 have a subjective opinion, or is the claim an objective reality? You say reality and not opinion. In other words, when red try to close, exclude that blue 6 is telling the truth, he would open so no one can close.
If the dynamic is the same when we plot the testimony of the bible on the clock, don't get the same result, except we know the identity of the one who opens so no one can close?
What do atheists claim to believe in? Logic, reason and truth.
And if this claim, Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11... is the same as logic, reason and truth and not belief and it reveals who Christ is. What will the atheist believe in then? If logic leads to Christ, if reason leads to Christ, if truth leads to Christ. What shall the atheist believe in?
How shall you deny me tomorrow?
Do I make you Christians or are you something else?
What becomes of the the self-proclaimed atheists, who believe in logic, reason and truth (Christ unknowingly) who refuse to believe in Christ? What do we do with all of you?
What to do with the cognitive dissonance?
Which one among you have the brain-capacity to understand the rider himself is more relevant than Tom and Jerry and it's my dilemma you all most face?
Who among you refuse to be an idiot?
Only a complete and utter idiot would refuse to understand the rider is more relevant.
Who among you is not an idiot? Is there no one?
2 people fundamentally disagree on truth, good and evil. Each credits a different god as the source of their understanding... How would a 3rd party reconcile their views? Impossible. So, no religion offers objective truth (inter-subjectivity). Reason gets much closer, as Sam notes, to scalability. But even pure reason must be informed by an accurate epistemic correlation*. For example, a worldview based on the assumption that reality is fundamentally relative (as understood by Einstein, heraclitus, and thales had it in the west; and Lao Tsu, Confucious, Chung Tsu, and the Buddha in the East). Specifically, matter and energy, good/bad, male/female, objective/subjective, and all other opposites share a sameness. Put differently, there are no perfectly absolute truths. No perfect gods.
* An epistemic correlation is a relationship between concepts of different types, which can be used to make empirical verification possible.
Well put Ryan
If my dadˇs dad lived in da place = RATIONAL CLAIM vs. if my ur ur ur ur ancestors I cannot ve possibly met lived in da place = CRIMINAL CLAIM
Jordan Peterson is so annoying.
He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
'He has a name only he knows.'
Means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
It also means he has superior knowledge and is in a superior position.
It also means he brings the most relevant information in the whole play.
Why are you guys listening to Tom and Jerry?
Are you using helmet so you don't get brain damage?
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12.
There is no other Christ!
Ask Tom and Jerry what it means?
O, they don't know? Then I ask you again, why are you listening to them? Who is dumb?
Do you need Tom or Jerry to confirm this?
If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows,' then it must also be true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
Is that objectively true?
'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein.
'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation.
Can belief open the door the truth closes? No.
Can belief close the door the truth opens? No.
Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes.
Can the truth open the door belief close? Yes.
Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth?
Is it objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief, or is it a subjective opinion?
And if it is objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief.
Is it not also objectively true, that Wittgenstein is wrong?
Now that we know the difference between objective and subjective position.
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11.
Is this claim an objective truth or a subjective belief?
We know what people imagine, because the other would mean that you all know who Christ is. In the absence of knowing his name. We know your understanding is equal to subjective belief.
Now you understand the consequence of this claim, if the opposite is true: you know who Christ is for a fact.
The opposite of this being a subjective claim, means it's objectively true. That means, you know who Christ is.
If it's true he has a name only he knows. One way to demonstrate it, is what I do now. We already determined that Tom and Jerry doesn't know, Pangburn doesn't know, the audience doesn't know.
The atheist's position is no one knows or can know, because it's impossible, no one can know except a delusional man who is wrong about what he thinks he knows.
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11.
If this is objectively true, not blue 12.11, but what is in it's place, then you can bear witness to the fact, indeed the rider did arrive first and the world could only arrive after. At that point, you will know that I am Christ. It will be the end of faith.
Now you don't know what blue 12.11 is. So you believe it's subjective. As example, if I said, blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples do blue 12.11 have? And blue 6 answers, four. And red 6 says, he is lying and deceiving you, it's based on belief. You would all say, blue 6 is telling the truth and red 6 is false. And if I asked, does blue 6 have a subjective opinion, or is the claim an objective reality? You say reality and not opinion. In other words, when red try to close, exclude that blue 6 is telling the truth, he would open so no one can close.
If the dynamic is the same when we plot the testimony of the bible on the clock, don't get the same result, except we know the identity of the one who opens so no one can close?
What do atheists claim to believe in? Logic, reason and truth.
And if this claim, Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11... is the same as logic, reason and truth and not belief and it reveals who Christ is. What will the atheist believe in then? If logic leads to Christ, if reason leads to Christ, if truth leads to Christ. What shall the atheist believe in?
How shall you deny me tomorrow?
