'He has a name only he knows.' It means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows' is it true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after, or is it metaphorically true? If it is true and not metaphorically true. Why do you choose to talk about metaphorical truths? Shouldn't we be talking about how you all lose? 'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein. 'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation. Can belief open the door the truth closes? No. Can belief close the door the truth opens? No. Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes. Can the truth open the door belief closes? Yes. Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth? Is it true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Or is it a metaphorical truth? If God brainwash people, who brainwash those who see metaphorical truth? 'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' What has this attribute, the truth or belief? What is social hypnosis? Is it fair to say, everyone who says, this is the definition of belief, are under a spell? If anyone was not under a spell, would it not be self-evident, this is truth and not belief? Who has brainwashed all of you to see belief where there is none? Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12. Blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples does blue 12.11 have? Blue 6 says, four apples. Red 6 says, he is deceiving you, it's based on belief. Has blue 6 uttered a metaphorical truth, or is it reality and truth? And what even is a metaphorical truth? I don't think I have every said in my entire life, 'well it's metaphorically true.' As I understand it, things are either true or false, and we use metaphors to illustrate. I never heard of anything being metaphorically true. Is that like, me imagine I am the President, and I can fly. Then you say, you are not the President, nor can you fly. And I say, no, but it's metaphorically true. Let me give you a useful story about Superman. Kal El comes to earth, his father sends him in his spaceship. Imagine that part is true, but he does not actually fly by the power of his imagination. Which are stories that have circulated about him and become part of his story. Mr. Flying Pants: You fly around all the time, between study, work, and doing the dishes. I don’t see any difference between you flying around and Superman. Disbeliever: Exactly! Kal El: There is the ship in my barn and the crystals. This comedy has been going on for decades now. Who understands the parable? Both Mr. Flying Pants and Disbeliever are both equally deluded. They both believe in a false positive. Peterson says, if predators are real, how is dragon not real? Disbeliever says, predators are not real, because dragons are not real. Both are deluded. They are both wrong! The disbeliever says, walking on water is not real, therefore Christ cannot appear. That is a false positive. Kal El is not real, because flying by the power of imagination is not real. That is a false positive. And you learn that when you check Clark Kent's barn, and you find the ship and the crystals. Then you see you were right about flying by the power of imagination, but you were wrong about him not being from above. You were wrong about him not being separated from humanity. You were wrong about his identity cannot be known, and you were wrong about his claim cannot be verified. That is a metaphorical truth. It's metaphorically true that I am Superman. It's actually true that I am Christ. Why should you care about this metaphorical truth? Because it's simply a mirror of the actual truth. But if I claimed this proves that I am from an alien planet. Then I would confuse the metaphorical truth, the reflection of Christ in Superman, with reality. Superman is a metaphorical truth to Christ. My parents didn't send me from Krypton. That is not the point of the story. The point is that Christ is separated from the world, and identifiable. And Superman a fictional character, mirrors what is true about Christ. This mirror is metaphorical. I am real! If he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is he metaphorically separated, or actually separated from the world? He is actually separated. If Kal El was sent here by his father in his spaceship, is he metaphorically separated or is he actually separated? He is actually separated, but he can only be a metaphorical truth, because he is pure fiction. Confusing me with pure fiction, is delusion, not enlightenment! I exist in the real world and speak for myself, Superman cannot do that. That is how you know I am real and he is fiction. And if people don't care about metaphorical truth, which is at least useful. What about metaphorically false? Perry White and Christ are metaphorically false.
@@davidkeulen7006 There is a good chance that JP fans consume way too many doritos and mountain dew in their mommy's basement and are involuntarily celibate.
'He has a name only he knows.' It means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows' is it true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after, or is it metaphorically true? If it is true and not metaphorically true. Why do you choose to talk about metaphorical truths? Shouldn't we be talking about how you all lose? 'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein. 'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation. Can belief open the door the truth closes? No. Can belief close the door the truth opens? No. Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes. Can the truth open the door belief closes? Yes. Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth? Is it true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Or is it a metaphorical truth? If God brainwash people, who brainwash those who see metaphorical truth? 'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' What has this attribute, the truth or belief? What is social hypnosis? Is it fair to say, everyone who says, this is the definition of belief, are under a spell? If anyone was not under a spell, would it not be self-evident, this is truth and not belief? Who has brainwashed all of you to see belief where there is none? Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12. Blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples does blue 12.11 have? Blue 6 says, four apples. Red 6 says, he is deceiving you, it's based on belief. Has blue 6 uttered a metaphorical truth, or is it reality and truth? And what even is a metaphorical truth? I don't think I have every said in my entire life, 'well it's metaphorically true.' As I understand it, things are either true or false, and we use metaphors to illustrate. I never heard of anything being metaphorically true. Is that like, me imagine I am the President, and I can fly. Then you say, you are not the President, nor can you fly. And I say, no, but it's metaphorically true. Let me give you a useful story about Superman. Kal El comes to earth, his father sends him in his spaceship. Imagine that part is true, but he does not actually fly by the power of his imagination. Which are stories that have circulated about him and become part of his story. Mr. Flying Pants: You fly around all the time, between study, work, and doing the dishes. I don’t see any difference between you flying around and Superman. Disbeliever: Exactly! Kal El: There is the ship in my barn and the crystals. This comedy has been going on for decades now. Who understands the parable? Both Mr. Flying Pants and Disbeliever are both equally deluded. They both believe in a false positive. Peterson says, if predators are real, how is dragon not real? Disbeliever says, predators are not real, because dragons are not real. Both are deluded. They are both wrong! The disbeliever says, walking on water is not real, therefore Christ cannot appear. That is a false positive. Kal El is not real, because flying by the power of imagination is not real. That is a false positive. And you learn that when you check Clark Kent's barn, and you find the ship and the crystals. Then you see you were right about flying by the power of imagination, but you were wrong about him not being from above. You were wrong about him not being separated from humanity. You were wrong about his identity cannot be known, and you were wrong about his claim cannot be verified. That is a metaphorical truth. It's metaphorically true that I am Superman. It's actually true that I am Christ. Why should you care about this metaphorical truth? Because it's simply a mirror of the actual truth. But if I claimed this proves that I am from an alien planet. Then I would confuse the metaphorical truth, the reflection of Christ in Superman, with reality. Superman is a metaphorical truth to Christ. My parents didn't send me from Krypton. That is not the point of the story. The point is that Christ is separated from the world, and identifiable. And Superman a fictional character, mirrors what is true about Christ. This mirror is metaphorical. I am real! If he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is he metaphorically separated, or actually separated from the world? He is actually separated. If Kal El was sent here by his father in his spaceship, is he metaphorically separated or is he actually separated? He is actually separated, but he can only be a metaphorical truth, because he is pure fiction. Confusing me with pure fiction, is delusion, not enlightenment! I exist in the real world and speak for myself, Superman cannot do that. That is how you know I am real and he is fiction. And if people don't care about metaphorical truth, which is at least useful. What about metaphorically false? Perry White and Christ are metaphorically false.
@@reveivl You should write a book seeing as how you are a genius and way smarter than JP. Your comment alone would sell a million copies. You’re awesome!
Ask Jordan Peterson what time it is. Four hours later, after he's explained in great detail how to build a clock, you might come to the conclusion that Jordan Peterson didn"t actually know what time it was when you asked him.
"after he's explained in great detail how to build a clock," Don't be daft; his waffling won't be that constructive. He might talk about how important, or not, clocks were to ancient cultures, and what does "time" actually mean, but building a clock that's any more complex than a sundial? I doubt it.
Machiavelli was right, "good" will die when "evil" dies. JP has a strong vocabulary and the gift of rhetoric. Listen closely, he has poor logic. Debating him is pure theatre.
Yes you are way smarter. What arrogance. That’s the size of it. That’s why your ears are fortified against your established views, which are mostly ignorant.
If you don't like abortion don't have one. If you're not the one who is pregnant, it's none of your damn business unless that person makes it your business.
