The BIBLE's ULTIMATE PROBLEM - Sam Harris vs Jordan Peterson
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 เม.ย. 2024
- The BIBLE's ULTIMATE PROBLEM - Sam Harris vs Jordan Peterson
#SamHarris #JordanPeterson #Bible
Full discussion here: • Sam Harris vs Jordan P...
Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson - Vancouver - 2
Moderated by Bret Weinstein
06/24/2018
This is the second time Sam & Jordan appeared live together on stage. This event took place at the Orpheum Theatre in Vancouver BC Canada on June 24th 2018 in front of a sold out audience of 3000 people. The event was produced by Pangburn Philosophy.
Full discussion here: th-cam.com/video/GEf6X-FueMo/w-d-xo.html
JOIN US IN NYC ON JUNE 1st for ALEX O'CONNOR vs DINESH D'SOUZA on "IS THE BIBLE TRUE?"
Tickets available here: www.pang-burn.com/tickets
Was never YaHs demand, read YeremiYahu 7 chapter and then think again
I will go if you promise me the Grande finale is Dinesh is eaten my hineias
"Dr Peterson, what's your favorite color?"
"Well that depends what you mean by favorite, and it also depends what you mean by color. This is also a very complex question. One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate, which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertant dismissal of Jung's archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnutude of neo-Marxist existential nihilism..."
Don't get behind him at Panda Express 😂
He has a fantastic way of saying nothing with the most words possible 😆
@christiangrosjean2980 not fantastic , though. A pompous disengeuous waste of oxygen.
Bravo
A snake oil salesman.
I think Mr Peterson could debate himself for days.
🤣😂🤣😂 Self entertainment.
And say absolutely nothing
@@ora4428 he would eventually go to sleep from exhaustion no clear winner😂
he does... /buD2RM0xChM?si=OW709dqMOb84BwOO
He has expressed that is what he does daily
Jordan's strategy seems to be quickly speak the largest words possible while remaining vaguely on topic and making simple things complicated
He uses a lot of long words to cover up that hes not actually answering the question
yep. well put . But being that also along the tribal experience we can all know that something besides (and more powerful both technically but including spirituality does can .....wait which side am i on ? oh never mind.
I have a serious question. Why does the creator of the universe want me to read leviticus? Assuming I can read and ignoring people who can't read.
I took notes on these entire debates - several hours in a couple parts.
They occured just a few years ago. It's interesting to go back and review the notes now & then.
I like this idea :)
“In the biblical narrative . . the sacrificial notion becomes increasingly psychologised as the story progresses . . to be more abstract”.
I’m not a Christian or anything but I’m fairly sure there’s an important non-abstract blood sacrifice quite near the end of the biblical narrative.
Jordan Peterson is the type of person who would debate for 7 hours why he picked a specific chair at a restaurant
He will argue why it is the most profound chair and option for the world
Well, what exactly do you mean by "Chair"?
In a sense...
And after 7 hours it would still boil down to “because!”
The problem is not that he could talk about it for 7 hours but that he convinces himself that there is a deeper meaning behind it
Jesuit priest taught me, learn to distinguish when ppl challenge you vs insult you. In faith and ideas. Keep an open mind. Same teacher was a Philosophy professor and fan of the Greeks.
I think it was the munk debates I can say Peterson genuinely did well. Him and Stephen Fry crushed the other side. The other side did exactly what Peterson did here. Peterson isnt stupid but debates like this shows when he debates a genuine academic he's way out of his league. He tries to cover it by using so many elegant words you forget he didn't answer the question at all.
If you look deeply at any ancient religious text you can interpret it to support whatever you want.
Therefore one has to conclude that adhering to these texts is subjective and therefore not the command of a supernatural being.
You can’t be saying? That the evidence, is for a bunch of old men. To control their community. Conveniently, in absolute terms.
@@billpetersen298 Perhaps Bill. I also suspect that whatever was given to priests to sacrifice to whatever gods, didn't end up with the gods.
The priests would have been very happy with this arrangement.
@@terryleddra1973 The gold, is in the temple. Just in case, they need to raise an army.
Your whole comment is subjective
Right. Over 45,000 different Christian denominations & counting. Ridiculous
Thanks 👍
Okay now let's go to the comments and listen to the experts😄
Jordan strikes me as the quintessential anti-Occam's razor.
peterson is the great twister of meanings until they point in the direction he wants.
he incrementally nudges the definition of words so he can replace that word with another that has the opposite meaning.
he is a crook.
Or as Jordan likes to say "archetypal"
This is also very true for his diet. His diet is what know to do.. because drinking some apple cider could kill you..
Occam’s kitchen sink.
i have watched several, no alot ,. of atheist vs theist. Most always enjoy them. Sam Harris has really made me think. (and wonder). I really enjoyed this.
Jordan Patterson. The world champion in intellectual word salad without any substance 😂
I wouldn't say its without substance so much as its just way over complicated
We need people whose gift is to complicate, just like we need people whose gift is to simplify. The idea that complication equates to substance is just as stupid as the idea that it equates to lack of substance.
He's the master of ring around the rosey.
vebal insanity.