Do I make you Christians or are you something else?
What becomes of the the self-proclaimed atheists, who believe in logic, reason and truth (Christ unknowingly) who refuse to believe in Christ? What do we do with all of you?
What to do with the cognitive dissonance?
Which one among you have the brain-capacity to understand the rider himself is more relevant than Tom and Jerry and it's my dilemma you all most face?
Who among you refuse to be an idiot?
Only a complete and utter idiot would refuse to understand the rider is more relevant.
Who among you is not an idiot? Is there no one?
Both these gentlemen call themselves intellectuals yet the real reason violence exists in Palestine flies past both their heads.
The problem with the argument is to pretense it with religion versus living in a hostile war zone and straight up occupation. Religion becomes a dog whistle of men with power intent just like anything else to motivate people to stand their ground. And that is because Harris is predisposition to argue from the "remove the religious reasoning and it's settle" when that's disingenuous. What isn't taught is how applied meaning to boundaries creates this mindset when these territories actually never exist in reality, hence the need for all the walls and weapons and military along the borders - it's all made up. Even Judaism can't figure out what Israel means in the current day: some say "strives with God" other "wrestles with God" then "God perseveres." But once you establish a government structure and people get a taste of that power, mmm baby it happens every time: see America and all the deals they made and broke in its bloody history. What shouldn't be overlooked is people with a substantial advantage in technology are bullying people off their once held property and again See America. It's Humans that can't learn their lesson, leave God and religion out of it - you're the ones who cannot even tell us why in the world is there a pyramid sitting in the desert which really should zero any claim on anything that predates any sense of record keeping. But if you see any masonic symbols, then you got a cause to question - again see America and the Statue of Libertah - it's not even a "theory," it's a conspiracy.
A numbered ranking would be nice .
TY
Israeli's have been staunch stewards of religious freedom and equal rights to all it's citizens. Including 2 million Arab and Muslim citizens. Evidenced by thriving Mosques and bahai temples in Israel. The same human rights and freedoms have not been bestowed to non-Muslims by the Iranian and Palestinian leaders. Keep Israel free.
The Romans renamed the province of Judea as Syria Palaestina, or "Palestinian Syria", in 135 CE. The Romans did this as punishment for the Jewish people after suppressing the Bar-Kochba Revolt. The name was meant to erase the connection between the Jewish people and the province, which was previously known as Judea. The term "Palaestina" refers to the Philistines, who were traditional enemies of the Jews and were based on the Mediterranean coast.
The name "Palestine" continued to be used long after the Roman Empire fell. In 629 CE, Muslim armies conquered the region and Arabized the name to "Filastin". The term "Palestine" became common in early modern English during the Middle Ages. The modern contours of "Palestine" were established after World War I
Yes, and Italy and Germany had their nationalistic movements in the second half of the 19th C. It doesn't mean that Italian people were "invented"- much as the Palestinians have been in the Levant since the Canaanites ( Pre-israelite). You're playing a semantic game- the name of a region is immaterial.
@darwin6883 not analogous. The Palestinian usage was invented with the sole purpose of driving jews out.
pure bullshit and zionist cheap propaganda, Herodotus the father of history called the area Palestine before any Roman Existence in the region.
@CanaaniteGuy
"There is no such country as Palestine. Palestine is a Zionist invention"
- Awni Bey Abdul Hadi, a Jerusalemite Arab leader, 1937.
"There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."
- Prof. Philip K. Hitti, distinguished Arab historian, author of the authoritative book "The Arabs", 1946.
"Such a creature as Palestine does not exist at all...."
- Ahmad Shukeiri, 1956.
@ "I am a Palestinian" -Golda Meir.
I liked Jordan years ago before he strolled into theosophy.
His first interview with Russel Brandt I think in Nov 2019 was fantastic no mention of religion - life changing podcast
When children end up in crisis situations they tend to use magical thinking. "I did something the wrong way this morning and that's why the earthquake happened".
Instead of being a priori assumptions it might be related to children naturally defining themselves by the relationship and judgement of their parents. In that way they imagine a sort of judgemental inner parent figure watching their inner thoughts and actions. Religion seems to be this kind of magical thinking retained in adulthood. Religion is also common among the more vulnerable parts of earths population.
I do not think Sam Harris should debate Jordan Peterson, it gives too much credit to Peterson. You should not debate total fools.
Basically if you boil it all down get rid of all religions let everyone pull their head out of their ass and just go about life logically and all this dumb s*** will probably fade out religion does not work anymore people know things now.
Here's one irrational thing that one must take on faith to live a better life: "Things will be better, they might be bad now, but they'll be better". I'll leave you to think why it's important to believe this, regardless of the evidence, and what could happen if one doesn't believe it'll get better, but worse and worse and worse for oneself.