I'm pro choice, personally. But this argument makes zero sense, from the "pro-life"/anti-abortion perspective. You understand that pro-lifers are making a MORAL argument, that considers a fetus as "a person", right? (You don't have to AGREE with them; I don't agree with them... But I at least UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR POSITION IS...) You're argument, from a pro-life perspective, is 100% identical to someone saying "Well, if you're anti-murder, then just don't murder anyone!!! Simple!! But it's none of your business, to stop ME from murdering people!!" Do you think anyone would find that a persuasive reason to stop opposing murder? (Again, I'M not saying that abortion is the same as murder; I just understand that's an inevitable conclusion of the pro-life position, that the value of human life is innate from conception). And the idea that ANYONE opposes abortion, because they (somehow?) believe that THEY will be (somehow?) compelled to undergo one, is just bizarre. Get out of you echo chamber, dude. You're arguing against a strawman that you created, because you don't understand the basics, of one of the most common, mainstream beliefs around. I'm pro-choice, but the pro-lifers are more rational than YOU, on this.
The issue about abortion, from a completely irreligious perspective, is to determine when exactly do we attribute the same value to a baby that we do to any other human being. If it's not ok to murder it after it exited the womb, why would it be ok 1 hour before when it's still there ? It's the exact same individual, only its location changed. The question then becomes, when *exactly* in their past is the limit that once crossed, this developing individual loses all value and it becomes perfectly moral to murder them. If we're talking about the 90% of abortion cases, that are abortions of convenience and not life-threatening/consequence of rape, it seems to me that the only moral position one could take in regards to terminating pregnancy would be before we detect brain activity in the fetus. But this is not what most people advocate for abortion. They advocate for all possible abortions, and it just doesn't work ethically.
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Should anyone be allowed to have an abortion at any time, even hours before the due date? If so, why shouldn't it be allowed to kill the child shortly after birth?
No, you're just too simple-minded to grasp what he's talking about. What's he talking about is post-rational and post-conceptual, and trying to flatten it down so you dumb-dumbs have a chance of grasping it. But your primary self defense mechanism is to pretend like you're the smart ones. Perhaps you need some intellectual humility first. I suggest working on that.
The issue with people like Peterson is that they want to stick to cold hard facts on most of the issues but when it comes to religion all of a sudden it's about "metaphorical sub-straits".
Yeah you’re smarter than everyone. Only you have read a book. No one else. You’re smarter than Jordan Peterson also. You have it backward btw. Most people who listen to Hitchens have never heard Peterson or anyone else who has a more thoughtful take on Christianity than ‘muh sky daddy.’ Peterson and Hitch aren’t even in the same league intellectually. That’s why Hitch only took on fundamentalists and mental midgets with his atheism crusade and made only superficial arguments. Bc he appealed to arrogant liberals like you who already know everything by virtue of being awesome.
@@you_cant_see_me123substrate. The word is substrate. The issue with you is that you think you know everything. Worse, is that you haven’t even bothered to make an effort to challenge your own point of view, which is almost completely uninformed and a product of your own ego and arrogance.
Well is this the case that we continue to create this type of sadness in people or do we start to introduce atheism and re-label God with the term archetype? It may save a lot of grey matter in my objective opinion
She was under stress, but another thing is that people often invent own religions. Two examples: 1) Soviet Union replaced religion with cult of their leader, the same is happening in NK. 2) In the United States, the religiosity in biblical belt seems to be inversly correlated with spirituality and new age religions. In other words people replace mainstream belief with some other spiritual mumbo jumbo.
This is the case for many religious people. One builds their worlds around and on it. For over 30 years I used to be in that position, but luckily I managed to break through the bubble. It makes it sometimes very hard to reason or to have an honest conversation about a certain subject. The bubble is something that seem to demand protection. A lot of the religious texts have systems in them in order to do so. Praying is one of those things. It helps to protect the bubble.
The problem she is imaging without religion is seeing problems as actual problems that need to be tackled. If you can pray or have faith that things will be okay and that there is a plan, then you don’t really need to worry about all the bad in the world. It’s a matter of actually dealing with real world problems and not having the crutch of say, “God has plan”. That is what seems like a gap. This gap can be filled by actually having a functioning society.
When someone is more interested in quibbling over the meaning of the words leading up to the thing they're actually being asked about, I can't help but wonder if they actually believe in anything.
@@Rain-Dirt Probably that they'll be able to shift the narrative just based on how they want to interpret word any given time. Sure there are many circumstances where things change meaning like what "peace" means, whether it's in lack of war or some kind of inner feeling, where Jordan Peterson changes meaning of what belief is, in this very theoretically and philosophically important debate. If you're able to worm out of every talking point by changing the meaning of the thing you just described earlier, then you're not really a believer of said thing, you believe in some kind of shape shifter. He's talking about truth and yet he's ascribing to so much in a belief, then claiming the opposite is having false sense of truth because they choose not to believe in fairy tales. So he professes in not believing in truth while claiming otherwise, and that opponents don't believe in it. It's just "I'm right and you're wrong, why? Because I said so." him acting like though very well read daddy who just KNOWS things without being able to express it in a way that would make sense to someone who doesn't exactly share same world view as him.
@Rain-Dirt JP seems to be more interested in arguing about the meaning of words like "is" and "how" when asked about difficult subjects. So much of what he says comes off as a distraction from what's actually being discussed.
Jordan Peterson sometimes lends support to purity culture and male abstinence. Meanwhile, the SCIENCE says regular outflow from the prostate gland for any reason REDUCES RISK OF PROSTATE CANCER later in life.
To be fair, not having sex and not wanking are 2 different things, but, it seems, much that JP talks about has no scientific basis, and, sometimes, quite the reverse.
@@pineapplepenumbra Purity culture is about purity of thought and deed, so . . . But agreed, Peterson's relationship to scientific method is entirely tenuous. This is never more evident than when he deigns to pontificate on the science of climate change (no biggie in his view), when he himself has ZERO professional accreditation in any hard science. Even his go to 'science' reference on climate change, Bjorn Lomborg, has ZERO professional accreditation in any hard science; Lomborg's degree is in political science.
One must really be precise when making an axiomatic claim about what exactly a "Peterson" is. Patrilinial clan hierarchies being what they are, it is not always clear from the metaphysical substrate that such a person should be able to claim descent from Peter if indeed one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person's father was not actually named Peter.
People keep saying that JP doesnt have a coherent message, he absolutely does, its skydaddy magic and cavemen = anyone not a "man" cant have rights - it manosphere/Incel garbage with big words inbetween. He doesnt have to say it outright - he just has to include phrasing and conclusions that dogwhistle to his audience (i call this the Tucker method)... and then claim to be moderate.
It's all very simple. There was likely a man who Jesus is based on. There is also a moral philosophy in the New Testament which is Helenistic, based in the Logos and love of others. All the mystical and mythical stuff is just a technique used by religious writers to influence people to follow the moral philosophy. That is it and there is nothing more anyone needs to waste their brain juice on.
That British guy just made a bunch of things up. You know less about culture and literature if you go to school? Really? Everything is deconstructed? Lmao yeah because the average young person is reading Deluze, Derrida, Fucoult, and Heidengger. Just stop. His answer made zero sense. It clarified nothing about Petersons arguments. Nor did he contend with any of Dillihanty's comments. He had that answer ready, along with the irrelevant Habermas quote, and didn't listen to anything that was said. I think he gets away with saying the stuff that's just as silly as Jordan because he has an accent.
The other guy is Douglas Murray, a psychopathic right wing culture war grifter that is about as insane in his beliefs as your average Trump cabinet pick. Amazed Matt even kept his mouth shut while he was talking and didn't jump on some of his absolutely ridiculous arguments.
Amusing even Murray is reduced to spouting crap in defence of Peterson's religiosity. The metaphor of Woody Allen is a a conceit a theatrical flourish to cover up the lack of substance in the existence of God. It's a fact that those who went to university don't have the arch to the bridge either no more than the well read Allen. No one does we are all still stuck in the allegory of Socrates's cave. This doesn't mean we have to make stuff up we should instead try to work stuff out. Both Murray and Peterson are a dead end in enlightened thinking it goes nowhere simply an exercise in gobbledygook and complexity.
Yep. I've watched zillions of religious debates and they're more or less the same depending on the apologist. The atheist's argument is always understandable, logical and to the point while the apologist just throws up clouds of faux philosophical chaff or tries to wrestle in a mud bath of semantics. The tactic is painfully obvious and Murray is doing it here.
It's pretty obvious that he avoids the question because he knows that if he engages honestly he'd have to burn the bridge with JP and he isn't willing to do so...