He's a sophist.
I imagine that when Peterson is talking sam is thinking "this guy is effing crazy".
We’re all thinking that. Everyone.
@@Weeble_Warbles not everyone. Not peterson fanboys. To them he is beyond criticism. Mainly because his critics know more about him than those people who just see his fight against enforced pronouns.
@@redmed10I mean I’m a god fanboy not a Peterson fanboy, but he does definitely have great points. Most of these arguments have to start with “let’s exclude morality.” Why is that so you think?
kinda like Sam fan boi's... but hey he believes this is a simulation so his delusions seem to be greater than some kind of a creator... but then again if it's a simulation, then there mist be a creator. Sadly Sam lacks the self awareness to see this
@@Matthew-cp2eg Even if there was a creator of this simulation, that does not justify religious dogmatism. It also does not mean that the creator is a loving being or that he is judging us.
Jordan "it's not that simple!" Peterson arrogantly doubling down on his embarrassingly transparent compulsion to overcomplicate the simplest ideas. The degree to which anyone might be impressed with this strategy as a sign of intelligence is inversely proportionate to their own intelligence.
Jordan's tactic is If you can't convince them, then use subterfuge.
For Jordan, logic and reason don't matter. Every idea, word or letter can mean anything, and he makes it mean whatever he wants so he "wins"
He also likes the "it's not unreasonable to suggest..." yeah sure, but from 'not unreasonable' to 'supported by evidence' and 'the best explanation we have' there's an ocean in the middle.
@@alexkiddonen peterson incrementally nudges the definition of words so he can replace that word with another that has the opposite meaning.
he is a crook.
@@Flux_40 nah he uses precise words, it's often the leftist/Marxist who fudge with definitions and play fast and loose with words. That's why he tried to nail down definitions. Moreover, it's important in dialogue to have those clear definitions to communicate your ideas.
So what was the Ultimate Problem promised in the title? I didn’t encounter any serious issue here in this section, at least, nothing that I can’t easily dismiss.
I once had a more senior coworker try to say I went out of my scope of practice when I fixed a patient that he couldn’t. His ego was so hurt that he made it seem like I was causing harm to the patient. Peterson sounds like he is just upset that someone is doing what he does, but better and in a different arena.
I’m glad Sam is a genius. Because I have no idea what Peterson is talking about.
Bullshit; nonsense
This is the most hilarious comment I've read so far.😂😂😂😂
you let sam do your thinking for you
That's his grift and his fanb0ys think he's saying something profound.
@@Jayden-zq6fjyou obviously didn't listen to what Sam said if this is the comment you're going to make. Also Peterson is just famous for putting large words into his comments to make himself sound smart and actively make it harder for his listeners to engage with his commentary therefore they just agree with it. I have yet to meet a fan of Peterson that genuinely understands what the f*** an argument from authority is.
"if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Einstein.
In JP's case, he intentionally confuses subjects not realising the audience are actually annoyed with his transparent bullshit.
Jesus speaking in parable and avoiding answering the Pharisees directly also annoyed them. Jesus did answer people directly but by and large He always gave the Pharisees something more to think about. Very rarely do people want the truth because it would mean they have to let go of the lies.
@@EnochGitongaKimathi Ironic considering your referencing the teachings of a cult...
@@MrSnakekaplan you are absolutely right the apostles were accused of being involved in a cult and they were actually killed because they gave eyewitness testimony that Jesus was crucified, He died and resurrected. I find that Jesus's teachings are the best instructions for how to live life, "Love your neighbour, practically." and "Love your enemy and pray for their good." It is amazing how people are resisting His teachings when all He taught us to do is to love.
Jordan Peterson is excellent and analyzing subjective information, not so good at objective information.
I still enjoy listening to both of them.
It's pathetic we still presume and refer to the Bible as a myth.
A myth won't reference Historical Characters and timelines that reconcile with extra biblical Historical documents.
12:30 "most old ideas are stupid and dangerous as well" that is only because the were once new ideas
Jordan wins. A “rational” approach to morality can be really great, or really destructive, depending on its underlying assumptions, just like a metaphorical approach.
Structure grows and developes
The Bible is claimed absolute.
Structure is not necessarily dogmatic.
I admit to being biased, but I cannot see how Jordan Peterson can have a voice in any debate, to me he is nothing more than a word salad master.
What was a word salad here? I know he uses many big words to be as precise in his language as possible but I have been seeing this point pop up a lot as if it's a narrative being pushed by bots.
@@mrjesuschrist2u I think that may be because it’s so obvious, I think he’s trying to out do Sam Harris. The subject doesn’t require the complexity Jordan gives it. Regardless of the questions Jordan adds way too much complexity. I don’t think there is a conspiracy he’s just full of shit.
@@aaronchandler2380 is it wrong to agree on stuff? Is it wrong to clarify your position on which you agree to make sure you're both saying the samething?
Again what specifically was word salad?
Sam Harris is very smart but is a pseudointellectual. His freedom of speech stance is confirmation he was not in the same realm as the other big thinkers. His debates are also evidence for subpar positions, I'd have to dig up the one that he just performed so poorly. He does try really hard.
