If you enjoyed this clip, please drop a like on the video and consider subscribing. 👍 NEW EVENT! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks th-cam.com/video/extbcWCnhxU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zbwVhOBBgwxLtB1e LAWRENCE KRAUSS & THE FRIENDLY PLANET IS NOW ON SALE! We hope you grab a copy 🙂 amzn.to/3YWhz8W
Drug addiction will do that to a man. Especially when you need to be put in a coma in a Russian hospital to cure it. You cannot make this sh!t up... like those two sentences put together are perfectly normal.
Fascist tactics 101. Peterson is not an idiot. He knows he is a member of a Fascist state (The Dominion of Canada) that is currently occupying thousands of Nations lands. As Peterson claimed; If you were alive in Germany during the Nazi Regime you would be a Nazi (Ignoring all the Germans that fought the Regime). He knows he is a participant in a Fascist occupation. He has just embraced his Fascist cultural norms as a settler.
I'm so tired of Christians and their apologists pretending we need to take their ideas seriously. If we were in Iran, Peterson would be a Muslim. If we were in ancient Greece, Peterson would be taking about the ancient Gods, and Sam would still be talking like Sam.
@@dylandecesare2652 what are you talking about "throwing out all the ideas"? We have morals without God all OP saying is that we (atheists) will say the same thing to a Hindu, jew, or Christian while the theist will only argue from what they were taught from their culture
@killrsloth9187 they said we dont need to take any religious ideas seriously anymore. Meanwhile, like it or not, the West was founded on judeo christian ethics. So if we dont have to take those seriously anymore, what ideas should we be taking seriously?
@@dylandecesare2652 out of curiosity what ethics are specifically only in the judeo Christian belief system that you're saying we'd lose if we threw it out?
"In his famous dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, a philosophical quandary is posed thusly: “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” Known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, the problem boils down to this: *If something is morally good simply because it is commanded by God,* ***then morality is arbitrary.*** *God could decide tomorrow that murder and rape are morally acceptable, and voilà, it would be.* On the other hand, if God commands what is already morally good, then morality exists independently of God. He is not the source or creator of morality, not the one who determines right from wrong, but merely one who dispenses a system of ethics that transcends his own authority. In response, theists attempt to wiggle their way out of the dilemma by suggesting that God’s very nature, or character, is good, so that he would never condone such wicked acts as rape or murder. But then all one has to do is reformulate the question, à la philosopher Michael Martin: “Is God’s character the way it is because it is good, or is God’s character good simply because it is God’s character?” The dilemma stands, as God’s character remains subject to an external definition of what is moral or good. Why is this? *It’s because morality is an abstraction, or social contract, produced collectively by sentient beings, and to which all sentient beings are subject. And it’s something that naturally arises on a pragmatic basis for the sake of order and harmony within any civilized society. God, therefore, is neither the source of morality, nor a necessary explanation for its existence.* *But imagine for a moment the sheer absurdity of suggesting that the biblical God is the supreme author of morality.* A God who demands the extermination of men, women, and children (1 Sam. 15:1-3), who delights in the retaliatory act of seizing infants and dashing them against rocks (Ps. 137:8-9), of raping the wives of Israel’s enemies (Is. 13:16), even orchestrating the brutal death of dozens of children by savage bears, merely for having mocked one of his prophets (2 Kgs. 2:23-24). *This is a ferociously partisan, bloodthirsty, and vengeful deity, not one bound by any high-minded or all-encompassing moral code.* Theists will typically defend such verses in one of three ways: 1) by suggesting that “those were different times,” thus invoking moral relativism and destroying their own case for an objective morality stemming from God; 2) by appealing to context, of which there simply isn’t any to justify the depravity above; and 3) by pleading, “that was the Old Testament,” or, “Jesus changed all that,” tacitly admitting that the God they ostensibly worship was once horrible and in need of change, which further contradicts any claims to the immutable and unchanging character of God (e.g., Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8; Jm. 1:17). *Suffice it to say, neither God nor the Bible serve as the basis for morality."* *"Is God Necessary for Morality? | atheologica"* Also look up: *"God is the Source of Morality. (Not.) | atheologica"*
This is no different than the unliftable stone fallacy. God will not do something that is outside his nature to do. So you have to start with the aspects that are God. That He is perfect in all his ways. From Judgement to Love from punishment to pardon. That he is the ultimate good. So if that is the case then he cannot violate those same principles. Which makes your Dilemma null and void. Why? because God himself is not arbitrary and neither are his standards.
@LM-jz9vh-----With all due respect, but....like the rest of the blabbing people you continue cranking and cranking a lone wheel expecting that an invisible motor starts purring. There is no freaking god, period, therefore, all the discussions are futile, just a NOTHINGNESS ABOUT NOTHING. Philosophy is not the solution, but the advances of technology and regretfully, these same advances are the ones that are going to destroy all the living "things" on Earth, namely, with god or without god, we are slowly advancing to our own destruction and we are doing this WILLINGLY, because we love it, and all of this is necessary for our own "existence", isn't it a paradox?