We need to create a new lie? Why? Because we cant handle the truth. That is what religion does is provides a pallitable "truth" that is not true at all but is comforting
wrong: "Nor in fact was there ever a legislator who, in introducing extraordinary laws to a people, did not have recourse to God, for otherwise they would not have been accepted, since many benefits of which a prudent man is aware, are not so evident to reason that he can convince others of them. Hence wise men, in order to escape this difficulty, have recourse to God"
The only “vacuum” that needs recognized in absence of religion is belief itself. Belief is powerful, but doesn’t have to be supernatural. You can believe in yourself, others, goals, dreams, ideology, passions, causes, interests, et cetera. Ya just need something to believe in.
@danijel115 "Clean your room, or you'll never untangle the chaotic metaphysical web of being that ties order to the cosmos-and also your socks to the laundry pile. Also, what do you mean by "it's"?
Omg this dude next to Matt just wants to talk just to talk like bruh your trying to hard to seem like you belong on the same stage as Matt that your not speaking like a regular person
This "dude next to Matt" is Douglas Murray and he's the most renown journalist from UK who has been to many wars and has been the defacto spokesperson on the Middle East war. Matt isn't platforming him. Murray is platforming Matt.
@ idc who the hell is this Douglas guy and I watched this video because Matt’s face was on it not this Douglas person. Who you might give a damn about him but I clearly do not and wouldn’t not even mention him if he wasn’t on stage with Matt
Yeah, he's very odious and frankly I'm surprised the comments here aren't mentioning him more- but then he's well respected in some corners. I find him rather trapped in a parochial worldview that is at odds with reality- he is renowned for presenting his opinions as facts, whilst badmouthing any potential naysayers. And yet with JP he suddenly isn't sure about anything
Before we answer that, we need to know what the definition of "dropped is. What the definition of head is. What does it mean to be "as a child". What do you mean by wrong? We need to know these things if we're going to get to the brass tax on this topic, because I don't actually want to answer the question. 🤣
When your arguments are nothing but philosophical word salad, there's no reason to care what comes out of his mouth. He's like a Fox news "reporter" trying to record a 2 second gotcha clip.
I can't believe this guy he's in the middle of the road which is the ones that have zero ideas of their own they just stand in the middle of the road getting hit by traffic on the right and the left. Matt could have said a lot of truthfully mean things to him but it was a waste of time and it was incredibly boring I hate people in the middle
Murray is wrong, Jordan Chopra-Peterson is NOT trying to show people the bridge, he is telling people who do not know that there IS a bridge, and he is saying that the bridge goes from SOMEWHERE to SOMEWHERE ELSE, but WITHOUT being clear about EITHER of those locations, EXCEPT to say that those locations are WHERE YOU WANT THEM TO BE, but He WON'T show them where the bridge actually is.
The problem with Peterson is that he invents that "arc." The West has never existed as a harmonious unity, but as a multipolar struggle, and everything that we consider tradition today is the result of transgressions that always caused conflict with the conservatives of each era (Greek philosophy, Christianity, Protestantism, political liberalism , capitalism, the scientific revolution...) The greatness of the West is having managed to include these conflictive transgressions as part of its tradition (in Europe we have also done it with Marxism) without taking any to the extreme, or correcting extremism when it has appeared (on a pile of corpses, it is true )
There is so much to discover and learn that it's hard for me to see how anyone could not have passion for what they do, unless they are deprived of the ability to pursue their interests. I have no idea why passion for life has to be dependent on a supernatural being.
The vacuum doesn’t matter. In any religions, the dogma is fuzzy enough to let believers create all sort of division and sub categories that fight against each other…
He's right about the vacuum, for a lot of people. Many people leave a religion and discover a "God shaped hole" that needs filling. But that's not a bad thing. It's more fulfilling, in my view, to fill that void with things that matter to you: family, friends, investigating the universe and coming up with your own worldview, etc. however, I do agree it can be dangerous, if filled with destructive things. But the agency to fill the vacuum yourself vs outsourcing your worldview to a religion is one of the most fulfilling things one can do.
I think healthy debate is great,and being everyone has different ideas is just fine. Meet people where their at and keep civility, but it's great to have civil debate. It doesn't mean you have to agree. Just listen and keep an open mind. Just follow your own truth, and who knows, a good debate may make you dig you heals in, and sometimes it can spin you to thinking.😊
The crazy far left accuses everyone who doesn’t agree with every one of their views of being a far-right fascist. This is because their emotional development is that of a small child. I’ve been a center left liberal Democrat all my life, and if I don’t agree with someone with testicles beating the sh*t out of a biological female in a boxing match to a woke wackjob in a trans-hating Nazi. It’s pathetic and embarrassing and it’s empowering right wing bigot Republican oligarch scumbags.
"Metaphorical truth" can be misconstrued. Daniel Dennet might call it "human truth" but this word "truth" is broadly employed by scientists, believers, and philosophers.
I'd never would ask someone to drop their faith, but I would advocate for respecting other people's boundaries and learning what it means to be human. To recognize who we are as humans and start from there, not from a religion or culture. That way I think religion/culture can perfectly remain in the world while at the same time not causing as much conflict as it already has. I was very religious once and despite aknowledging the dangers of it, I would not like to see it dissapear. I think religion is a perfect way of helping to understand ourselves throughout history and in our own life. Religion says something crucial about humans. If we can all just keep respect with the focus of helping to create a better world and quality of life for everyone, not just a select few (wether that be the elite or a particular religion or atheists!).
You said: "To recognize who we are as humans and start from there, not from a religion or culture." But your first sentence was: "I'd never would ask someone to drop their faith" But with many people, their faith is all, or it demands to be all, so in order for them to recognise who we are as humans would need them to drop their faiths.
@@pineapplepenumbra I see your point, but I think both can exist as the same time. Extremism is what needs to be eradicated and one can be religious but not extreme. Religion has been brought forth from humans, thus contains human stuff, stuff that can connect us with people who do not adhere to the religion, because of it being part of who we are as humans. If that makes sense?
@@Rain-Dirt "Extremism is what needs to be eradicated and one can be religious but not extreme." Agreed, but some beliefs demand extremism. "Religion has been brought forth from humans, thus contains human stuff" Yes, but, bizarrely, much of it is anti what is essentially human, and even as a little kid, that shit bothered me, and was part of the reason I couldn't fall for the pap of so called "christianity" despite being taken to church from the year dot. It made out that being normal and human was a problem, and then pretended that they had a solution to the fake problem, a solution that was only "proven" after death, which was too bloody convenient. Passing these gaslighting belief systems onto others should be illegal.
@@pineapplepenumbra I find that within religion there is an attempt to an answer in terms of finding ways to deal with reality (the surroundings, enviremont, culture, social structures), which made sense and helped when it was developing. Today too people find strength in it regarding dealing with their own life and reality, just like back in the day. It serves that purpose. To the kind hearted or people with good will, it can be beneficial. It's when fear and hate gets involved, extremism can arise (which is also true imho outside religion). Religion does seem to be an easy pathway to channel those bad qualities through. I am not a believer of the idea that religion all started by people who wanted control over others (minds). In a sense religion is certainly about control, but of one's own life. Funny enough, what god really is, is a transactional security for fear of what is not certain or unknown. That is inherent to practically the whole of humanity, wouldn't you agree? I am btw also convinced we can never get rid of extremism to whatever extend. From what I know of history it seems that progress tends to happen slowly with one step forward, 2 steps back, 1 step forward, 2 steps back... sorta pace.
@@Rain-Dirt "To the kind hearted or people with good will, it can be beneficial." If all "christians" had been like my mum then these channels wouldn't exist, and my only problem would have been having Sunday mornings (and, possibly, time in school, but maybe not) stolen by that boring yet offensive rubbish. However, it is clear that the evil inflicted by religions/cults far outweighs the good. "I am not a believer of the idea that religion all started by people who wanted control over others" I agree. It almost certainly started as an attempt to explain things that seemed inexplicable, but all too soon, cunning people realised that they could turn it to their advantage. "what god really is, is a transactional security for fear of what is not certain or unknown." Yes, but it's all too often supplanting what is known, with damaging nonsense. "That is inherent to practically the whole of humanity, wouldn't you agree?" Fewer and fewer as time goes by and more people learn more. The main sticking point is the cult of islam. "I am btw also convinced we can never get rid of extremism" The only ways may be even worse than the extremism.
You Americans have dedicated yourself so much to technological progress and to accumulating power and money that philosophically you have remained in debates of the 19th century.