@@mrjesuschrist2u because of Jordan Petersons word salad I can’t listen to him very long. Sam Harris points are direct and to his point. i cannot tell you the point Jordan Peterson was trying to make here. Sam Harris is one of the greatest minds of our time.
@@aaronchandler2380 again what is the word salad.... If it's so obvious. Your failure to understand doesn't refute the valid points. In the first minute JP is saying the Bible is progressing the idea of sacrifice from literal to figurative. Keep in mind JP is NOT a Christian but he does understand that he has to view the Bible through the gospel. As much as you think SH is straight and to the point I think he over reductionalizes, misrepresents, and doesn't address arguments.
Btw it was the William Lane Craig debate. I didn't even know who WLC was when I watched it but I just felt embarrassed for SH. Even SH fans are open about this L.
Peterson doesn't listen; he interrupts to lecture about his POV.
Fantastic, and you need to admire Sam for responding patiently and respectfully, to JP's incomprehensible blah blah.
Sam sees the world with eyes of a 6th grader in many ways. He is naive to human nature to a point where it must be willfull blindness.
so, the simulation that Sam is living in was created by who?
@@Matthew-cp2eg The Chinese don't think about a creator, everything simply grows.
@doc2590 so the Chinese created the simulation which Sam lives in?
@@Matthew-cp2eg there is no simulation. All you have are the thoughts in your head.
Love Jordan. I think he has a very passionate perspective, but his arguments rely on his passion and beliefs, rather than rationality. Sam calmly addresses that, and avoids being drawn into the emotional turmoil Peterson is trapped in.
Peterson was trying to make the claim that religion isn't the best solution due to the subsisting percarious dynamic between the persistence of dogma and the willingness to update traditions, but its not a bad solution nonetheless, because we can't properly perceive the world and hence live in it without a priori dogma.
So disposing a priori dogma would potentially handicap us of meaning
Audio is WAY too quiet on this one. Can barely even make out what they're saying at max volume.
Ok for me.
@@dongorrie1828 How is it compared to other videos?
Sounds fine to me 🤷♂️
@@revwillyg6450 ...okay but how in comparison to other videos? Dull? Good? Bright? It will help me figure out if it's on something my end or just videos in general!
@@plaguedoct0r sounds like all the other videos similar to this one, Doc.
One thing is certain: both of them love hearing themselves talk.
Sure, but many other people love hearing them talk to. Can you say the same about yourself?
@@Wildminecraftwolf I can take them in small doses, despite JP's irritating vocal qualities, so long as they don't get too caught up in his pedantry.
As for me, I'm not overly enthused about hearing myself talk despite nearly forty years of avocational acting. I especially dislike recordings of my voice, although people have occasionally told me I should be on the radio.
Well…that’s what they’re there for….🤷🏻♂️
Can we draw anything from the way JP’s hands move and quiver, and he seems agitated (and gives forth a river of words), rather than SH who seems calmer, and certainly more succinct. JK
Would you prefer they talked less during a debate?
Summary of this entire debate- of Jordan basic position: there isn’t sufficient evidence of god’s existence, but the bible says some profound things so maybe god is real. If god isn’t real we should still act as though he was. I respectfully think Jordan needs to work on better articulating his ideas and opinions in a way that doesn’t require every viewer to have memorised the entire dictionary. This was just my good-faith interpretation of his side of the debate.
I dont understand why God is so set on testing his people when he already is God and knows the outcome. Why test Abrahams ability to sacrifice his son when you are God and know that he would. It doesnt really make much sense. All it did was pointlessly traumatize Isaac and lead to a pointless, permanent record of child sacrifice being put in your "holy book". Wouldnt the most moral God make a lesson saying DONT sacrifice your children to me, i am a loving God and want all of you to be well? Why is God so obsessed with the loyalty of his creation to him it makes no sense at all, if he actually wanted loyal people he should have just created a loyal creation. He seems to try over and over again to strive towards making people perfect, to the point where he threatens permanent torture if you dont do what he says, but he literally created you to be imperfect when he could have done otherwise, quite effortlessly, given that he is God.
As woody Allen said , if god wants to test us why can't he make it a written?
An experience in which someone becomes a better person might unleash psychotic behavior in another.
Nice
These guys will leave our heads spinning. Check out Howard Elseth if you want a good, Godly, and grounded in sound doctrine, education.
Lol, it wasnt a stupid idea, it was very smart she knew he will get a new wife quickly and made sure her kids are protected. Good job mom
More word salad nonsense from Peterson. Sam dunks on him repeatedly.
What language are these guys speaking? 👀😂 Somebody get me a thesaurus. 😅
Jordan will dodge any tough question by arguing about definitions to the point that he muddies the very language being used to describe simple concepts.
Jordan Peterson talks a lot but says very little. He's one of those guys who thinks that if you put together enough words, people will find you intelligent.
😂
You don't have to be intelligent, you just have to be able to convince others that you are intelligent.
Well u r just stupid to understand what he says 😂
@@MrCanis4And most of what he does is play psychological games. He tries to influence what the other person feels like and not stay true to the topic.