Considering this isn't a religious disagreement, I doubt anything would be solved in Palestine if we ignored the religions involved.
They aren’t fighting over faith lol. Islam and Judaism are extremely similar.
Dude people are dumber than ever lmao
Harris is always worth listening to on a variety of topics. Where he contradicts himself, is his clear bias towards Muslims. His argument is a generalisation. He would really come undone arguing the Palestine/ Israeli reality with the likes of Dr. Finkelstein. His claim to Objectivity would be shown to be Subject on this topic.
Dr. Finklefuch is what we call an Israel particularist and a joke in academic circles. Forget Isreal, fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the strange death of Europe and all the restrictions on freedom coming soon as the demographics change in the decades to come.
Besides being a punchline in the academic community, Dr. Finklefuch is an Israel particularist with an deranged pathology on all things Israel.
Forget the tiny matchbook on the football field that is the Arab Muslim world, and focus instead on the impending storm in Europe as the demographics change. We have seen all the wholesome spasms of violence that have signaled what lay in wait for these soon to be former democracies. 😔
He thinks both sides are fighting over elton John's glass. I don't think that's "biasd".
And if u want to dig up history don't ask others to stop at the place u want it to stop.
Either u and both sides get to an agreement taking into account things as stands today and palasthenians stop being hell bent on killing jews, the very idea of a solution is irrational.
I mean look at the palastine children. They're openly taught to kill jews and being a shahid. Do u think that'll ever lead to a solution?
Look at hamas bringing forward literally newborns and other children as thrir poster boys.. That's gonna lead to solution?
What the hell did palastinainas got by 80 odd years of armed fighting? Don't u think fighting is not the way forward for them?
Finklestein is no doctor. Just a leftist hack.
JP is really hard to take.
Nobody talks so much and says so little. He is actually painful to listen too...
it's hard to watch debates when the entire thing is redefining the definition of is..
Imagine if instead of in the middle east, this conflict was happening today in Greece between the Zeusians and the Poseidonians. Both groups lay claim for the sole right to make offerings at the Parthenon in Athens.
They both lay claim to Mount Olympus, based on their interpretations of their Holy texts, the Iliaad and the Oddesey.
UN officials hold meetings between the groups over how to divide up the regions of Troy and Sparta. With reports of Trojan youths attacking Spartan police, security personnel, and civilians.
The Spartan Defence Force have been conducting operations in Trojan territories.
Now you may laugh....but it's not too far off what we have today.
First they came for the Palestinians and I said nothing:-(
Then they came for those who spoke up about the Palestinians and I was glad I said nothing (-;
The Sargent Schultz defense
There where no terrorist in Palestina before, Jewish and allies injustifiedly took their land and force them to run away as mere leseer beings... isoleted, harass them, and opress them. ¡They robed their land! Then terrorism came, and just in a faction or group of them. But, the question is ¿Why doesn´t this race the question of, who´s really, defending themselfs "their house", and their land?
Only one side has an irrational claim to the land, the other was ethnicly cleansed of it.
No land or property is worth another humans life, period.
Most irrational claim Israel holds is that the land is theirs because god gave them.
Get that fallacy out of their head, there will be peace.
Be good because it’s the right thing, not because you want to be invited to some celestial dodgeball game
How would sam Harris rationalize the fact that people do seemingly harmful things to themselves like boxing
JP Is a sophist at best
This is irrational that atheist person believe a god promised land to certain group.
Who’s land is this conversation between three white men taking place on
Can’t wait for you to elaborate on the intent of this question since it reeks of cynicism
Not yours, so who the fuck cares?
@Sinsofcarolina it's a funny but sad reference that Europeans carving up land that's not theirs is how the conflict started in the first place.
The land of YTubeonia .
@ChristianJay7 wrong. What was the Balfour Declaration 1917 and what group informed the British of their decision? Please do some homework 🙏
Based on Sam Harris. Any claim on anything is not rational. And the Israeli Palestinian conflict has been going on since 1948..Not thousands of years...
It's not irrational, it is a real estate transaction. Who owns the land?
..."every Palestinian, in Gaza and throughout Palestine, can prove his Arab roots - whether from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, or anywhere. We have blood ties. Personally, half my family is Egyptian. We are all like that. More than 30 families in the Gaza Strip are called Al-Masri ["Egyptian"]. Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis. Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called Al-Masri, whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians."
Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hammad, aired by Al-Hekma TV on March 23, 2012.
@KingForever-zu5jl
And Palestine has been Egyptian at times since before Moses.
I keep getting this video in my feed. My response is that this is not a debate focused on clear examples of how people behave. Peterson momentarily mentioned the core issue (of defending one’s house) but quickly got sidetracked by Harris.
An example of the core issue; the USA made multiple treaties with Native tribes and broke every treaty.