@Francis-m2d Don't shoot down the idea so flippantly. Why shouldn't we consider some metaphorical truths real? If your brain constructs the world through metaphors, and that's done through real physical processes in your brain, doesn't that suggest that the metaphors can be expressions of *real* complex patterns in the world?
@@OmegaFalcon I just think it's a lot more complicated than that...and on the other hand, people are capable of conjuring up just about anything and calling it read. So I would take metaphoric truths with a grain of salt.
JP only cares about incoherent indecipherable intellectual sounding mouth sounds He's a time waster, he gets nothing done because all he does is sit around all day talking about what might be the best way to get things done.
"Religions convince you that you're poisoned (original sin/animalistic urges), and then offer you the homeopathic remedy (MLM's and meditations for the sinner's spirit) ie Their interpreted version of religion 🤷🏻♂️ That sounds about right to me. Except🤔 It's even worse, because then they ALL tell you that "Only Their (homeopathic remedy) religion is the one "True Path", and that Any/All other religions (including None), are not only "Not Good Enough", but is such a bad choice that you will suffer more than you could ever imagine not only during this life, but for all eternity without end 😵💫 and most (if not now, then later) will tell you that you should be willing and able to help "remove any and all competition" 🤯 Killing to please the Almighty🙄😱 I mean really WTF 😳 SMH
There are probably some good insights into life that Iron Age people came up with, but why religion would be one of them makes no sense when they attributed all kinds of things they didn't understand about the world to God. Jordan seems to think there is a great religious insight that spans history, evidenced by Bible stories. I think Jordan spouts nonsense hidden by words most people don't use in normal conversation,
A deep longing like say Carl Sagan is so much more beautiful than the lack of it due to a load of garbage in your head. To quote Feynman.. he was much happier knowing that he does know something than in believing something incorrect.
If people want to come up with reasons justifying an ethics not based on mystical beings, may I suggest the Objectivist Ethics by Ayn Rand. It is fully grounded in reality.
Murray is as confused as Peterson. Peterson doesdn't construct a "bridge" although its nice Dougie thinks Peterson addresses the "deeps" whatever the fuck that means. Deepities?
Would the term troll simply be a weakened version of calling an Indigenous group savages in order to justify shooting guns around and claiming intellectual ownership and responsibility. All the while express mailing the pardon straight up and down between themself and the unreachable heights of the unknown?
Douglas Murray's fear-based rhetoric combined with his selective use of evidence & oversimplification sees him focus on extreme cases to make sweeping generalisations about entire groups & movements, all too often omitting counterarguments or alternative perspectives.
The young woman who was asking question towards the end is a narcissist who isn’t asking for knowledge or answers, she’s demanding her god approve of her question.
I like to listen intellectuals talking to learn some brims but after listening Jordan Peterson multiple time i realized It was either he wasn't to be understood or it was all bs. But imagine being a professor and aiming to not be understood?[yep it was the second option]
Faith seems to be unnecessary when simply the want to continue existing provides enough motivation to do what is necessary. Faith in myself does not require me to externalize any attachment and again science explains our origin enough we can sort of stop our exploration at the beginning of life from water on Earth, we really have no business looking at "who created the 'big bang'" would faith not be living in the present instead of looking so far into the past that it goes beyond the timeline of even life itself?
Open ended questions are more constructive here than descriptions of observations that end in a full stop. (This is more of a statement than an observation in itself)
@@claesyoungberg1695 Yeh man u can believe anything if convinced, just because energetic forces originate in thought doesn't make the thought true just because its a collective language even if it does work its still a construct of the mind and mental imagery is created in the mind too even if we inner-wards reflect what we see in nature. Thats not to say that its not like one of the best things humans could do
Jordan Peterson has millions of followers, and government officials are using THEIR religion to infect everything. Oklahoma for example. So no, we will not just sit down and shut up
@leishayoung4124 Appreciate the effort but if one doesn't believe in God and you take that as a fact then your life time is limited to the time on earth and there is no guarantee you'll live the average life expextency so I would think it wise to live not in a hurry, but expedient to what you considered important. If you feel it important to have discussion in things you don't believe in and hold your own opinion which for all tense and purposes may only last your lifetime, not sure what matters in after your life, but if you feel it necessary to discuss more power to you.
@18:25 its stated that Jordan Peterson attempted to read ones mind in saying he " doesnt, not believe god doesnt exist" to which he claims to dismiss Jordan entirely. But @21:15 its stated " im not saying there is no god...or religions are wrong, im saying im not convinced" Sounds a bit contradictory and stubborn.
Why is so many males are on the stage talking and talking and talking… debating other males . When are we start listening to female voices? Im 64 years old and tiered of hearing males always
'He has a name only he knows.' It means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows' is it true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after, or is it metaphorically true? If it is true and not metaphorically true. Why do you choose to talk about metaphorical truths? Shouldn't we be talking about how you all lose? 'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein. 'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation. Can belief open the door the truth closes? No. Can belief close the door the truth opens? No. Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes. Can the truth open the door belief closes? Yes. Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth? Is it true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Or is it a metaphorical truth? If God brainwash people, who brainwash those who see metaphorical truth? 'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' What has this attribute, the truth or belief? What is social hypnosis? Is it fair to say, everyone who says, this is the definition of belief, are under a spell? If anyone was not under a spell, would it not be self-evident, this is truth and not belief? Who has brainwashed all of you to see belief where there is none? Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12. Blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples does blue 12.11 have? Blue 6 says, four apples. Red 6 says, he is deceiving you, it's based on belief. Has blue 6 uttered a metaphorical truth, or is it reality and truth? And what even is a metaphorical truth? I don't think I have every said in my entire life, 'well it's metaphorically true.' As I understand it, things are either true or false, and we use metaphors to illustrate. I never heard of anything being metaphorically true. Is that like, me imagine I am the President, and I can fly. Then you say, you are not the President, nor can you fly. And I say, no, but it's metaphorically true. Let me give you a useful story about Superman. Kal El comes to earth, his father sends him in his spaceship. Imagine that part is true, but he does not actually fly by the power of his imagination. Which are stories that have circulated about him and become part of his story. Mr. Flying Pants: You fly around all the time, between study, work, and doing the dishes. I don’t see any difference between you flying around and Superman. Disbeliever: Exactly! Kal El: There is the ship in my barn and the crystals. This comedy has been going on for decades now. Who understands the parable? Both Mr. Flying Pants and Disbeliever are both equally deluded. They both believe in a false positive. Peterson says, if predators are real, how is dragon not real? Disbeliever says, predators are not real, because dragons are not real. Both are deluded. They are both wrong! The disbeliever says, walking on water is not real, therefore Christ cannot appear. That is a false positive. Kal El is not real, because flying by the power of imagination is not real. That is a false positive. And you learn that when you check Clark Kent's barn, and you find the ship and the crystals. Then you see you were right about flying by the power of imagination, but you were wrong about him not being from above. You were wrong about him not being separated from humanity. You were wrong about his identity cannot be known, and you were wrong about his claim cannot be verified. That is a metaphorical truth. It's metaphorically true that I am Superman. It's actually true that I am Christ. Why should you care about this metaphorical truth? Because it's simply a mirror of the actual truth. But if I claimed this proves that I am from an alien planet. Then I would confuse the metaphorical truth, the reflection of Christ in Superman, with reality. Superman is a metaphorical truth to Christ. My parents didn't send me from Krypton. That is not the point of the story. The point is that Christ is separated from the world, and identifiable. And Superman a fictional character, mirrors what is true about Christ. This mirror is metaphorical. I am real! If he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is he metaphorically separated, or actually separated from the world? He is actually separated. If Kal El was sent here by his father in his spaceship, is he metaphorically separated or is he actually separated? He is actually separated, but he can only be a metaphorical truth, because he is pure fiction. Confusing me with pure fiction, is delusion, not enlightenment! I exist in the real world and speak for myself, Superman cannot do that. That is how you know I am real and he is fiction. And if people don't care about metaphorical truth, which is at least useful. What about metaphorically false? Perry White and Christ are metaphorically false.
If anyone has seen his conversation with Roger Penrose, its so embarrassing. Its obvious that Peterson try to be a intellectual, meeting Penrose who really is( and he’s a very kind and polite person) . Peterson couldn’t specify what he was rambling about. And he says things that is not right.. and cherry picking what he wants. And he is very hostile towards women, although he’s support is his female : his wife and daughter.. and probably his mother.