I'm also pretty sure that he heavily moderates the topics of a debate beforehand. There are many mistakes that he made that he could be confronted about but he avoids doing so. His views on veganism are insane. A debate/conversation with Ed Winters would ruin him.
He underestimated Dawkins, who really derailed him because of his views on the double helix system as evidence that ancient peoples knew it was like DNA.
UH OH.
The Problem Atheists have is,
They Unnecessarily Overcomplicate it
God is simply the Existence of Love.
Everybody Believes Love exists
Simple. But infinite in Power and Expression.
To ignore the Reality of that
Is not only Unfortunate
It’s Shameful
I love Sam. If you ever need a truly rational answer, he'll have it.
Consciousness is not deeper than morality, Sam.
Without consciousness, there can be no morality🤔
@@depe01 True.
It sounds like the only real benefit to dogmatism (most religions) is the ability to control people. Religion is used as a political weapon, and its adherents as physical weaponry to affect those politics. That it can be used to control people and direct their energy to your needs, it is beneficial to you. That's the whole game.
And the only just argument is about whether or not that is of value anymore to hold such sway over populations using myth.
There clearly are conflicts between competing religions which cause great harm. But would that harm have come from some other alliances?
We can see religion being used during the major conflicts of the 20th Century, but the two world wars were geopolitical competitions, not holy wars.
As an individual I will subscribe to religious beliefs, until and unless they become convincing.
Hello Hello dear fellow humanimals! I fully agree with all the comments that in one way or another, directly and/or indirectly, describe him as a word-sallad-disaster-master. J.P is in fact an internationally acknowledged intellectual whose countless positive contributions to the development and expanding sophistication of the human psyche and its understanding of itself is indeed priceless. The amount of people who to some degree have benefitted from the successful endeavours of his school of thought is certainly worth applauding for. Quality arises from quantity. Even J.P himself is most probably fully aware of this fact. I wouldn't expect any less from him than that kind of relatively simplistic introspection. Then again, his uncanny ability to shred a simple question into millions of pieces in order to reassemble it in the shape of an unnecessarily prolonged answer just for the sake of reaffirming his obvious academically infused narcissism is in fact profoundly despicable. We all know and so does he that he is merely a human being. Power corrupts and therefore forcibly shifts our focus. Even though our initial well-meaning intentions still may linger in the background, the intent has changed direction, whether we admit it or not. Lex Fridman, with his monotonously comforting voice and mannerism that would instantly give him a parking ticket if he was a vehicle on the streets, effortlessly brought out the human essence in J.P. Obviously I don't agree with everything this J.P dude preaches and promotes but we all possess the ability to be selective. Since not a single one of us is perfect, every single one of us is always right while always being wrong because the method of distilling ones contemporary perspective can only be a subjective interpretation of all the experimental experiences of ones lifelong surroundings, regardless of the geographical distance in relation to ones physical appearance/existence. Take care and live well!👻❤
This whole debate highlights how the human brain is not capable of understanding ANYTHING about a religious belief.
10:42 honestly I don't see how the rational approach could fail to be the best strategy. When I ask the questions, "how could it not be the best strategy? How could another strategy be better?" well if you have a conclusive, evidence-based answer to that, guess what? That's the rational approach. You've shown with evidence it's best, so now it's the rational approach. Therefore it must optimize well-being best to approach the topic rationally. No better strategy is possible.
It fails when people are stupid. What's reasonable to the fool isn't reasonable at all, but he can have very clever arguments that make him stupid. Take Evolution for example. It stands upon reason but it's quite ridiculous in and of itself.
It could be possible in some respects to arrive at a higher place of well being from an irrational approach. For instance, religious people were found to better cope with the challenges of the COVID pandemic compared to a secular population. Let's assume this is due to religious community that the secular population lacks. Now the secular population can rationize why that is and navigate themselves to that same higher place of well being if they are motivated to do so, but secular rationality lacks the compulsion to meet with others in a community on a weekly basis to discuss something outside themselves. This is what Sam Harris means about navigating a moral landscape you can approach a "peaks of well being" from different directions some slopes will be steeper and more difficult, others may only get you half way up, and others still may dip down before gradually reaching the highest peak.
@@fatalheart7382 Sorry, what?
1. If people are stupid, that implies irrationality, which means they wouldn't be using the rational strategy.
2. What's "ridiculous" about evolution? (And be sure to clarify why that topic is relevant at all to the conversation. It isn't even an example of stupidity vs. rationality, so "for example" didn't even make sense there. Just felt like a hamfisted attempt to change topics because you can't address what was said by me or the video.)
@@majm9309 1. I mean, I can restate what I said: "What is reasonable to the fool isn't reasonable at all."
2. Perhaps you thinking that Evolution is rational and genuinely needing examples is my case and point? XD
@@nathanb8307 Again, when we set well-being as the goal and pursue it using a strategy of rationality, then the moment you can show evidence that well-being was optimized by some other strategy, _that becomes_ the rational strategy. Basically just by setting the goal and pursuing it rationally, we've picked the unavoidably best strategy for pursuing that goal.