Why? Human beings are an expansive species and will fight for territory.
Harris thinks this obsession with controlling land is only based on religion. Wrong. Communist China took Tibet and will never allow Tibet to be independent again.
There is something very basic with human behavior going on.
Applying that to the Palestinian and Israeli negotiations during the Camp David process. This ultimately broke down because both sides wanted more land than the other side was willing to give. Neither side conceded because each side believes it can win its preferred control in the long run, meaning in decades or centuries.
Take any other territorial dispute.... give both sides different religions......the conflict will last for millennia.
Does Peterson realize that everybody knows every single time he interrupts with the question it's not because he has a question it's because he wanted it wants to interrupt. He's got the subtlety of a nuclear explosion and he actually thinks he's being slick.
They are both full of themselves, or as we say in Australia, they are up themselves! I can’t be bothered watching as it makes my brain hurt
Peterson fans will clap at anything he says… 🤦🏻♂️
Very difficult to comment on the behaviors of the Hamas Muslims, even if the comment is intelligent, without getting your comment deleted by TH-cam. Only pro Palestine, anti semitic comments are allowed.
That’s hilarious considering we all know Zionist’s run the media lol
Anti semitic? On JewTube?
That is a lie 😂 I see pro Israel comments everywhere and people on both sides get shadow banned etc that’s just TH-cams shit AI
Hamas are a product of illegal occupation and were funded by Israel so I don’t think commenting on their behaviour is actually necessary because their actions are a response to being forced into a concentration camp
Both sides have their comments removed and I see comments from both sides everyday so you’re lying
Jordan reacts to audience approval. He is not a serious person. He is a populist actor getting customers.
It's irrational to still disputing ownership of land that has been settled through wars. For example, The Greeks lost war to the Turks, they lost their territory, it's irrational for The Greeks to keep claiming that the Turks occupying their land, even though the Greeks have more strong reasons than Arabs Palestine, their ancestor owned the land.
In this instance the war didn't settle it and each side has supremacist ideologies that wont accept the existence of the other, in that region.
@matthewbazeley2984 i suggest you to watch Israel settlements explained in youtube.
@ If disagree with my comment type a valid reply
@matthewbazeley2984 Israel as country has won the wars with surrounding neighbours countries, there was no palestinian arab state, only arab settlers in west banks and gaza. Get your history right before making any comment, therefore i suggest you to watch the documentary.
@ What history have I got wrong? I never said Israel didn't win wars. I never mentioned a Palestinian state. My point remains that those wars didn't settle the dispute. That's why there are still two groups with ancestral ties to the land who refuse to accept each other.
Its why we pay a tax for firefighters willing to risk there life for your baby for compensation
I've been a fan of JP for a while but his religious reasoning all just seems willfully ignorent to me. Especially at the closing where he says he'd rather worship Batgirl than no God at all 🤷♂️
Is it wrong to wish for an asteroid to come out of nowhere and level certain parts of the world?
15:20 Personally I would trust more someone doing goodness for goodness sake, than someone doing it to score some points with God and get rewarded for it.. not that ethical for me.
I love that "literal" needs specifying. What do you mean by literal?
But somehow mathematics being taken on faith is perfectly fine and unambiguous.
And I quite like Jordan but he does get abstracted into nothingness pretty frequently nowadays.
Sam Harris and his hatred of Arabs/Muslims is irrational.
The love of my life ❤
Clue: it wouldn’t possibly ever be Jordan Peterson
Calling this a religious war is the most midwit uninformed take possible. There are thousands of muslim soldiers in the IDF fighting for Israel. This is only about religion for one side.
Senseless verbiage. People simply play with words and get off on their beliefs on how intelligent they are even if there is no basis for that.
Sorry but Mr Peterson seems to be working under the assumption that mankind is better of to live in ignorance then to risk trying exploring questions.
Too easy an assumption for me.
Please define words that are not in common usage. For example: a priori
Have they been in conflict for 3,000 years?
3500 to be specific
He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
'He has a name only he knows.'
Means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
It also means he has superior knowledge and is in a superior position.
It also means he brings the most relevant information in the whole play.
Why are you guys listening to Tom and Jerry?
Are you using helmet so you don't get brain damage?
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12.
There is no other Christ!
Ask Tom and Jerry what it means?
O, they don't know? Then I ask you again, why are you listening to them? Who is dumb?
Do you need Tom or Jerry to confirm this?
If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows,' then it must also be true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
Is that objectively true?
'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein.
'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation.
Can belief open the door the truth closes? No.
Can belief close the door the truth opens? No.
Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes.
Can the truth open the door belief close? Yes.
Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth?
Is it objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief, or is it a subjective opinion?
And if it is objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief.
Is it not also objectively true, that Wittgenstein is wrong?