@@dylandecesare2652Like Harris says, Peterson gives a reading of Christianity that panders to the religious fundamentalists and 'refines' their beliefs, even though Peterson fully knows that God doesn't actually exist, he's still indirectly, or maybe directly, pandering to these people.
@@dylandecesare2652 obviously it's impossible to know what anyone actually believes, but Peterson has said on record many times before that the God he's referring to is a concept that has evolved over human history among conversations between human minds, not an actual God that created humans and everything else. He fully acknowledges that there's no actual Christian God I'm not saying he says that, he says that.
Deny Peterson the use of his hands during discourse and you'll witness a meltdown. I think he may have modeled his gestures on a flock of maneuvering starlings.
Just here to hate on Bret again. I can't quite tell if he's actually unable to understand what Sam is saying when he says "good ideas scale better" so that he can prop up his "false truth" idea. Good ideas do scale better, they don't necessarily spread better. A good idea remains a good idea, a bad idea is destructive. A good idea can be good for a time, but a bad idea is just that, bad. The more a bad idea spreads the worse it is. That's what it means to scale worse. It doesn't mean it spreads more.
4:43 funny how Sam cut through to what Jordan now claims in his latest book about the bible all the way back when they had this debate, Sam saw it before Jordan could even admit it to himself.
Evil is not a "thing"...........some sort of spiritual being. It's just a description of behavior that is "very bad", according to anyone using that term.
I think you got it wrong bro. Jordan is harping on a fact most of us don't like to hear. Once you know suffering is inescapable . . . then you can face life much better. Not by giving up. But knowing truth.
I’m genuinely surprised by the quality of the comment section on content like this. Here we have brilliant minds engaging in deep existential discussions, yet the comments are filled with negativity. Both JP and Sam are remarkable thinkers who’ve dedicated years to studying and analyzing countless works, contributing immensely to our understanding of complex topics. Yet, the majority of commenters seem to focus on hate rather than engaging with the substance. It’s like a showcase of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. :(
I disagree tbh... take a look at all religious people threw history till this very day, how they think, talk, act, behave and what they have done and still do all over the world, and you instantly see and understand what "evil" is.
Whats the point of a post like this? Maybe add some commentary or a few interactions going over the same topic rather than a clickbaity title that is just an excerpt of something that can easily be found with more context
These conversations and "debates" of these two and many other unique and knowledgeable people change nothing, as all the philosophers of ancient and present times, of the way that most of the people that listen to them, since, all of the people that attend these conversations and "debates" already support one or the other debater and when the moment comes, they laugh, cheer and applaud their guy, but...nothing happens beside feeling satisfied with the presentation of their guy.
Evil is nothing more than the end result of ignorance. Ignorance comes first. Ignorance comes from within and evil is the fear that one reacts to in order to do evil things.
gradycollins---Evil has nothing to do with ignorance, simply because the most enlightened people of ancient and modern times have been committing evilness, even the evil god of the bible has been and is an inspiration for evil behaviors. Evil is generally defined as intentionally causing harm or suffering to others. If you disagree, please, let me know and let's have a conversation.
@@ramonroman4363 Are you suggesting that I should take the bible as fact? And yes, I would like to have a conversation with you because You make sense with your reply and I'm open to learn more.
@@gradycollins3601 ---First of all, I don't see my opinion that provoked your response. Now, briefly, evilness has nothing to do with IGNORANCE. I said and I repeat it, the most enlightened and knowledgeable ancient and present people are responsible for the evilness through the history of mankind and MOST OF THE TIME THESE PEOPLE WERE PEOPLE THAT REPRESENTED RELIGION, NAMELY, THEISTS. I explained to you what is evil, in my opinion and I suggest you read it again. Finally, I am not an atheist, simply because I can't be somebody that doesn't believe in fiction, and god, any god is an invention, therefore, god is nothing for me, it is pure and simply fiction. ¿Comprende? I hope this time the people of youtube honor the first amendment and keep my comment.
@@ramonroman4363 I am also an atheist, perhaps I miss understood your first reply. Now let's start the next phase of debate whatever it will be or not be. With all due respect.
Why WOULD you try to explain to children that a gun is loaded? this is weird. Children need to know just a tiny bit of what you guys are speaking about, they do not need sophistication in speech. Speak clearly, simply, and in a level that everyone would understand rather than to show off your eloquence. No, don't speak like that and everyone would understand. Do not speak in concepts and meanings and complications upon complications and people would understand. Claiming that you are doing it to spread knowledge is not helping, it is false, it is not true, it is a lie. You're doing it to show off your "thesis" and your "theology", Sam. That's it.
It’s does seem strange to think that some invisible evil spirit or spirits directly cause evil actions by humans. This the premise of all religions as far back as human history goes. Primitive man believed this also. There were good and bad spirits. Interestingly enough what motivates the most evil is fear. To the mind of a man if he feels threatened he will strike out and even kill. Germany for instance was in the grip of fear due to many factors like the hardship of the Great Depression ,hyperinflation, the devaluation of the Mark. And the loss of the war. It was the collapse of the German economy. Hitler became a beacon of light in a very dark time. Hitler supported the economy with government subsidies mainly going to the German military which created economic independence. Why did he kill Jews? Hitler believed that the Jews and communists had betrayed the country and brought a left wing government to power and caused Germanys defeat in the First World War. They were the enemy who destroyed Germany. I am only stating facts here. You can see what occurred,fear for the country by both the people and Hitler which lead to great evil.