In case you feel your example was relevant, if the goal is just "maximize my well-being only in the very short term of this one pandemic" then it's entirely possible religious belief optimized well-being in that context. The issue being we're still here in 2024, and so clearly setting such a short-sighted goal wouldn't have been the right choice then, and shouldn't be the sort of choice we choose now unless you could somehow show sustained well-being gains resulted from religion (and you can't).
So while there's plenty of nuance to most goals one might apply rationality to, unavoidably it's always going to be the absolute best for achieving that goal, because it self-corrects based on the latest available data.
My take on Jordan Peterson is: Q. Do you believe in God? JP. That depends on what you mean by "do" and "you" and "believe" and "in" and "God"! He really shows the 'value' of philosophy!
he isn't one to just give lip service, and also what is the actual question?
@@Matthew-cp2eg WUT!?!?!
the @@LGpi314response explains everything
@@Matthew-cp2eg It is a perfect response to your original post.
I'll say it again. WUT!!?!?
@LGpi314 your responses continue explain your lack of understanding. It's why a proper response isn't required to you
Jordan looks uncomfortable
He was. He admitted that this talk didn't go as he'd wanted to and he reflected on his own faults during the debate.
GPT Jordan Peterson 😂
"Newton's Third Law-every action has an equal and opposite reaction-isn't just a physical principle; it's a profound metaphysical statement about the nature of reality. Heraclitus once said, 'Conflict is the father of all things.' This ancient insight mirrors the dynamic interplay of forces described by Newton. Every push against the universe results in the universe pushing back against us. This is not merely physics; it’s a fundamental aspect of being.
Similarly, Søren Kierkegaard's reflection that 'Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards' captures the essence of living within this law. We see the effects of our actions only after we have made them, which inherently ties our past decisions to our future possibilities.
Immanuel Kant also touched upon this, though in a moral context, with his categorical imperative. Every action we take should be considered as if it were to become a universal law of nature. This resonates with Newton's law, suggesting that our every deed sends ripples through the fabric of reality, affecting the world and, in turn, affecting us.
This interconnectivity, this metaphysical substrate that Newton taps into, suggests that our very existence is tied not just to our actions but to the reactions they invoke. This is the profound lesson of Newton's Third Law-it's about physics, ethics, and metaphysics, all woven into the very fabric of reality."
Jordan sure likes to fill his ideas and topics with semantics
I went from a non-believer, at age 44 to a born again Christian at 45. I'm 62 at this point, and the peace I feel in my life is the best it has ever been. I guess you could say that I really don't even care if everything in the Bible is literally true. It's been good for me, and that's enough. Thanks for reading.
If everything is not true it also means that it IS NOT from god and the purported divinity of Jesus is the biggest fraud in the world.
@@Jesus_Is_Satan_Incarnate Are you full?
@@goodtalker Are you confused?
The simple fact you felt the need to make that comment indicates doubt
@@richstafford1245 When Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane, he calls out to God, essentially, asking that someone else take his place. God never answers him, but he goes ahead and is killed and is resurrected on the third day. Possibly there is a point to the "not knowing," or being willing to live with a certain amount of doubt in one's life. I worked in state corrections here in California for more than 25 years. IMHO, people who are absolutely convinced that what they are doing is appropriate and correct will commit the most heinous acts of evil I have ever seen, all the while, certain that they know what they are doing. Thanks for reading, and have a nice day.
I used to enjoy listening to Peterson's classroom lectures, but now that he's ventured into religion, and the creation of his own version of Christianity especially, he gets lost in his own archetypes while simultaneously ignoring a plain reading of biblical texts.
It would be fun if JP tried this with #DanMcClellan, and academic biblical scholar who is also fluent in biblical Hebrew, and New Testament Greek.
Thanks for honoring my freedom of speech.
The Problem with the both Catholic and Protestant bibles ... is that Jews already were convinced that they were G-d's CHOSEN FEW. And being Jewish in ethnicity AND religion ... had Jesus existed ... he never would have preach any doctrine other THAN Judaism.
Christianity always was ... and IS ... an anti-Semitic religion.
Maimonides was a Jewish Rabbi who lived in the Middle-ages and because he told the Jews what they wanted to hear … he was extremely popular. And he was right … that if Jesus gave up on preaching Judaism as his one and only truth … which was his birth-right … to in turn preach ANY Christian doctrine … Jesus WOULD have been a heretic and OF COURSE hated by the Jews.
Just as the Catholic popes wanted the Jews and Protestants to be put to death for heresy … the Jews wanted Jesus to be put to death for heresy against them.
I agree with the words of the now-dead Christopher Hitchens … “Religion poisons everything.”
From the book … god is not GREAT … How Religion Poisons Everything … Christopher Hitchens … “Maimonides described the punishment of the detestable Nazarene heretic as one of the greatest achievements of the Jewish elders, insisted that the name Jesus never be mentioned except when accompanied by a curse, and announced that his punishment was to be boiled in excrement for all eternity. What a good Catholic Maimonides would have made!”
Huh thsts a very interesting and creative spin you're trying to put on christianity.
So you're telling me, that the religion, thst was started by, is based on, and that honours and worships specifically is a jew, , and that it spramg from, and is akin to, and even adopted jewish folklore and culture, is somehow "anti - semetic"?