Now that we know the difference between objective and subjective position.
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11.
Is this claim an objective truth or a subjective belief?
We know what people imagine, because the other would mean that you all know who Christ is. In the absence of knowing his name. We know your understanding is equal to subjective belief.
Now you understand the consequence of this claim, if the opposite is true: you know who Christ is for a fact.
The opposite of this being a subjective claim, means it's objectively true. That means, you know who Christ is.
If it's true he has a name only he knows. One way to demonstrate it, is what I do now. We already determined that Tom and Jerry doesn't know, Pangburn doesn't know, the audience doesn't know.
The atheist's position is no one knows or can know, because it's impossible, no one can know except a delusional man who is wrong about what he thinks he knows.
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11.
If this is objectively true, not blue 12.11, but what is in it's place, then you can bear witness to the fact, indeed the rider did arrive first and the world could only arrive after. At that point, you will know that I am Christ. It will be the end of faith.
Now you don't know what blue 12.11 is. So you believe it's subjective. As example, if I said, blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples do blue 12.11 have? And blue 6 answers, four. And red 6 says, he is lying and deceiving you, it's based on belief. You would all say, blue 6 is telling the truth and red 6 is false. And if I asked, does blue 6 have a subjective opinion, or is the claim an objective reality? You say reality and not opinion. In other words, when red try to close, exclude that blue 6 is telling the truth, he would open so no one can close.
If the dynamic is the same when we plot the testimony of the bible on the clock, don't get the same result, except we know the identity of the one who opens so no one can close?
What do atheists claim to believe in? Logic, reason and truth.
And if this claim, Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11... is the same as logic, reason and truth and not belief and it reveals who Christ is. What will the atheist believe in then? If logic leads to Christ, if reason leads to Christ, if truth leads to Christ. What shall the atheist believe in?
How shall you deny me tomorrow?
Do I make you Christians or are you something else?
What becomes of the the self-proclaimed atheists, who believe in logic, reason and truth (Christ unknowingly) who refuse to believe in Christ? What do we do with all of you?
What to do with the cognitive dissonance?
Which one among you have the brain-capacity to understand the rider himself is more relevant than Tom and Jerry and it's my dilemma you all most face?
Who among you refuse to be an idiot?
Only a complete and utter idiot would refuse to understand the rider is more relevant.
Who among you is not an idiot? Is there no one?
I find this discussion useless. A piece of land is claim by two people, who have inhabited this peace of land. One of them have inhabited the land uninterruptedly and the other have an enormous time laps from living in their land, feeling that the land is their and want the land back.
War is the way people have acquire land in the past. Today it is a bit more complicated. Surely the Palestinians would be more attached to the land since they have never left it. I understand that the Juif population need their own land but a different method must be be use. Today the two population have to find a peaceful way to share the land as they are both attached to the land. There is no other way.
Yes, abandon all monotheism. It is all astronomy anyway. None of it is literally true. That's why the monomyth exists. Every religion owes its wisdom to Hermeticism.
He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
'He has a name only he knows.'
Means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
It also means he has superior knowledge and is in a superior position.
It also means he brings the most relevant information in the whole play.
Why are you guys listening to Tom and Jerry?
Are you using helmet so you don't get brain damage?
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12.
There is no other Christ!
Ask Tom and Jerry what it means?
O, they don't know? Then I ask you again, why are you listening to them? Who is dumb?
Do you need Tom or Jerry to confirm this?
If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows,' then it must also be true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
Is that objectively true?
'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein.
'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation.
Can belief open the door the truth closes? No.
Can belief close the door the truth opens? No.
Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes.
Can the truth open the door belief close? Yes.
Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth?
Is it objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief, or is it a subjective opinion?
And if it is objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief.
Is it not also objectively true, that Wittgenstein is wrong?
Now that we know the difference between objective and subjective position.
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11.
Is this claim an objective truth or a subjective belief?
We know what people imagine, because the other would mean that you all know who Christ is. In the absence of knowing his name. We know your understanding is equal to subjective belief.
Now you understand the consequence of this claim, if the opposite is true: you know who Christ is for a fact.
The opposite of this being a subjective claim, means it's objectively true. That means, you know who Christ is.
If it's true he has a name only he knows. One way to demonstrate it, is what I do now. We already determined that Tom and Jerry doesn't know, Pangburn doesn't know, the audience doesn't know.
The atheist's position is no one knows or can know, because it's impossible, no one can know except a delusional man who is wrong about what he thinks he knows.
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11.
If this is objectively true, not blue 12.11, but what is in it's place, then you can bear witness to the fact, indeed the rider did arrive first and the world could only arrive after. At that point, you will know that I am Christ. It will be the end of faith.