'He has a name only he knows.' It means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows' is it true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after, or is it metaphorically true? If it is true and not metaphorically true. Why do you choose to talk about metaphorical truths? Shouldn't we be talking about how you all lose? 'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein. 'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation. Can belief open the door the truth closes? No. Can belief close the door the truth opens? No. Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes. Can the truth open the door belief closes? Yes. Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth? Is it true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Or is it a metaphorical truth? If God brainwash people, who brainwash those who see metaphorical truth? 'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' What has this attribute, the truth or belief? What is social hypnosis? Is it fair to say, everyone who says, this is the definition of belief, are under a spell? If anyone was not under a spell, would it not be self-evident, this is truth and not belief? Who has brainwashed all of you to see belief where there is none? Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12. Blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples does blue 12.11 have? Blue 6 says, four apples. Red 6 says, he is deceiving you, it's based on belief. Has blue 6 uttered a metaphorical truth, or is it reality and truth? And what even is a metaphorical truth? I don't think I have every said in my entire life, 'well it's metaphorically true.' As I understand it, things are either true or false, and we use metaphors to illustrate. I never heard of anything being metaphorically true. Is that like, me imagine I am the President, and I can fly. Then you say, you are not the President, nor can you fly. And I say, no, but it's metaphorically true. Let me give you a useful story about Superman. Kal El comes to earth, his father sends him in his spaceship. Imagine that part is true, but he does not actually fly by the power of his imagination. Which are stories that have circulated about him and become part of his story. Mr. Flying Pants: You fly around all the time, between study, work, and doing the dishes. I don’t see any difference between you flying around and Superman. Disbeliever: Exactly! Kal El: There is the ship in my barn and the crystals. This comedy has been going on for decades now. Who understands the parable? Both Mr. Flying Pants and Disbeliever are both equally deluded. They both believe in a false positive. Peterson says, if predators are real, how is dragon not real? Disbeliever says, predators are not real, because dragons are not real. Both are deluded. They are both wrong! The disbeliever says, walking on water is not real, therefore Christ cannot appear. That is a false positive. Kal El is not real, because flying by the power of imagination is not real. That is a false positive. And you learn that when you check Clark Kent's barn, and you find the ship and the crystals. Then you see you were right about flying by the power of imagination, but you were wrong about him not being from above. You were wrong about him not being separated from humanity. You were wrong about his identity cannot be known, and you were wrong about his claim cannot be verified. That is a metaphorical truth. It's metaphorically true that I am Superman. It's actually true that I am Christ. Why should you care about this metaphorical truth? Because it's simply a mirror of the actual truth. But if I claimed this proves that I am from an alien planet. Then I would confuse the metaphorical truth, the reflection of Christ in Superman, with reality. Superman is a metaphorical truth to Christ. My parents didn't send me from Krypton. That is not the point of the story. The point is that Christ is separated from the world, and identifiable. And Superman a fictional character, mirrors what is true about Christ. This mirror is metaphorical. I am real! If he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is he metaphorically separated, or actually separated from the world? He is actually separated. If Kal El was sent here by his father in his spaceship, is he metaphorically separated or is he actually separated? He is actually separated, but he can only be a metaphorical truth, because he is pure fiction. Confusing me with pure fiction, is delusion, not enlightenment! I exist in the real world and speak for myself, Superman cannot do that. That is how you know I am real and he is fiction. And if people don't care about metaphorical truth, which is at least useful. What about metaphorically false? Perry White and Christ are metaphorically false.
I very much like the phrase by Matt Dillahunty, "You're not even wrong." I use this phrase myself and usually add: "God doesn't even NOT exist. If you think this way you're not even in the conversation." As for the interlocutor, Pangburn? After listening to his tepid 'defence' of some aspects of Jordan Peterson's overrated piffle... Obviously, Pangburn isn't remotely worth listening to twice.
Amazing, Douglas Murray's name isn't found anywhere on this video's description or title. All this channel does is use Jordan's name as a honey pot to attract the angry atheists. This channel is a joke.
Why is this guy putting (instead of words in unknown young peoples mouths) but worse still (paradigms in young peoples heads) like the classic disconnection from those he wishes to save
I like a lot of what peterson says about a lot of things. But, I don't like his talking on religion. I get sick of his constant talk of archetypes and the karamozov brothers. But, his advice to young people is often very good. Especially the bit about 'clean your room' . With the 'fix the real things closer to you, before trying to fix the world' bit. I do think though, his 'legal stance' and such got him too much fame and going into things that he's less knowledgeable in. 👍🏼💙💖💙💝💙🥰✌
Im not gonna agree or disagree with atheism or Christianity because i try not to hold many opinions knowing that i am a human and only perceive a pinholes worth of whats happening around us. I will say however this channel is a hate channel dedicated to jordan peterson. Its kinda pathetic they cant get off the topic of this man if they think his beliefs are so dumb. I guess its for the views but you should be thanking him secretly for keeping your videos somewhat relevant to pop culture
Why would you not agree with the position that a person isn't convinced that God exists since there is absolutely no convincing evidence that any god does exist?
Would the term troll simply be a weakened version of calling an Indigenous group savages in order to justify shooting guns around and claiming intellectual ownership and responsibility. All the while express mailing the pardon straight up and down between themself and the unreachable heights of the unknown?
Aside from very rare occasions, after listening to Peterson, i find his tirades wearisome and meandering. Often arguing specific points to muddy and defract from the whole flow of conversation. Dillahunty offers much more clarity in plain english … sadly his footwear - those damn ugly cowboy boots - are somewhat less impressive … my advice fling them in the bin and replace with a decent pair of shoes. Gift them to Pererson as an option.
'He has a name only he knows.' It means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows' is it true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after, or is it metaphorically true? If it is true and not metaphorically true. Why do you choose to talk about metaphorical truths? Shouldn't we be talking about how you all lose? 'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein. 'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation. Can belief open the door the truth closes? No. Can belief close the door the truth opens? No. Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes. Can the truth open the door belief closes? Yes. Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth? Is it true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Or is it a metaphorical truth? If God brainwash people, who brainwash those who see metaphorical truth? 'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' What has this attribute, the truth or belief? What is social hypnosis? Is it fair to say, everyone who says, this is the definition of belief, are under a spell? If anyone was not under a spell, would it not be self-evident, this is truth and not belief? Who has brainwashed all of you to see belief where there is none? Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12. Blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples does blue 12.11 have? Blue 6 says, four apples. Red 6 says, he is deceiving you, it's based on belief. Has blue 6 uttered a metaphorical truth, or is it reality and truth? And what even is a metaphorical truth? I don't think I have every said in my entire life, 'well it's metaphorically true.' As I understand it, things are either true or false, and we use metaphors to illustrate. I never heard of anything being metaphorically true. Is that like, me imagine I am the President, and I can fly. Then you say, you are not the President, nor can you fly. And I say, no, but it's metaphorically true. Let me give you a useful story about Superman. Kal El comes to earth, his father sends him in his spaceship. Imagine that part is true, but he does not actually fly by the power of his imagination. Which are stories that have circulated about him and become part of his story. Mr. Flying Pants: You fly around all the time, between study, work, and doing the dishes. I don’t see any difference between you flying around and Superman. Disbeliever: Exactly! Kal El: There is the ship in my barn and the crystals. This comedy has been going on for decades now. Who understands the parable? Both Mr. Flying Pants and Disbeliever are both equally deluded. They both believe in a false positive. Peterson says, if predators are real, how is dragon not real? Disbeliever says, predators are not real, because dragons are not real. Both are deluded. They are both wrong! The disbeliever says, walking on water is not real, therefore Christ cannot appear. That is a false positive. Kal El is not real, because flying by the power of imagination is not real. That is a false positive. And you learn that when you check Clark Kent's barn, and you find the ship and the crystals. Then you see you were right about flying by the power of imagination, but you were wrong about him not being from above. You were wrong about him not being separated from humanity. You were wrong about his identity cannot be known, and you were wrong about his claim cannot be verified. That is a metaphorical truth. It's metaphorically true that I am Superman. It's actually true that I am Christ. Why should you care about this metaphorical truth? Because it's simply a mirror of the actual truth. But if I claimed this proves that I am from an alien planet. Then I would confuse the metaphorical truth, the reflection of Christ in Superman, with reality. Superman is a metaphorical truth to Christ. My parents didn't send me from Krypton. That is not the point of the story. The point is that Christ is separated from the world, and identifiable. And Superman a fictional character, mirrors what is true about Christ. This mirror is metaphorical. I am real! If he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is he metaphorically separated, or actually separated from the world? He is actually separated. If Kal El was sent here by his father in his spaceship, is he metaphorically separated or is he actually separated? He is actually separated, but he can only be a metaphorical truth, because he is pure fiction. Confusing me with pure fiction, is delusion, not enlightenment! I exist in the real world and speak for myself, Superman cannot do that. That is how you know I am real and he is fiction. And if people don't care about metaphorical truth, which is at least useful. What about metaphorically false? Perry White and Christ are metaphorically false.