😳
That's is quite the spin,.... I'd say a full 180` turn around you pulled there.
Chritianty beliefs and its ties with Judaism, only add to the fact of who christianity is entirely centered around, inspired by, and focuses on exclusively,. Christianity would theologically and definitionaly regard anything anti Semitic to be distinctly 'anti-christ'.
So sorry but , you're gona need to take that one back to the drawing board, it needs alot of work.
@@gregsanich5183 From what I studied ... Jews were at one time all polytheists ... with belief in many gods. When one group of Jews created monotheism ... their hope was that all people of earth would have the "desire" to join them in Judaism's worship of that ONE GOD.
Of course it didn't work, because everybody in the Abrahamic religions wanted to be the CHOSEN FEW, and refused to believe that Jews were special to the ONE GOD in existence.
Of course Christianity was ... is ... and always will be ... (unless it dies from lack of human investment of faith) anti-Semitic.
And had Jesus lived as a real Jewish Rabbi ... he would have been faithful ONLY to Judaism.
After all, it was the first Christians that stated in the affirmative that Jesus was born PERFECT to a family of Jews that were faithful to Judaism.
If later in life, Jesus decided to preach a doctrine foreign to and offensive to Judaism ... that would have resulted in him being IMperfect.
No matter which religion ... it is all nothing other than myth ... legend ... fairy tales ... fables ... and outright LIES.
@@gregsanich5183 I'll share with you what resulted in me being convinced that all this talk of "spirituality" is based on myth.
I started posting about the subject of religion on Topix forums in 2006, and that was a real eye opener.
Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, new-age Wiccans, and those from every other assortment of believers in spirituality were badmouthing each other as being in cults.
At the time, having been indoctrinated in a Christian culture, and being totally confused about what I was trying to believe ... I was informed by many others that I was in a cult.
One day I thought about the idea that maybe I had been indoctrinated in a cult ... and maybe the same had occurred to those who were pointing at me.
When I suggested that maybe all of us in religions were in cults ... they didn't want any part of that idea. They all wanted to believe that they personally owned those words "spiritual truth."
In 2009, after 3 years of that turmoil ... I became a full-fledged Atheist ... free of all religious myths.
I am now 84 years of age, and my system of belief ... is that in one form or another ... the universe always existed ... no creator ... no plan ... no afterlife ... and that suffering of all forms of life ... is natural.
Religious beliefs divide humans into myth-peddling right-fighters. And what divides ... can never unite. And what cannot unite … can’t BE truth.
Jordan is for those who cannot transcend concept
Harris is trying to help everyone get past it though so that the conversation can finally begin
I'm amazed Peterson didn't push back against Harris's point that religious texts differ from philosophical texts in that philosophical texts possess some inherent property that prevents their dogmatic capturing of individuals. Considering that Peterson's career first blew up because he was speaking out against people who had been dogmatically captured by philosophical texts, and a large portion of his time since has been dedicated to that end, I'd really expect him to not let that pass. I also find it odd that Harris would be naive enough to say that. Like, he can't have gone through life in his line of work without being aware of this millennia-long fad.
It is incredibly annoying how often they argue with each other rather than taking the time to understand each other. It might just be evidence though that the topic itself is an incredibly hard one to fully flesh out so much so that even the top thinkers have a hard time seeing eye to eye
@@caleb-gw8oo I think a large part of that may unfortunately be inherent to the nature of an event like this. They are both aware of this as a preformative act because there's an audience in front of them and a moderator between them. It cannot be a conversation in this context, and something is lost.
But, as they are colleagues of a sort, when they talk outside of events like this, I doubt they much feel like talking work, so likely never engage with each other about this sort of thing in a setting where they could come to a greater understanding of each other.
@@Dave_Parrott I wouldn't doubt the audience changes the dynamics of the conversation and maybe the idea of it being a "debate" rather than a conversation has something to do with it but I've seen them talk on their own podcasts and whatnot and from what I can tell it seems to be a similar issue with them not exactly arguing with each other's points but more or less trying to push their own point. To me it looks like what happens when conflict theory debates functionalism. They are arguing about the same topic but they really can't see each other's point of view.
Sam is the definition of someone who talks a lot but doesn’t say much
Yeah ok buddy.
Jordan peterson seems to talk very quickly and use lots of big words to ensure others lose track and make it harder to debate with him
JP is the definition of charlatan
100 percent!!! He’s a charlatan
The guy in the middle looks like he is about to put a pistol in his mouth.
Oh dear, the Emeritus Professor of Word Salad at Moose University comes up against Sam Harris. Embarrassing.
Child sacrifice was at some point in time demanded by the Christian God?
It was demanded of Abraham to kill his son Isaac. Of course he changed his mind at the last moment, but it was demanded. So I think when Peterson says "previously demanded by god" he's still talking about that same case of Abraham and Isaac, not some other case.
@@WadeAllen001 God demanded Abraham to kill Issac, but an "angel" stopped him. Too bad God. Then there's the story in the bible on how to treat an unruly child -- stone him/her to death. So many more.