It's kinda funny to me that Pangburn ended up being Sam's redemption channel. The man is an authoritarian fool who didnt survive covid. And you're all like 5 years behind the curve on this.
Harris can't destroy anything per his own world view because good and evil are subjective according to him. So what those people were doing, to them was not evil. To them it was actually good so who is Harris to actually judge that as evil. he can't because to him morality is subjective. It is up to the person whether what they did was evil or not and if they can justify why they did it then well it isn't evil. That is how subjective morality works.
You missed the point I'm afraid Peterson is saying that tradition is the ultimate truth and Harris is arguing that tradition can't accept new facts without breaking therefore it is reliant on the maintenance of ignorance
Nah, Sam is blabbering here. There is no "universal wellbeing", everything is relative, and every morality is subjective. He's trying to sneak in objective moralisme, and he's lost the plot here to the point Peterson makes more sense.
There can be still classified overlapping subjective moral system good for the majority outside of religion. Thats why we have laws. And they work better than religion in enforcing less violence and crime, moral behaviour according to most. In the end the subjective preferences combine and you have more people preffering to not have physical violence caused to them, even if you might find few weirdos enjoying it.
@kristiyankrumov1515 Well yeah, that's my point. It is subjective, and obviously most people don't differ that much from eachother because of biology, evolution, psychology, sociologie,... so that there's commonality in morality at any one time, until it changes because preferences change, societies change, references change,... laws change. There's no universal definition of "wellbeing", obviously. "Objective morality" is an oxymoron, unless ordained by god, and thank god there's no god, or we'd still be putting people to death for blasfemy.
@Doppe1ganger i think there is an overlapping pattern for well being that corresponds for majority of people even if being subjective thats why laws are a bit similar for inflicting physical violence in most places on earth during the same period of time. Which is the current coming as close as possible to objective standard for well being interpretation for most. Yes everything is subjective and in a state of change for everyone, but we can still derive laws from whats better for more people that will be objectively true for more people for the current time period. Thats why i am unwilling to discount a possibility for objective variables representing optimal conditions for a current time period at least. Like there is a opportunity cost and there are more optimal variables than others for the said time frame which are objectively better for more people. Perhaps indulging in ethical standards of Gandhi reverence for Ahimsa, The Golden Rule at scale, Aurelius Meditations, Aristotle Nicomahean Ethics, and similar might give objectively better representation for a ground of objective well being for more people versus enjoying serial killers and desiring to be like them. This is where a set ot propositions can extrapolate as a objectively better representation for the wellbeing for more people and this is enough for me to say the truth is in the middle on this question.
We can have objectively good and bad moves as long as we agree on the goal, that being well being. Just like we can say there are good and bad moves when we agree on the goal of chess. If you don't value human well being your unable to navigate the moral landscape. If you don't value the rules of chess you are unable to navigate a good or bad move in chess. This is my understanding. Are there any fallacies I may be missing?
@@Doppe1ganger all models are bad, but no models at all are even worse. And this models try to extract what is objectively better for more people at a certain period of time. We should revise the said models and try to improve them. I am not into most religions because they are outdated, but perhaps they might have served some people in becomming better. Would it have been better without them for most maybe. I would personally have preferred greco roman values for europe over christian, but perhaps buddhism might have worked better for countries like Nepal for sustaining happiness in shitty economy than no models like buddhism.
When you think Donald Trump is good... Have you heard of his long history of refusing to pay for the works and materials supplied by his suppliers and contractors? Is that good?
Trump is an extra-specially deranged amoral whacko huckster. Why is it necessary to have a go at the Democrats as well in order to point that out? If you have a go at Hitler is it a pre-requisite to list Churchill's flaws? The Democrats have done a few sketchy things, but most of the stuff Fox and the right wing media go on about is pure invention.
Our metric. His philosophy is rooted in considering morality as a scale (like those used in psychology). If we were to take morality as a scale with "good" on one end, and "bad" on the other, then we can gauge judgments along this scale. Intuitively, we all agree that murdering babies is bad, right? And we can agree that taking care of babies is good, right? So along this scale "taking care of babies" is closer to the "good end" than "murdering babies", right? So how is this objective? Because the ends of the scale are just "the most extreme". Whatever the most extreme evil is, is the "bad end". Whatever the most extreme good is, is the "good end". Granted, it is a difficult concept to grasp, but to say we're still waiting on "who's metric" (which is an illogical question, given Sam's position) is a bit disingenious.
@MartialNico That says absolutely nothing about why i shouldnt take as my own what is currently yours. Remember i dont care about you and yours and only about me and mine. There is absolutely nothing that i "ought" do on Sams scale. It is ALL a bankruptcy!
@@XYisnotXX No, it's not, but I think the issue is that you don't really recognize what his worldview exactly is. I'd suggest seriously engaging with the topic before posting such animated responses. Especially when it doesn't address the issue.
But many of us don't want our stuff taken. So we (the collectibe who agree) say taking stuff is evil and leaving others alone is good. If you persist in trying to take our stuff we will respond accordingly.