Full discussion here: ua-cam.com/video/uCny7t5NrCg/v-deo.htmlsi=ldA_EvLaF8IweK94
Jordan is a good example of making the water muddy to make the water seem deep.
'He has a name only he knows.'
It means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows' is it true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after, or is it metaphorically true?
If it is true and not metaphorically true. Why do you choose to talk about metaphorical truths?
Shouldn't we be talking about how you all lose?
'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein.
'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation.
Can belief open the door the truth closes? No.
Can belief close the door the truth opens? No.
Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes.
Can the truth open the door belief closes? Yes.
Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth?
Is it true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Or is it a metaphorical truth?
If God brainwash people, who brainwash those who see metaphorical truth?
'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.'
What has this attribute, the truth or belief?
What is social hypnosis? Is it fair to say, everyone who says, this is the definition of belief, are under a spell?
If anyone was not under a spell, would it not be self-evident, this is truth and not belief?
Who has brainwashed all of you to see belief where there is none?
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12.
Blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples does blue 12.11 have?
Blue 6 says, four apples. Red 6 says, he is deceiving you, it's based on belief.
Has blue 6 uttered a metaphorical truth, or is it reality and truth?
And what even is a metaphorical truth? I don't think I have every said in my entire life, 'well it's metaphorically true.'
As I understand it, things are either true or false, and we use metaphors to illustrate. I never heard of anything being metaphorically true. Is that like, me imagine I am the President, and I can fly. Then you say, you are not the President, nor can you fly. And I say, no, but it's metaphorically true.
Let me give you a useful story about Superman.
Kal El comes to earth, his father sends him in his spaceship. Imagine that part is true, but he does not actually fly by the power of his imagination. Which are stories that have circulated about him and become part of his story.
Mr. Flying Pants: You fly around all the time, between study, work, and doing the dishes. I don’t see any difference between you flying around and Superman.
Disbeliever: Exactly!
Kal El: There is the ship in my barn and the crystals.
This comedy has been going on for decades now.
Who understands the parable?
Both Mr. Flying Pants and Disbeliever are both equally deluded. They both believe in a false positive.
Peterson says, if predators are real, how is dragon not real? Disbeliever says, predators are not real, because dragons are not real.
Both are deluded. They are both wrong! The disbeliever says, walking on water is not real, therefore Christ cannot appear. That is a false positive. Kal El is not real, because flying by the power of imagination is not real. That is a false positive. And you learn that when you check Clark Kent's barn, and you find the ship and the crystals. Then you see you were right about flying by the power of imagination, but you were wrong about him not being from above. You were wrong about him not being separated from humanity. You were wrong about his identity cannot be known, and you were wrong about his claim cannot be verified.
That is a metaphorical truth. It's metaphorically true that I am Superman. It's actually true that I am Christ.
Why should you care about this metaphorical truth? Because it's simply a mirror of the actual truth.
But if I claimed this proves that I am from an alien planet. Then I would confuse the metaphorical truth, the reflection of Christ in Superman, with reality. Superman is a metaphorical truth to Christ. My parents didn't send me from Krypton. That is not the point of the story. The point is that Christ is separated from the world, and identifiable. And Superman a fictional character, mirrors what is true about Christ. This mirror is metaphorical. I am real!
If he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is he metaphorically separated, or actually separated from the world?
He is actually separated.
If Kal El was sent here by his father in his spaceship, is he metaphorically separated or is he actually separated?
He is actually separated, but he can only be a metaphorical truth, because he is pure fiction.
Confusing me with pure fiction, is delusion, not enlightenment! I exist in the real world and speak for myself, Superman cannot do that. That is how you know I am real and he is fiction.
And if people don't care about metaphorical truth, which is at least useful. What about metaphorically false? Perry White and Christ are metaphorically false.
Brilliant analogy.
There's a huge chance that Jp has read a lot more Nietzsche than you do, the guy who you quoted.
@@davidkeulen7006 I haven't read any Nietzsche, it doesn't make JP any deeper or any more intelligent, or most of his ramblings any less nonsensical
@@davidkeulen7006 There is a good chance that JP fans consume way too many doritos and mountain dew in their mommy's basement and are involuntarily celibate.
"Deeply thought through" "coherent explanation"? Peterson? I don't think so. Coherent is the last thing he is.
That's just the en vogue thing to say
@@CoolPigeon98Except here it's y'know, coherent and well thought-through...
'He has a name only he knows.'
It means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows' is it true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after, or is it metaphorically true?
If it is true and not metaphorically true. Why do you choose to talk about metaphorical truths?
Shouldn't we be talking about how you all lose?
'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein.
'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation.
Can belief open the door the truth closes? No.
Can belief close the door the truth opens? No.
Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes.
Can the truth open the door belief closes? Yes.
Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth?
Is it true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Or is it a metaphorical truth?
If God brainwash people, who brainwash those who see metaphorical truth?
'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.'
What has this attribute, the truth or belief?
What is social hypnosis? Is it fair to say, everyone who says, this is the definition of belief, are under a spell?
If anyone was not under a spell, would it not be self-evident, this is truth and not belief?
Who has brainwashed all of you to see belief where there is none?
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12.
Blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples does blue 12.11 have?
Blue 6 says, four apples. Red 6 says, he is deceiving you, it's based on belief.
Has blue 6 uttered a metaphorical truth, or is it reality and truth?
And what even is a metaphorical truth? I don't think I have every said in my entire life, 'well it's metaphorically true.'
As I understand it, things are either true or false, and we use metaphors to illustrate. I never heard of anything being metaphorically true. Is that like, me imagine I am the President, and I can fly. Then you say, you are not the President, nor can you fly. And I say, no, but it's metaphorically true.
Let me give you a useful story about Superman.
Kal El comes to earth, his father sends him in his spaceship. Imagine that part is true, but he does not actually fly by the power of his imagination. Which are stories that have circulated about him and become part of his story.
Mr. Flying Pants: You fly around all the time, between study, work, and doing the dishes. I don’t see any difference between you flying around and Superman.
Disbeliever: Exactly!
Kal El: There is the ship in my barn and the crystals.
This comedy has been going on for decades now.
Who understands the parable?
Both Mr. Flying Pants and Disbeliever are both equally deluded. They both believe in a false positive.
Peterson says, if predators are real, how is dragon not real? Disbeliever says, predators are not real, because dragons are not real.
Both are deluded. They are both wrong! The disbeliever says, walking on water is not real, therefore Christ cannot appear. That is a false positive. Kal El is not real, because flying by the power of imagination is not real. That is a false positive. And you learn that when you check Clark Kent's barn, and you find the ship and the crystals. Then you see you were right about flying by the power of imagination, but you were wrong about him not being from above. You were wrong about him not being separated from humanity. You were wrong about his identity cannot be known, and you were wrong about his claim cannot be verified.
That is a metaphorical truth. It's metaphorically true that I am Superman. It's actually true that I am Christ.
Why should you care about this metaphorical truth? Because it's simply a mirror of the actual truth.
But if I claimed this proves that I am from an alien planet. Then I would confuse the metaphorical truth, the reflection of Christ in Superman, with reality. Superman is a metaphorical truth to Christ. My parents didn't send me from Krypton. That is not the point of the story. The point is that Christ is separated from the world, and identifiable. And Superman a fictional character, mirrors what is true about Christ. This mirror is metaphorical. I am real!
If he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is he metaphorically separated, or actually separated from the world?
He is actually separated.
If Kal El was sent here by his father in his spaceship, is he metaphorically separated or is he actually separated?
He is actually separated, but he can only be a metaphorical truth, because he is pure fiction.