Now you don't know what blue 12.11 is. So you believe it's subjective. As example, if I said, blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples do blue 12.11 have? And blue 6 answers, four. And red 6 says, he is lying and deceiving you, it's based on belief. You would all say, blue 6 is telling the truth and red 6 is false. And if I asked, does blue 6 have a subjective opinion, or is the claim an objective reality? You say reality and not opinion. In other words, when red try to close, exclude that blue 6 is telling the truth, he would open so no one can close.
If the dynamic is the same when we plot the testimony of the bible on the clock, don't get the same result, except we know the identity of the one who opens so no one can close?
What do atheists claim to believe in? Logic, reason and truth.
And if this claim, Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11... is the same as logic, reason and truth and not belief and it reveals who Christ is. What will the atheist believe in then? If logic leads to Christ, if reason leads to Christ, if truth leads to Christ. What shall the atheist believe in?
How shall you deny me tomorrow?
Do I make you Christians or are you something else?
What becomes of the the self-proclaimed atheists, who believe in logic, reason and truth (Christ unknowingly) who refuse to believe in Christ? What do we do with all of you?
What to do with the cognitive dissonance?
Which one among you have the brain-capacity to understand the rider himself is more relevant than Tom and Jerry and it's my dilemma you all most face?
Who among you refuse to be an idiot?
Only a complete and utter idiot would refuse to understand the rider is more relevant.
Who among you is not an idiot? Is there no one?
@janrunetitt you think I'm going to read this dribble? Prisca Theologia, astronomy and alchemy, that's all your God and religion are.
JP is the only man I've seen that says nothing by using so many words. I've gonna skip his videos from now on
Any definition of BS would fit this lecture.
Obviously Sam and the moderator, do NOT connect the totality of all of Arabism's empire over North Africa and Southwest Asia -Mideast nations. That is NOT separate from Arabism's empire over north of Mazhur Desert Nejd and Hedjaz, north of the 27° parallel of latitude north of The Arabian Peninsula Arab homelands. Either everybody else, under Arabist empire occupation, does or does NOT have equal rights to sovereign ownership of their motherlands. Moral equivalent analysis of The Arab-Israeli dispute, is NOT sny more legitimate than moral equivalent analysis of The Kkklan dispute against Jews and Blacks. That is NOT a superficial, coincidence. Arabism's empire is disputing Africa and Southwest Asia -Mideast nations' motherlands. So far, Sam and the moderator, do NOT seem to get the common denominator of Arabism's kkkkansmen empire and The USAmerican kkklanmen invisible empire. That is NOT separate from PalestineArab kkkkansmen, being the self-defined vanguard of Arabism.
I agree with Sam on most things, but he's got a couple of moral blind spots, and Israel is one of them.
In fact the conflict may trace back 1500 years, at most, Jewish books didn´t existed before. The 3 thousand year tale, was written and popularized between 300/500 B.C. And this, is a fact. ¿Or do you wanna base your analysis of reality based on myths?
He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
'He has a name only he knows.'
Means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
It also means he has superior knowledge and is in a superior position.
It also means he brings the most relevant information in the whole play.
Why are you guys listening to Tom and Jerry?
Are you using helmet so you don't get brain damage?
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12.
There is no other Christ!
Ask Tom and Jerry what it means?
O, they don't know? Then I ask you again, why are you listening to them? Who is dumb?
Do you need Tom or Jerry to confirm this?
If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows,' then it must also be true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
Is that objectively true?
'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein.
'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation.
Can belief open the door the truth closes? No.
Can belief close the door the truth opens? No.
Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes.
Can the truth open the door belief close? Yes.
Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth?
Is it objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief, or is it a subjective opinion?
And if it is objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief.
Is it not also objectively true, that Wittgenstein is wrong?
Now that we know the difference between objective and subjective position.
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11.
Is this claim an objective truth or a subjective belief?
We know what people imagine, because the other would mean that you all know who Christ is. In the absence of knowing his name. We know your understanding is equal to subjective belief.
Now you understand the consequence of this claim, if the opposite is true: you know who Christ is for a fact.
The opposite of this being a subjective claim, means it's objectively true. That means, you know who Christ is.
If it's true he has a name only he knows. One way to demonstrate it, is what I do now. We already determined that Tom and Jerry doesn't know, Pangburn doesn't know, the audience doesn't know.
The atheist's position is no one knows or can know, because it's impossible, no one can know except a delusional man who is wrong about what he thinks he knows.
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11.
If this is objectively true, not blue 12.11, but what is in it's place, then you can bear witness to the fact, indeed the rider did arrive first and the world could only arrive after. At that point, you will know that I am Christ. It will be the end of faith.