Sam has a shallow understanding of science and religion. Science seeks relative truth (falsifiable), while religion seeks absolute truth (unfalsifiable). It is foolhardy to lop off absolute truth! Without religion providing a reason, science would be meaningless. They complement each other. Evidence of God or ultimate reality is everywhere. It is just the fundamental substance of the universe. Citing bad practice doesn't invalidate the principle. Not everything that counts can be counted.
Nope; I’m afraid you’ve got that wrong from the outset. Science does seek relative truth. Not at all. Science is a method. The method is reliable because it can be demonstrated and repeated. It doesn’t seek anything. It’s a process. The process produces theories that work. But when the evidence changes the results change. I also think you’re wrong on religion too because religion makes factual claims about the world which are at odds with scientific processes, such as creation and evolution.
A religion doesn't "seek" anything, it proclaims to have all the answers already, no search needed. That is literally the opposite of the scientific method, which is the pursuit of answers. You just had a very long winded way of saying that you have no idea what religion and science are.
There's no such thing as an "unfalsifiable truth", but there is an unfalsifiable claim. What you determine as "truth" may just be your opinion that cannot be shown nor proven to be true.
If you go back to his lectures 2009-2014, he wasn't half bad. I think his problem came when he miraculously recovered from addiction. And the rest of his family healed at the same time. And through that struggle found Zionist Jesus. Now, his family exposes monotheistic ideology, something he spoke cautious tales about in class a decade ago.
@@Ellfman Yes he appeared to be a bit more stable when he was teaching but over the last few years he's become very unstable,and more of a cult leader like figure, Harris leaves him for dead
@@dylandecesare2652 It's my off-handed way of generalizing and grouping Evangelical, Protestant version of Jesus, versus Orthodox Jesus. Zionist Jesus comes back from someplace to save the Christians and convert all the Jews to Christians. That's some out of this world imagination, especially getting millions of humans to believe it.
If you enjoyed this clip, please drop a like on the video and consider subscribing. 👍
NEW EVENT! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks th-cam.com/video/extbcWCnhxU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zbwVhOBBgwxLtB1e
LAWRENCE KRAUSS & THE FRIENDLY PLANET IS NOW ON SALE! We hope you grab a copy 🙂 amzn.to/3YWhz8W
Harris is leagues above JP.
Ya but jp is a league below any average Joe
@@privateprofile3517how the hell does he get so much airtime
JP has a laptop for backup, Sam has a water bottle. That is confidence!
This is true. I came to the comments to say just that. And yet Peterson has a much larger audience. How sad what this reveals about our society
I can't stand Jordan's creepy spirit fingers.
Omg This made me laugh so hard I cried.
JP has lost the plot.
Years ago.
No he has worked out how to make quite a lot of money from his brand
Drug addiction will do that to a man. Especially when you need to be put in a coma in a Russian hospital to cure it.
You cannot make this sh!t up... like those two sentences put together are perfectly normal.
Peterson has become a complete clown show 🤡
JP was always a crank.
Jordan Peterson never fails to use 500 words where 10 would suffice.
The only thing Jordan tries to do is confuse his stupid audience to keep them obedient
Fascist tactics 101.
Peterson is not an idiot. He knows he is a member of a Fascist state (The Dominion of Canada) that is currently occupying thousands of Nations lands.
As Peterson claimed; If you were alive in Germany during the Nazi Regime you would be a Nazi (Ignoring all the Germans that fought the Regime).
He knows he is a participant in a Fascist occupation.
He has just embraced his Fascist cultural norms as a settler.
Precisely
Sam: *makes a rational point*
JP: *waves hands about and goes off on random tangents*
I'm so tired of Christians and their apologists pretending we need to take their ideas seriously. If we were in Iran, Peterson would be a Muslim. If we were in ancient Greece, Peterson would be taking about the ancient Gods, and Sam would still be talking like Sam.
Alright, so throw out all the ideas and replace them with what?
@@dylandecesare2652 what are you talking about "throwing out all the ideas"? We have morals without God all OP saying is that we (atheists) will say the same thing to a Hindu, jew, or Christian while the theist will only argue from what they were taught from their culture
@killrsloth9187 they said we dont need to take any religious ideas seriously anymore. Meanwhile, like it or not, the West was founded on judeo christian ethics. So if we dont have to take those seriously anymore, what ideas should we be taking seriously?
@@dylandecesare2652 out of curiosity what ethics are specifically only in the judeo Christian belief system that you're saying we'd lose if we threw it out?
☝️ Str8 Fact$ ☝️
Harris is speaking from his mind, Peterson is reading in his computer
I'm not sure your spelling of computer is accurate in this instance. I'm sure the correct spelling is, "A$$".
I really miss Christopher Hitchens. No ego. Just pure educated truth.
Ego doesn’t mean “arrogance”
It means “self image”
He was far from egoless - but ego isn’t inherently a negative word.
@ofangelsanarchists2386 all of that is correct but these guys in a forum are pure "self". I find that repulsive. They aren't that switched on.
He’d reduced JP to a whimpering rubble because he would not have found the necessity to spend more than one discussion with this guy.