Confusing me with pure fiction, is delusion, not enlightenment! I exist in the real world and speak for myself, Superman cannot do that. That is how you know I am real and he is fiction.
And if people don't care about metaphorical truth, which is at least useful. What about metaphorically false? Perry White and Christ are metaphorically false.
@@reveivl You should write a book seeing as how you are a genius and way smarter than JP. Your comment alone would sell a million copies. You’re awesome!
@@CoolPigeon98 True but it is also accurate and he deserves it
Ask Jordan Peterson what time it is.
Four hours later, after he's explained in great detail how to build a clock, you might come to the conclusion that Jordan Peterson didn"t actually know what time it was when you asked him.
Great analogy
"after he's explained in great detail how to build a clock,"
Don't be daft; his waffling won't be that constructive. He might talk about how important, or not, clocks were to ancient cultures, and what does "time" actually mean, but building a clock that's any more complex than a sundial? I doubt it.
Always a long drawn out convoluted answer to a simple question
Always a long drawn out convoluted answer to a simple question
Well it depends what you mean by time
I find anyone who finds Peterson other than incredibly tiresome in his fraudulent intellectualism equally suspect.
Machiavelli was right, "good" will die when "evil" dies. JP has a strong vocabulary and the gift of rhetoric. Listen closely, he has poor logic. Debating him is pure theatre.
This ^^^
Nailed it..... he has more twists than a pretzel...
@@ThoughtCriminal_1984 Let's go viral. I'm tired of JP and his ridiculous rhetoric. Matt is no better. He plays along.
Yes you are way smarter. What arrogance. That’s the size of it. That’s why your ears are fortified against your established views, which are mostly ignorant.
@@RM-jb2bv projecting?
On January 11, 2025 Jordon Peterson attended a function at Mar-a-Lago. Nothing more about him needs to be said.
Such a thinker you are. Wow.
thankyou for that critical nugget
If you don't like abortion don't have one. If you're not the one who is pregnant, it's none of your damn business unless that person makes it your business.
I'm pro choice, personally. But this argument makes zero sense, from the "pro-life"/anti-abortion perspective.
You understand that pro-lifers are making a MORAL argument, that considers a fetus as "a person", right? (You don't have to AGREE with them; I don't agree with them... But I at least UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR POSITION IS...)
You're argument, from a pro-life perspective, is 100% identical to someone saying "Well, if you're anti-murder, then just don't murder anyone!!! Simple!! But it's none of your business, to stop ME from murdering people!!"
Do you think anyone would find that a persuasive reason to stop opposing murder?
(Again, I'M not saying that abortion is the same as murder; I just understand that's an inevitable conclusion of the pro-life position, that the value of human life is innate from conception).
And the idea that ANYONE opposes abortion, because they (somehow?) believe that THEY will be (somehow?) compelled to undergo one, is just bizarre.
Get out of you echo chamber, dude. You're arguing against a strawman that you created, because you don't understand the basics, of one of the most common, mainstream beliefs around.
I'm pro-choice, but the pro-lifers are more rational than YOU, on this.
The issue about abortion, from a completely irreligious perspective, is to determine when exactly do we attribute the same value to a baby that we do to any other human being.
If it's not ok to murder it after it exited the womb, why would it be ok 1 hour before when it's still there ? It's the exact same individual, only its location changed. The question then becomes, when *exactly* in their past is the limit that once crossed, this developing individual loses all value and it becomes perfectly moral to murder them.
If we're talking about the 90% of abortion cases, that are abortions of convenience and not life-threatening/consequence of rape, it seems to me that the only moral position one could take in regards to terminating pregnancy would be before we detect brain activity in the fetus. But this is not what most people advocate for abortion. They advocate for all possible abortions, and it just doesn't work ethically.
@MasterChakra7 Again, if you don't like abortion, don't have one. Otherwise it's none of your business.
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Should anyone be allowed to have an abortion at any time, even hours before the due date? If so, why shouldn't it be allowed to kill the child shortly after birth?
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Missing the point. Shallow understanding of this topic. Embarrassing.
JP is simply intellectually dishonest. His words are meaningless because there is nothing serious that can come from faith based beliefs
No, you're just too simple-minded to grasp what he's talking about. What's he talking about is post-rational and post-conceptual, and trying to flatten it down so you dumb-dumbs have a chance of grasping it. But your primary self defense mechanism is to pretend like you're the smart ones. Perhaps you need some intellectual humility first. I suggest working on that.
anecdotal but everyone I've interacted with who likes Peterson has never watched or read Hitchens
The issue with people like Peterson is that they want to stick to cold hard facts on most of the issues but when it comes to religion all of a sudden it's about "metaphorical sub-straits".
@@you_cant_see_me123 Yup. I saw him as a legend dismantling those transgender / woke theories until I saw some of his more recent rubbish :(
Yeah you’re smarter than everyone. Only you have read a book. No one else. You’re smarter than Jordan Peterson also.
You have it backward btw. Most people who listen to Hitchens have never heard Peterson or anyone else who has a more thoughtful take on Christianity than ‘muh sky daddy.’
Peterson and Hitch aren’t even in the same league intellectually. That’s why Hitch only took on fundamentalists and mental midgets with his atheism crusade and made only superficial arguments. Bc he appealed to arrogant liberals like you who already know everything by virtue of being awesome.
@@you_cant_see_me123substrate. The word is substrate. The issue with you is that you think you know everything. Worse, is that you haven’t even bothered to make an effort to challenge your own point of view, which is almost completely uninformed and a product of your own ego and arrogance.
Happy to meet you
The last question about what you would do without religion is really sad. You could tell in her voice she couldn't imagine life without.
Well is this the case that we continue to create this type of sadness in people or do we start to introduce atheism and re-label God with the term archetype? It may save a lot of grey matter in my objective opinion
She was under stress, but another thing is that people often invent own religions. Two examples: 1) Soviet Union replaced religion with cult of their leader, the same is happening in NK. 2) In the United States, the religiosity in biblical belt seems to be inversly correlated with spirituality and new age religions. In other words people replace mainstream belief with some other spiritual mumbo jumbo.
@@pavel9652 yeh it's the difference between a sheep and a beast
This is the case for many religious people. One builds their worlds around and on it. For over 30 years I used to be in that position, but luckily I managed to break through the bubble.
It makes it sometimes very hard to reason or to have an honest conversation about a certain subject. The bubble is something that seem to demand protection. A lot of the religious texts have systems in them in order to do so. Praying is one of those things. It helps to protect the bubble.
The problem she is imaging without religion is seeing problems as actual problems that need to be tackled. If you can pray or have faith that things will be okay and that there is a plan, then you don’t really need to worry about all the bad in the world. It’s a matter of actually dealing with real world problems and not having the crutch of say, “God has plan”. That is what seems like a gap. This gap can be filled by actually having a functioning society.
J P is MAGA
That’s it. 😂
When someone is more interested in quibbling over the meaning of the words leading up to the thing they're actually being asked about, I can't help but wonder if they actually believe in anything.
What do you mean?
@@Rain-Dirt Probably that they'll be able to shift the narrative just based on how they want to interpret word any given time. Sure there are many circumstances where things change meaning like what "peace" means, whether it's in lack of war or some kind of inner feeling, where Jordan Peterson changes meaning of what belief is, in this very theoretically and philosophically important debate. If you're able to worm out of every talking point by changing the meaning of the thing you just described earlier, then you're not really a believer of said thing, you believe in some kind of shape shifter.
He's talking about truth and yet he's ascribing to so much in a belief, then claiming the opposite is having false sense of truth because they choose not to believe in fairy tales.
So he professes in not believing in truth while claiming otherwise, and that opponents don't believe in it.
It's just "I'm right and you're wrong, why? Because I said so." him acting like though very well read daddy who just KNOWS things without being able to express it in a way that would make sense to someone who doesn't exactly share same world view as him.
@Rain-Dirt JP seems to be more interested in arguing about the meaning of words like "is" and "how" when asked about difficult subjects. So much of what he says comes off as a distraction from what's actually being discussed.
@@MaKi-e3h Well said
@@MaKi-e3h I agree with those words.
Jordan Peterson sometimes lends support to purity culture and male abstinence. Meanwhile, the SCIENCE says regular outflow from the prostate gland for any reason REDUCES RISK OF PROSTATE CANCER later in life.