Now you don't know what blue 12.11 is. So you believe it's subjective. As example, if I said, blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples do blue 12.11 have? And blue 6 answers, four. And red 6 says, he is lying and deceiving you, it's based on belief. You would all say, blue 6 is telling the truth and red 6 is false. And if I asked, does blue 6 have a subjective opinion, or is the claim an objective reality? You say reality and not opinion. In other words, when red try to close, exclude that blue 6 is telling the truth, he would open so no one can close.
If the dynamic is the same when we plot the testimony of the bible on the clock, don't get the same result, except we know the identity of the one who opens so no one can close?
What do atheists claim to believe in? Logic, reason and truth.
And if this claim, Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11... is the same as logic, reason and truth and not belief and it reveals who Christ is. What will the atheist believe in then? If logic leads to Christ, if reason leads to Christ, if truth leads to Christ. What shall the atheist believe in?
How shall you deny me tomorrow?
Do I make you Christians or are you something else?
What becomes of the the self-proclaimed atheists, who believe in logic, reason and truth (Christ unknowingly) who refuse to believe in Christ? What do we do with all of you?
What to do with the cognitive dissonance?
Which one among you have the brain-capacity to understand the rider himself is more relevant than Tom and Jerry and it's my dilemma you all most face?
Who among you refuse to be an idiot?
Only a complete and utter idiot would refuse to understand the rider is more relevant.
Who among you is not an idiot? Is there no one?
Peterson should stick to psychology. He knows nothing about middle eastern history.
As Sam points out, this 'g' thing and each middle east factions version of their sky deity and its prophets, always gets in the way of human progress and a coming together for our species! Jordan's rhetoric is always to NOT recognise the root cause of such - middle east religions is simply not our species start point, it is so beyond that!
Idk man we usually refer to the beauty generated through religious worship. Art, poetry and music, all dedicated to dieties that don't exist. Religion might have huge downsides but its not all bad.
@@ChristianJay7 Human beings were creating art, telling stories, developing their culture, recognizing their own worth and standing on their own two feet well before the middle east disruptors got in the way of everything.
@neilfletcher1841 yes. Absolutely. But some art is undeniably religious in nature. The sistine chapel and Dantes inferno would not have been created without religion. It's ok to be atheist but stop trying to force it on everyone else. Enjoy religion like christmas. You don't have to have faith to enjoy the holiday.
@@ChristianJay7 Yet the majority of art is undeniably 'human expression and creation' without the need for any religious influence. I must admit I do enjoy the secular festival of Xmas - Santa Claus, as a kid and as a fabled story to be told, was just one of my magical wonderous moments in life that will never be taken away from me!
@neilfletcher1841 same brother. I'm an atheist as well. I'm trying to be less smug and calm when discussing religion. That being said, I absolutely do not accept people using legislation to conform others to their religious views.
I am surprised that you did not entitle the video to somehow that this is Jordan Peterson's fault for the mess between Israel and Palestine! 🤣😂
Two highly intelligent people with no compassion… But consider themselves highly compassionate, utter delusion
Wow, 12k views and only 206 likes and a few more comments.
Two out of touch genocide apologists blabbing smh
Peterson needing his medecine, again and again. Exhausting to see him overtaking, interrupting, dropping fallacies and sophisms like an entitled teen drinking redbull.
He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
'He has a name only he knows.'
Means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
It also means he has superior knowledge and is in a superior position.
It also means he brings the most relevant information in the whole play.
Why are you guys listening to Tom and Jerry?
Are you using helmet so you don't get brain damage?
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12.
There is no other Christ!
Ask Tom and Jerry what it means?
O, they don't know? Then I ask you again, why are you listening to them? Who is dumb?
Do you need Tom or Jerry to confirm this?
If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows,' then it must also be true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
Is that objectively true?
'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein.
'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation.
Can belief open the door the truth closes? No.
Can belief close the door the truth opens? No.
Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes.
Can the truth open the door belief close? Yes.
Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth?
Is it objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief, or is it a subjective opinion?
And if it is objectively true the truth has this attribute and not belief.
Is it not also objectively true, that Wittgenstein is wrong?
Now that we know the difference between objective and subjective position.
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11.
Is this claim an objective truth or a subjective belief?
We know what people imagine, because the other would mean that you all know who Christ is. In the absence of knowing his name. We know your understanding is equal to subjective belief.
Now you understand the consequence of this claim, if the opposite is true: you know who Christ is for a fact.
The opposite of this being a subjective claim, means it's objectively true. That means, you know who Christ is.
If it's true he has a name only he knows. One way to demonstrate it, is what I do now. We already determined that Tom and Jerry doesn't know, Pangburn doesn't know, the audience doesn't know.
The atheist's position is no one knows or can know, because it's impossible, no one can know except a delusional man who is wrong about what he thinks he knows.
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11.