Naw. I think he had a massive ego. I liked him and what he said made sense to me. But he was still ... human. And as such, he had his flaws.
Hitchens was great, but no ego? Cmon now LOL
Weinstein is such a JP fan boy! Get a room! 😅
Lol...i agree. He tries to catch Sam at times and is CLEARLY one sided😂
"In his famous dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, a philosophical quandary is posed thusly: “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” Known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, the problem boils down to this: *If something is morally good simply because it is commanded by God,* ***then morality is arbitrary.*** *God could decide tomorrow that murder and rape are morally acceptable, and voilà, it would be.* On the other hand, if God commands what is already morally good, then morality exists independently of God. He is not the source or creator of morality, not the one who determines right from wrong, but merely one who dispenses a system of ethics that transcends his own authority.
In response, theists attempt to wiggle their way out of the dilemma by suggesting that God’s very nature, or character, is good, so that he would never condone such wicked acts as rape or murder. But then all one has to do is reformulate the question, à la philosopher Michael Martin: “Is God’s character the way it is because it is good, or is God’s character good simply because it is God’s character?” The dilemma stands, as God’s character remains subject to an external definition of what is moral or good. Why is this? *It’s because morality is an abstraction, or social contract, produced collectively by sentient beings, and to which all sentient beings are subject. And it’s something that naturally arises on a pragmatic basis for the sake of order and harmony within any civilized society. God, therefore, is neither the source of morality, nor a necessary explanation for its existence.*
*But imagine for a moment the sheer absurdity of suggesting that the biblical God is the supreme author of morality.* A God who demands the extermination of men, women, and children (1 Sam. 15:1-3), who delights in the retaliatory act of seizing infants and dashing them against rocks (Ps. 137:8-9), of raping the wives of Israel’s enemies (Is. 13:16), even orchestrating the brutal death of dozens of children by savage bears, merely for having mocked one of his prophets (2 Kgs. 2:23-24). *This is a ferociously partisan, bloodthirsty, and vengeful deity, not one bound by any high-minded or all-encompassing moral code.* Theists will typically defend such verses in one of three ways: 1) by suggesting that “those were different times,” thus invoking moral relativism and destroying their own case for an objective morality stemming from God; 2) by appealing to context, of which there simply isn’t any to justify the depravity above; and 3) by pleading, “that was the Old Testament,” or, “Jesus changed all that,” tacitly admitting that the God they ostensibly worship was once horrible and in need of change, which further contradicts any claims to the immutable and unchanging character of God (e.g., Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8; Jm. 1:17).
*Suffice it to say, neither God nor the Bible serve as the basis for morality."*
*"Is God Necessary for Morality? | atheologica"*
Also look up:
*"God is the Source of Morality. (Not.) | atheologica"*
Ah thx for pointing that dilemma out, I came across that dialogue before but I totally forgot about it.
Your comment is better than the video
This is no different than the unliftable stone fallacy. God will not do something that is outside his nature to do. So you have to start with the aspects that are God. That He is perfect in all his ways. From Judgement to Love from punishment to pardon. That he is the ultimate good. So if that is the case then he cannot violate those same principles. Which makes your Dilemma null and void. Why? because God himself is not arbitrary and neither are his standards.
@LM-jz9vh-----With all due respect, but....like the rest of the blabbing people you continue cranking and cranking a lone wheel expecting that an invisible motor starts purring. There is no freaking god, period, therefore, all the discussions are futile, just a NOTHINGNESS ABOUT NOTHING. Philosophy is not the solution, but the advances of technology and regretfully, these same advances are the ones that are going to destroy all the living "things" on Earth, namely, with god or without god, we are slowly advancing to our own destruction and we are doing this WILLINGLY, because we love it, and all of this is necessary for our own "existence", isn't it a paradox?
@@DebateColloseumThis moral “God” lets 10million children needlessly die every year. Not moral. Or he doesn’t as he is a fictional fairy tale.
Jordan Peterson: blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . . .
Sam Harris: ????
The crowd seems to be full of hysterical Peterson fanboys.
Or maybe he made some good points that you don't agree with
@@dylandecesare2652Like Harris says, Peterson gives a reading of Christianity that panders to the religious fundamentalists and 'refines' their beliefs, even though Peterson fully knows that God doesn't actually exist, he's still indirectly, or maybe directly, pandering to these people.
@Hmmmmmmm1 its completely ridiculous to say anyone knows god doesnt exist or does exist. You have no idea what he actually believes.
@@dylandecesare2652 obviously it's impossible to know what anyone actually believes, but Peterson has said on record many times before that the God he's referring to is a concept that has evolved over human history among conversations between human minds, not an actual God that created humans and everything else. He fully acknowledges that there's no actual Christian God I'm not saying he says that, he says that.
i feel dumber trying to understand what jordan peterson is saying
Deny Peterson the use of his hands during discourse and you'll witness a meltdown. I think he may have modeled his gestures on a flock of maneuvering starlings.
it just makes him more repugnant
Just here to hate on Bret again.
I can't quite tell if he's actually unable to understand what Sam is saying when he says "good ideas scale better" so that he can prop up his "false truth" idea.
Good ideas do scale better, they don't necessarily spread better.