Exodus 22:29
He also condoned slavery. Straight up taking people from other lands and owning them and passing them on his property to your children and how to treat them and how to beat them but don't kill them. That was straight up from God through Moses and was funny as people say Jesus was God so basically they are saying Jesus agreed with all of that in a sense which is not like his character right
No true. The bible has been re written many times, The bible grows with us. Its not Tolstoy, Frend, or Suess. Why do we always see things as being the way they, when we see them.
I'll bet if peterson could stop himself from overcomplicating responses by trying to fit in every large word he has knowledge of he might actually have better luck in these debates.
🆚
The problem with the Bible: it’s mythology and people think it’s real.
nah Jesus was a real person in history. He was the greatest to ever walk the world but then you would have to read the bible to know that. I find most people who refute christianity have never read the bible, I try and research the things I disagree with like the origin of species. Dont you agree its good to know what your refuting? Like I would not say communism is wrong until I read the manifesto, otherwise your ignorant.
These are all just ways of saying the same thing..JP just loves the sound of his own voice, which is amazing when you realize how whiny it is.
Peterson, when you try way way way too hard to sound intelligent, you just come off as a vexing pedantic. You'd do yourself a great service and pick up on how Sam Harris, who is incredibly intelligent, uses his intelligence tastefully and with plenty held in reserve to be released like an H - bomb in some rather mind blowing mike dropping moments.
Sam needs to keep studying. He could get there.
I have no clue what these two are even talking about
The Bible's PROBLEM is that it is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. That's why I choose Scrooge McDuck comic books as the guide for every aspect of my life. I can't be sure Mr. McDuck is real but He never killed nearly every human being in a Flood in any his comic books. Bible God on the other hand was a dick in his book.
I use Tony Stark. He started as a huge dick, then made the ultimate sacrifice to save us all
You used Scrooge McDuck. I was going to use the Beano & Dandy to describe the bible. Sorry Hank but them bears need some pies 😂
Dive into coins.
See what happens.
The other explanations on how we came to be are equally unverifiable/unfalsifiable and require the same amount of faith. Just to create a single protein folded correctly is 10^156 and you need multiple proteins at the same time to create life. There are 10^86 atoms in the universe. This even before considering the climate to create life.
@@drivethruabortion280 Nuthin Bambi died for my sins.
Sam clearly has developed a super-human capacity for tolerating bullshit.
Nothing could be more challenging than listening to Jordan Peterson's endless, nauseating nonsense.
If God was a ice cream flavor, what flavor would god be?
Peterson is an absolute charlotten.....he just waffles on and on and on
The scripture of sacrificial actions shouldn't be in example wise. If Jesus Christ died on a cross and if the bible happened in realism, then the fkn shit literally happened.
Jordan Peterson, the grandfather of word sallad.
Big words are hard for you lol
@@mrjesuschrist2u Not really, but if you think big words without any concrete meaning is a good way to argue, it says more about you than about me!
But you already believ stuff without good reason, so as any christian.
@@Torthetamebadger I know the meaning of words but more importantly their use in in dialogue.... You not knowing that says a lot about you.
Hahaha and can you reason your beliefs? Or are you one of those intellectually lazy atheists who "dOEsn'T hAvE bEliFs"
@@Torthetamebadger lol just because you don't know their meaning doesn't mean they don't have a meaning. Further their precise use is important to dialogue. You not know that says a lot about you.
Can you reason your beliefs? How did we come to be? Or are you one of those intellectually lazy atheists who "d0Sen,T hAvE bELieFs"
@@Torthetamebadger lol just because you don't know their meaning doesn't mean they don't have a meaning. Further their precise use is important to dialogue. You not know that says a lot about you.
Can you reason your beliefs? How did we come to be? Or are you one of those intellectually lazy atheists who "d0Sen,T hAvE bELieFs"
Just because most of you hate god doesn’t mean Jordan is wrong
So defensive - I don’t believe in god, can’t hate something I don’t think exists
Moe, Larry and Curly
This is tea time with Alice
Theism and atheism and christianity and islam and gnostic and agnostic are not the truth . The truth is the unity in impartiality principle . Maturity . TH-cam Jiddu Krishnamurti talks at the united nations New York 1985 . GREAT speech .
Peterson is a middlebrow that's worked real hard at being really clever, didn't work.
Only Peterson could establish a connection between child sacrifice, circumcision, and college funds. And this guy is considered an intellectual giant by his followers.
His influence seems to be waning thankfully.
Dude, I was passively listening while working and I had to stop and rewind because I had no idea how we ended up at funding college from child sacrifice. After I went back and listened I still had no idea how he got there. His brain is broken.
Geez Pangurn, cant believe youre still milking clips from these events years later, after you botched it so bad that all of these guys said theyd never work with you again
😂
How did they botch it?
@@Thelatenightchipshopexperience they're making shit up because they don't think anyone will ask for proof.
@@Thelatenightchipshopexperience sam harris wrote a whole blog post about it. Apparently pangburn didn't pay some speakers, cancelled events, and ran out of money to refund people who had already bought tickets to those cancelled events.