If this is objectively true, not blue 12.11, but what is in it's place, then you can bear witness to the fact, indeed the rider did arrive first and the world could only arrive after. At that point, you will know that I am Christ. It will be the end of faith.
Now you don't know what blue 12.11 is. So you believe it's subjective. As example, if I said, blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples do blue 12.11 have? And blue 6 answers, four. And red 6 says, he is lying and deceiving you, it's based on belief. You would all say, blue 6 is telling the truth and red 6 is false. And if I asked, does blue 6 have a subjective opinion, or is the claim an objective reality? You say reality and not opinion. In other words, when red try to close, exclude that blue 6 is telling the truth, he would open so no one can close.
If the dynamic is the same when we plot the testimony of the bible on the clock, don't get the same result, except we know the identity of the one who opens so no one can close?
What do atheists claim to believe in? Logic, reason and truth.
And if this claim, Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11... is the same as logic, reason and truth and not belief and it reveals who Christ is. What will the atheist believe in then? If logic leads to Christ, if reason leads to Christ, if truth leads to Christ. What shall the atheist believe in?
How shall you deny me tomorrow?
Do I make you Christians or are you something else?
What becomes of the the self-proclaimed atheists, who believe in logic, reason and truth (Christ unknowingly) who refuse to believe in Christ? What do we do with all of you?
What to do with the cognitive dissonance?
Which one among you have the brain-capacity to understand the rider himself is more relevant than Tom and Jerry and it's my dilemma you all most face?
Who among you refuse to be an idiot?
Only a complete and utter idiot would refuse to understand the rider is more relevant.
Who among you is not an idiot? Is there no one?
Sam Harris's world!
Both countries are wrong and irrational on this, but one culture produces Nobel prizes while the other throws gays off buildings. 🇮🇱 > 🇵🇸 and it isn’t a question
@@ParkerBG how is Palestine wrong for not wanting to colonized?
@@theCommentDevil maybe for advocating for the complete and utter eradication of an ethnic group?
@@theCommentDevil The answer is easy. Palestine is not wrong for not wanting to be colonized.
It is everyone else that is wrong that insists that Palestine has no right to that, and make excuses for what is happening now. Because, if anyone condones the response that Israel has conducted, then there is something more evil and wrong than what is going on there.
@@theCommentDevilThey are not being colonized, they are attempting the genocide of Israel and Jews and are suffering the consequences of their abhorrent behaviour.
@@shauntempley9757Amen!
I was seduced for a couple of minutes. That was, until I realized that I want to know whether Sam does or does not take the moral equivalent attitude, towards the Kkklan? That specifically goes hand in hand with Arabism's empire over North Africa and Southwest Asia -Mideast nations. Either Sam is or is not connecting the dots of Arabist empire kkklanmen, holding African slaves and Arabist empire colonial settler occupation over Zion Judaean Hebrew Israel
Super heroes are much better, they simply don´t go killing everybody becasuse they believe they are superior, some god comands it, or whatever. They also don´t justify bad deeds on any belief system, don´t make excusas, they learn, they progress, they change for the better, they are, in fact, pretty super. Can´t say the same about groups of religius people that have been doing the same BS for hundreds or thousands of years.
Is Jordan being exceedingly dense here?
Word salad galore
Sam Harris talks rubbish. To suggest there is nothing rational about the claim on the land makes no sense.
The level of Sam Harris’s ignorance is immense
shame on both
Jordan Peterson ist a waste of time
Jerusalem .... who administer there... always stucj there .. a n irinic name for the city
Sam is a master full of BS and tries to confuse everyone.
Both sides are wrong.
And what is right in your opinion?
Wether true or not I see Sam’s point. I have no idea what JP is trying to say
@@Kyle0617he’s god. That’s the issue
Cracked it
What an absolute shallow take.
I'm Palestinian, we don't throw gays off buildings!! 50 years ago it was illegal in the us for gays, are you saying we can't progress like the rest of the world? You have an insane superiority complex that needs yo be dismanteled.
As the others said. We simply resist ybe colonial power and want OUR freedom the same way your founding fathers wanted to be free from UK impersialism.
Amazing how two completely self absorbed people, blown away by their own supposed intellect, can take an issue that is not that complicated and turn it into something only ‘geniuses like themselves’ can grasp. It ain’t that complicated. The majority population in that land, for millennia, haven’t taken kindly to a group of people from another continent violently displacing them, simply because they share a religion with some of the people who live there.
What a bunch of brain fluff. Complete waste of time.
That 2 + 2 makes 4 is an "intuition" it is not an intuition. There are peoples on earth now who cannot count past 3, so they would never understand that "intuition" (meaning not based on "known" knowledge). They would interpret it as 2 + 2 makes many and the same for 3 + 3, 3+1 etc. Your intuition is that you learned it so early that it feels natural to know 2 + 2 = 4, but it is not.