A good idea remains a good idea, a bad idea is destructive.
A good idea can be good for a time, but a bad idea is just that, bad.
The more a bad idea spreads the worse it is. That's what it means to scale worse.
It doesn't mean it spreads more.
Every time I see Peterson I regret the he and Christopher Hitchens never had a debate.
4:43 funny how Sam cut through to what Jordan now claims in his latest book about the bible all the way back when they had this debate, Sam saw it before Jordan could even admit it to himself.
If a person is born, without the capacity to have compassion, is that their fault? They would be considered as psychopaths !
What’s with his hands and fingers movement
Autism is my guess.
'Jazz hands'
He uses it a lot when casually slipping a ginormous claim into his argument. It's know as the argument from flappy fingers.
“There but for the grace of… biology go I.” 😂😂😂
Wow, how does anyone take Peterson seriously? He is so shallow and limited in his thinking.
Jordy is just confused well kind of dumb also .
One of the few times I've found that Sam didn’t let Jordan complete his question(s) or point.
Thankfully
Right wing intellectuals = oxymoron
Evil is not a "thing"...........some sort of spiritual being. It's just a description of behavior that is "very bad", according to anyone using that term.
Booy you should have been out there to tell them!!! They would imidiately stop debating as you tell them the truth! You figuded it out!
jordan gave up yo "life is suffering" fucking sad
I think you got it wrong bro. Jordan is harping on a fact most of us don't like to hear. Once you know suffering is inescapable . . . then you can face life much better. Not by giving up. But knowing truth.
I’m genuinely surprised by the quality of the comment section on content like this. Here we have brilliant minds engaging in deep existential discussions, yet the comments are filled with negativity. Both JP and Sam are remarkable thinkers who’ve dedicated years to studying and analyzing countless works, contributing immensely to our understanding of complex topics. Yet, the majority of commenters seem to focus on hate rather than engaging with the substance. It’s like a showcase of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. :(
Iam so confused right now
I disagree tbh... take a look at all religious people threw history till this very day, how they think, talk, act, behave and what they have done and still do all over the world, and you instantly see and understand what "evil" is.
I don't think religious ppl are evil, but I do think that religion has caused good ppl to commit evil acts.
yes and the religious nutcases of the 64 billion genders cult are no different.
Peterson rarely has an answer, but man is he good at tap dancing....
I do not see the title living up to its thesis. Did Jordan have the better hand when he quoted out of Harris's book?
Whats the point of a post like this? Maybe add some commentary or a few interactions going over the same topic rather than a clickbaity title that is just an excerpt of something that can easily be found with more context
First thing I’ve ever heard him say that I liked and I’m not even sure he meant it as a joke. Finally hilarious unironically JP
These conversations and "debates" of these two and many other unique and knowledgeable people change nothing, as all the philosophers of ancient and present times, of the way that most of the people that listen to them, since, all of the people that attend these conversations and "debates" already support one or the other debater and when the moment comes, they laugh, cheer and applaud their guy, but...nothing happens beside feeling satisfied with the presentation of their guy.
I don't believe that. Belief usually fades gradually, often as a result of enough exposure of the flaws in apologetic logic.
Ignorance is evil ( adharama)
- Vedanta
Evil is nothing more than the end result of ignorance. Ignorance comes first. Ignorance comes from within and evil is the fear that one reacts to in order to do evil things.
This is an insane line of thinking..
gradycollins---Evil has nothing to do with ignorance, simply because the most enlightened people of ancient and modern times have been committing evilness, even the evil god of the bible has been and is an inspiration for evil behaviors. Evil is generally defined as intentionally causing harm or suffering to others. If you disagree, please, let me know and let's have a conversation.
@@ramonroman4363 Are you suggesting that I should take the bible as fact? And yes, I would like to have a conversation with you because You make sense with your reply and I'm open to learn more.
@@gradycollins3601 ---First of all, I don't see my opinion that provoked your response. Now, briefly, evilness has nothing to do with IGNORANCE. I said and I repeat it, the most enlightened and knowledgeable ancient and present people are responsible for the evilness through the history of mankind and MOST OF THE TIME THESE PEOPLE WERE PEOPLE THAT REPRESENTED RELIGION, NAMELY, THEISTS. I explained to you what is evil, in my opinion and I suggest you read it again. Finally, I am not an atheist, simply because I can't be somebody that doesn't believe in fiction, and god, any god is an invention, therefore, god is nothing for me, it is pure and simply fiction. ¿Comprende? I hope this time the people of youtube honor the first amendment and keep my comment.
@@ramonroman4363 I am also an atheist, perhaps I miss understood your first reply. Now let's start the next phase of debate whatever it will be or not be. With all due respect.
Post Modern Neo-Apologist
Debating if jp is more of a grifter or gish gabbler
😂 one person, one example is not law in the scientific method.
What an uneducated, ignorant person.
Why do you think SH destroyed JP?
Peterson is only impressive when talking to an ignorant person
Oh Weinstein you just rub me the wrong way. Never heard you say anything I found to be relevant.
Oh look, two Zionists unironically debating evil.
Have you heard? ISIS has invaded Aleppo.