Must've been pretty bad. For none of them to work with him again, with how huge these events were, and how many views they've got.
The Bible is just a book. Is there a lot of truth and wisdom in it? Yes. But it's just a book full of stories and should be treated like every other book and story out there.
The bible isn't just a book, its the word of god. It gets you closer to him by reading his word. The bible is written by prophets and apostles of god and jesus is god, proven by eye witnesses and propehcies from before jesus came, during his time, and after his time. So you have to acknowledge the sacredness of the text and the truth behind it if you are willing to accept jesus as god, which I believe he is. If you don't believe that, then obviousley in your mind its only a book, but trust him, its more than that.
Lmao he went with the "Trust me Bro." Cause he has nothing else. I'll send you $1000 if you prove me the bible is the word of the biblical god. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not just some vague prophecies and possible eye witnesses.
@@DanielRodriguez-zj5il Well actually I said trust "him" reffering to jesus. I have much more I can say but i'm limited to time because i'm at work at the moment. And I don't want your money brother, I only hope to share the good news, that jesus suffered and bled and wad nailed to the cross, living a sinless life, (all the rest of us are sinners) was buried, and three days later rose from the dead, released his spirit onto the world so that you can be saved from death, which is sin btw. Trust in him and repent of your sins and you can be saved and born again. God bless.
@@DreIoannou The Bible is just a book and believing that book doesn't "save" you. But if that makes you feel better feel free to believe it! But realize the rest of us don't need to share your beliefs to feel better, and we don't need to be "saved". When we die the same thing happens to all of us; our bodies decay and all the material that once was our body is returned to the Earth and your beliefs don't change that. That being said I wish you well on your journey to find truth and meaning!
@@DreIoannou All claims, no evidence whatsoever. Not surprised.
Sam wins. AGAIN!
I think all of the religious people have some kind of OCD, including Jordan Peterson.
sam should like this document bad faith It shows man's hands in religion
Back then when Bret Weinstein was respected...
He was always transparent
If Jordan Peterson was a code, he'd be a VIC-20 1600 line, if then, if then, if then.... on a datasette.
Seems like, you don't really understand what GOD communicate to us in the Holy Scriptures, Main principle for understanding is NOT taking things out of context. The God of the Bible, (YHWH) Jehovah, does NOT change (Malachi 3:6-7, James 1:17) His words are for instruction not confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) Words, words and words, full of ideological and metaphysical ideas which tend to deviate the simple understanding of Bible words, GOD words.
If the Bible is absolute, why condone slavery?
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Religions teach us to have faith and we dont need to think for ourselfs which creates control
I learned that one cannot argue with faith because faith is the absence of reason.
Half of our brain is oriented to metaphor 11:49
Its hilarious how peterson just makes crap up like this all the time.
Word salad is no match for Sam.
What the fuck is peterson on about
JP the Canadian Cantinflas
Ayyy chato!
"You see that with Abraham and Isaac where child sacrifice is forbidden, though previously commanded by God."
*So either God is either a former child killer who's trying to do better, or he is just superstition-lite crafted
Where was it commanded by God?
And are you pro choice? I bet you are. So child sacrifice is good, if your the mother, umm ok.
Fool
@@Mrguy-ds9lr yes, God might be a fool, too.
@benjamintrevino325 then he wouldn't be God. Thing is I know Him. You can too. HE IS NO FOOL. But you have free will. But will,in the end see. And so will i. Th8ng is, if I'm am wrong, we'll 8 l8ved the best life i could. If your wrong, we'll you no! Big gamble.
@@Mrguy-ds9lr I'm not a child. You can stop with the scare tactic. The God of the Tanakh, the Bible, and the Qu'ran changes its nature in correspondence with the people telling the narrative.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all start with the Garden and Adam and Eve and the same Deity but end up in radically different places.
Men. You're reading stories written by men.
Boy they like to make simple thinking uselessly complicated. All living and “ conscious “ to a certain level being on the planet has this basic
Instinct of survival. There are also behaviours dictated to keep the species alive. Like lions will fight each other to win the female but won’t try to seriously hurt their opponents. From an observer’s point of vue, this behaviour could be interpreted as a “ moral “ code.
It’s not. It’s how the species survive. So are humans since the beginning of our existence. This principle of protecting your spouse and children has expanded to the families, then the tribe, then the whole village, and so on. When our villages were in conflict for a piece of land with another village, wars and battles with no such moral obligation appeared. Survival for their own, that what mattered.
All our ethics, moral codes, religions are based on this initial survival behaviours. There is nothing intellectual about it, neither spiritual.
Peterson wants it to be like that because he can’t accept that we still are relying on basic instincts for our evolution.
Protecting the weaker was a close family responsibility. It’s very hard to motivate an entire society to do so when people do not relate to those we decided to protect.
I wonder if Peterson ever watches his own debates, interviews and presentations and then critically analyse his own body language and intonation. He would be a great subject to study.
He is too scared and starts crying.
"You can't quit smoking without god" -JP
He's incomprehensible, even to himself. His words are intended to be molded by preconceptions, which also provide him with a convenient escape route when anyone happens to make more sense of them than he intended.