That was a REALLY funny joke.. about the sadist never satisfying the masochist
hear that in high school... Masochist says to sadist: "Hurt me" Sadist answers : "No"
@ 1:46. Is that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians?
Why WOULD you try to explain to children that a gun is loaded? this is weird.
Children need to know just a tiny bit of what you guys are speaking about, they do not need sophistication in speech.
Speak clearly, simply, and in a level that everyone would understand rather than to show off your eloquence. No, don't speak like that and everyone would understand.
Do not speak in concepts and meanings and complications upon complications and people would understand.
Claiming that you are doing it to spread knowledge is not helping, it is false, it is not true, it is a lie.
You're doing it to show off your "thesis" and your "theology", Sam. That's it.
It’s does seem strange to think that some invisible evil spirit or spirits directly cause evil actions by humans. This the premise of all religions as far back as human history goes. Primitive man believed this also. There were good and bad spirits. Interestingly enough what motivates the most evil is fear. To the mind of a man if he feels threatened he will strike out and even kill. Germany for instance was in the grip of fear due to many factors like the hardship of the Great Depression ,hyperinflation, the devaluation of the Mark. And the loss of the war. It was the collapse of the German economy. Hitler became a beacon of light in a very dark time. Hitler supported the economy with government subsidies mainly going to the German military which created economic independence. Why did he kill Jews? Hitler believed that the Jews and communists had betrayed the country and brought a left wing government to power and caused Germanys defeat in the First World War. They were the enemy who destroyed Germany. I am only stating facts here. You can see what occurred,fear for the country by both the people and Hitler which lead to great evil.
Christ that embarrassing little cheer around 8:00 😂
Sam Harris, the dollar store "intellectual"
Maybe education could help you.
Farts
Define 'farts'?
Jordan really isn't arguing for Christianity . . . don't see how Sam is destroying it . . . Title needs revised.
Whatever, shut up, Mr. Peterson. Go cry on a stage.
So where does JP draw his 'timeless truths' from,
if not the Judeo-Xtian model?
@r0ky_M you are onto something, but he also gets them out of his ass 🤣
Sam Harris 🙌✨
Title totally erroneous. Harris FOS
It's kinda funny to me that Pangburn ended up being Sam's redemption channel.
The man is an authoritarian fool who didnt survive covid.
And you're all like 5 years behind the curve on this.
Harris can't destroy anything per his own world view because good and evil are subjective according to him. So what those people were doing, to them was not evil. To them it was actually good so who is Harris to actually judge that as evil. he can't because to him morality is subjective. It is up to the person whether what they did was evil or not and if they can justify why they did it then well it isn't evil. That is how subjective morality works.
You missed the point I'm afraid Peterson is saying that tradition is the ultimate truth and Harris is arguing that tradition can't accept new facts without breaking therefore it is reliant on the maintenance of ignorance
No destruction of christianity to be seen.
Nah, Sam is blabbering here. There is no "universal wellbeing", everything is relative, and every morality is subjective. He's trying to sneak in objective moralisme, and he's lost the plot here to the point Peterson makes more sense.
There can be still classified overlapping subjective moral system good for the majority outside of religion. Thats why we have laws. And they work better than religion in enforcing less violence and crime, moral behaviour according to most. In the end the subjective preferences combine and you have more people preffering to not have physical violence caused to them, even if you might find few weirdos enjoying it.
@kristiyankrumov1515 Well yeah, that's my point. It is subjective, and obviously most people don't differ that much from eachother because of biology, evolution, psychology, sociologie,... so that there's commonality in morality at any one time, until it changes because preferences change, societies change, references change,... laws change. There's no universal definition of "wellbeing", obviously. "Objective morality" is an oxymoron, unless ordained by god, and thank god there's no god, or we'd still be putting people to death for blasfemy.
@Doppe1ganger i think there is an overlapping pattern for well being that corresponds for majority of people even if being subjective thats why laws are a bit similar for inflicting physical violence in most places on earth during the same period of time. Which is the current coming as close as possible to objective standard for well being interpretation for most. Yes everything is subjective and in a state of change for everyone, but we can still derive laws from whats better for more people that will be objectively true for more people for the current time period. Thats why i am unwilling to discount a possibility for objective variables representing optimal conditions for a current time period at least. Like there is a opportunity cost and there are more optimal variables than others for the said time frame which are objectively better for more people. Perhaps indulging in ethical standards of Gandhi reverence for Ahimsa, The Golden Rule at scale, Aurelius Meditations, Aristotle Nicomahean Ethics, and similar might give objectively better representation for a ground of objective well being for more people versus enjoying serial killers and desiring to be like them. This is where a set ot propositions can extrapolate as a objectively better representation for the wellbeing for more people and this is enough for me to say the truth is in the middle on this question.
We can have objectively good and bad moves as long as we agree on the goal, that being well being. Just like we can say there are good and bad moves when we agree on the goal of chess. If you don't value human well being your unable to navigate the moral landscape. If you don't value the rules of chess you are unable to navigate a good or bad move in chess. This is my understanding. Are there any fallacies I may be missing?
@@Doppe1ganger all models are bad, but no models at all are even worse. And this models try to extract what is objectively better for more people at a certain period of time. We should revise the said models and try to improve them. I am not into most religions because they are outdated, but perhaps they might have served some people in becomming better. Would it have been better without them for most maybe. I would personally have preferred greco roman values for europe over christian, but perhaps buddhism might have worked better for countries like Nepal for sustaining happiness in shitty economy than no models like buddhism.
comment 💯
Science and religion both attempt to gain better understanding..win win..nothing to debate.
Harris lost my respect when he went after Trump. Yet said nothing about Dems.
I didn't hear that part . . .yet. But thumbs up from me. That's what always brings very intelligent folks like Harris down. They have an agenda.
He does the same with certain groups in the middle east.
When you think Donald Trump is good... Have you heard of his long history of refusing to pay for the works and materials supplied by his suppliers and contractors? Is that good?
Trump is an extra-specially deranged amoral whacko huckster. Why is it necessary to have a go at the Democrats as well in order to point that out? If you have a go at Hitler is it a pre-requisite to list Churchill's flaws? The Democrats have done a few sketchy things, but most of the stuff Fox and the right wing media go on about is pure invention.
He lost your respect because he has different political opinions as you?
Morality debate is boring guys, come on. Morality is resource efficient, conflict is not. Amazeballs.
Human flourishing by whos metric Sammy????
??? Were still waiting. Even still.
Our metric. His philosophy is rooted in considering morality as a scale (like those used in psychology). If we were to take morality as a scale with "good" on one end, and "bad" on the other, then we can gauge judgments along this scale. Intuitively, we all agree that murdering babies is bad, right? And we can agree that taking care of babies is good, right? So along this scale "taking care of babies" is closer to the "good end" than "murdering babies", right?
So how is this objective? Because the ends of the scale are just "the most extreme". Whatever the most extreme evil is, is the "bad end". Whatever the most extreme good is, is the "good end".
Granted, it is a difficult concept to grasp, but to say we're still waiting on "who's metric" (which is an illogical question, given Sam's position) is a bit disingenious.
@MartialNico That says absolutely nothing about why i shouldnt take as my own what is currently yours. Remember i dont care about you and yours and only about me and mine. There is absolutely nothing that i "ought" do on Sams scale. It is ALL a bankruptcy!
@MartialNico People kill children every day and they couldn't care less what Sam thinks and nor should they. His worldview is a total bankruptcy.
@@XYisnotXX No, it's not, but I think the issue is that you don't really recognize what his worldview exactly is. I'd suggest seriously engaging with the topic before posting such animated responses. Especially when it doesn't address the issue.
But many of us don't want our stuff taken. So we (the collectibe who agree) say taking stuff is evil and leaving others alone is good.
If you persist in trying to take our stuff we will respond accordingly.
Sam has a shallow understanding of science and religion. Science seeks relative truth (falsifiable), while religion seeks absolute truth (unfalsifiable). It is foolhardy to lop off absolute truth! Without religion providing a reason, science would be meaningless. They complement each other. Evidence of God or ultimate reality is everywhere. It is just the fundamental substance of the universe. Citing bad practice doesn't invalidate the principle. Not everything that counts can be counted.
You don't know what science is , and you think religion is truth. Religion is delusion.
No. Science seeks absolute truth. Unfalsifiable claims are not scientific b3cause they can't be disproven.
Religion is fairy tales.
Nope; I’m afraid you’ve got that wrong from the outset. Science does seek relative truth. Not at all. Science is a method. The method is reliable because it can be demonstrated and repeated. It doesn’t seek anything. It’s a process. The process produces theories that work. But when the evidence changes the results change. I also think you’re wrong on religion too because religion makes factual claims about the world which are at odds with scientific processes, such as creation and evolution.
A religion doesn't "seek" anything, it proclaims to have all the answers already, no search needed.
That is literally the opposite of the scientific method, which is the pursuit of answers.
You just had a very long winded way of saying that you have no idea what religion and science are.
There's no such thing as an "unfalsifiable truth", but there is an unfalsifiable claim. What you determine as "truth" may just be your opinion that cannot be shown nor proven to be true.
How on earth can anyone sit through an hours lecture or class with Peterson, his poor students
If you go back to his lectures 2009-2014, he wasn't half bad. I think his problem came when he miraculously recovered from addiction. And the rest of his family healed at the same time. And through that struggle found Zionist Jesus.
Now, his family exposes monotheistic ideology, something he spoke cautious tales about in class a decade ago.
Easy, the same way imbeciles sit through countless hrs of televangelist crapola preaching.
@@Ellfman Yes he appeared to be a bit more stable when he was teaching but over the last few years he's become very unstable,and more of a cult leader like figure, Harris leaves him for dead
@Ellfman zionist jesus? Wasnt his kingdom not of this world?
@@dylandecesare2652 It's my off-handed way of generalizing and grouping Evangelical, Protestant version of Jesus, versus Orthodox Jesus.
Zionist Jesus comes back from someplace to save the Christians and convert all the Jews to Christians.
That's some out of this world imagination, especially getting millions of humans to believe it.
lmao there are always peterson groupies waiting for peterson to say anything or even fart to yell like a fan girl and clap like a seal. pathetic.