To be fair, not having sex and not wanking are 2 different things, but, it seems, much that JP talks about has no scientific basis, and, sometimes, quite the reverse.
@@pineapplepenumbra Purity culture is about purity of thought and deed, so . . .
But agreed, Peterson's relationship to scientific method is entirely tenuous. This is never more evident than when he deigns to pontificate on the science of climate change (no biggie in his view), when he himself has ZERO professional accreditation in any hard science. Even his go to 'science' reference on climate change, Bjorn Lomborg, has ZERO professional accreditation in any hard science; Lomborg's degree is in political science.
@@douglascutler1037 Oh, I see what you mean now. Then he's a blithering idiot.
HE SEEMS TO DISLIKE MASTURBATION , GUESS HIS DOES NOT WORK SO HE HATES IT ! HIS REASONING
Hahaha
That depends on what you mean by "Jordan"
One must really be precise when making an axiomatic claim about what exactly a "Peterson" is. Patrilinial clan hierarchies being what they are, it is not always clear from the metaphysical substrate that such a person should be able to claim descent from Peter if indeed one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person's father was not actually named Peter.
People keep saying that JP doesnt have a coherent message, he absolutely does, its skydaddy magic and cavemen = anyone not a "man" cant have rights - it manosphere/Incel garbage with big words inbetween. He doesnt have to say it outright - he just has to include phrasing and conclusions that dogwhistle to his audience (i call this the Tucker method)... and then claim to be moderate.
It's all very simple. There was likely a man who Jesus is based on. There is also a moral philosophy in the New Testament which is Helenistic, based in the Logos and love of others. All the mystical and mythical stuff is just a technique used by religious writers to influence people to follow the moral philosophy. That is it and there is nothing more anyone needs to waste their brain juice on.
That British guy just made a bunch of things up. You know less about culture and literature if you go to school? Really? Everything is deconstructed? Lmao yeah because the average young person is reading Deluze, Derrida, Fucoult, and Heidengger. Just stop. His answer made zero sense. It clarified nothing about Petersons arguments. Nor did he contend with any of Dillihanty's comments. He had that answer ready, along with the irrelevant Habermas quote, and didn't listen to anything that was said. I think he gets away with saying the stuff that's just as silly as Jordan because he has an accent.
The other guy is Douglas Murray, a psychopathic right wing culture war grifter that is about as insane in his beliefs as your average Trump cabinet pick. Amazed Matt even kept his mouth shut while he was talking and didn't jump on some of his absolutely ridiculous arguments.
Thank you! I was hoping Matt would interrupt and say, “What the fuck are you even talking about right now?!”
It was just rambling bullshit.
Amusing even Murray is reduced to spouting crap in defence of Peterson's religiosity. The metaphor of Woody Allen is a a conceit a theatrical flourish to cover up the lack of substance in the existence of God. It's a fact that those who went to university don't have the arch to the bridge either no more than the well read Allen. No one does we are all still stuck in the allegory of Socrates's cave. This doesn't mean we have to make stuff up we should instead try to work stuff out. Both Murray and Peterson are a dead end in enlightened thinking it goes nowhere simply an exercise in gobbledygook and complexity.
Yep. I've watched zillions of religious debates and they're more or less the same depending on the apologist. The atheist's argument is always understandable, logical and to the point while the apologist just throws up clouds of faux philosophical chaff or tries to wrestle in a mud bath of semantics. The tactic is painfully obvious and Murray is doing it here.
You say "even Murray"... You clearly have more respect for him than I do.
It's pretty obvious that he avoids the question because he knows that if he engages honestly he'd have to burn the bridge with JP and he isn't willing to do so...
We need to create a new lie? Why? Because we cant handle the truth. That is what religion does is provides a pallitable "truth" that is not true at all but is comforting
what is the truth?
wrong: "Nor in fact was there ever a legislator who, in introducing extraordinary laws to a people, did not have recourse to God, for otherwise they would not have been accepted, since many benefits of which a prudent man is aware, are not so evident to reason that he can convince others of them. Hence wise men, in order to escape this difficulty, have recourse to God"
@maxdougherty3429 that's just saying that the wise man pretends to believe if he want to be treated with respect by his neighbors
You know the “truth?” The 100 billion humans before you couldn’t figure it out. Just you.
@bubbleworld4172 You don't know what the truth is?
The only “vacuum” that needs recognized in absence of religion is belief itself. Belief is powerful, but doesn’t have to be supernatural. You can believe in yourself, others, goals, dreams, ideology, passions, causes, interests, et cetera. Ya just need something to believe in.
I disagree. He cares about reality. He cares about the reality of the money he makes from his rube followers.
This son of a gun had me in the first half.
I don't even think Peterson knows what he's talking about.
No, you don't know what he's talking about. It's that simple.
@danijel115 "Clean your room, or you'll never untangle the chaotic metaphysical web of being that ties order to the cosmos-and also your socks to the laundry pile. Also, what do you mean by "it's"?
What a pittance of acknowledgement of Jordan considering he's had people's minds under his control.
Omg this dude next to Matt just wants to talk just to talk like bruh your trying to hard to seem like you belong on the same stage as Matt that your not speaking like a regular person
This "dude next to Matt" is Douglas Murray and he's the most renown journalist from UK who has been to many wars and has been the defacto spokesperson on the Middle East war. Matt isn't platforming him. Murray is platforming Matt.
@ idc who the hell is this Douglas guy and I watched this video because Matt’s face was on it not this Douglas person. Who you might give a damn about him but I clearly do not and wouldn’t not even mention him if he wasn’t on stage with Matt
@@dajusta87 He is certainly NOT "the most renown (sic) journalist from anywhere..."
Yeah, he's very odious and frankly I'm surprised the comments here aren't mentioning him more- but then he's well respected in some corners. I find him rather trapped in a parochial worldview that is at odds with reality- he is renowned for presenting his opinions as facts, whilst badmouthing any potential naysayers.
And yet with JP he suddenly isn't sure about anything
@@PokeChampionHQYou kinda just sound angry and ignorant. And ignorant about being ignorant. Lol its ok to not know people. But that's not his fault.
JP was dropped on his head as a child. Prove me wrong
JP is real? I thought he was just bad AI
His hair is quite springy so he may have bounced. Flipped. And hit his head again.
Before we answer that, we need to know what the definition of "dropped is. What the definition of head is. What does it mean to be "as a child". What do you mean by wrong? We need to know these things if we're going to get to the brass tax on this topic, because I don't actually want to answer the question. 🤣
DO NOT THINK HIS MOTHER LIKED HIM VERY MUCH , LOL
When your arguments are nothing but philosophical word salad, there's no reason to care what comes out of his mouth. He's like a Fox news "reporter" trying to record a 2 second gotcha clip.
He's a quack. That's what he is.
I can't believe this guy he's in the middle of the road which is the ones that have zero ideas of their own they just stand in the middle of the road getting hit by traffic on the right and the left. Matt could have said a lot of truthfully mean things to him but it was a waste of time and it was incredibly boring I hate people in the middle
Murray is wrong, Jordan Chopra-Peterson is NOT trying to show people the bridge, he is telling people who do not know that there IS a bridge, and he is saying that the bridge goes from SOMEWHERE to SOMEWHERE ELSE, but WITHOUT being clear about EITHER of those locations, EXCEPT to say that those locations are WHERE YOU WANT THEM TO BE, but He WON'T show them where the bridge actually is.
It depends what you mean by bridge.
@@stevensteven3417 It depends what you mean by "It" and :"means"
Who said "we aren't born sinners, sin is an acquired taste"
The problem with Peterson is that he invents that "arc."
The West has never existed as a harmonious unity, but as a multipolar struggle, and everything that we consider tradition today is the result of transgressions that always caused conflict with the conservatives of each era (Greek philosophy, Christianity, Protestantism, political liberalism , capitalism, the scientific revolution...)
The greatness of the West is having managed to include these conflictive transgressions as part of its tradition (in Europe we have also done it with Marxism) without taking any to the extreme, or correcting extremism when it has appeared (on a pile of corpses, it is true )
No wonder this other guy likes Peterson. He speaks as vaguely as Peterson does, just not with as many polysyllabic words.
There is so much to discover and learn that it's hard for me to see how anyone could not have passion for what they do, unless they are deprived of the ability to pursue their interests. I have no idea why passion for life has to be dependent on a supernatural being.
The vacuum doesn’t matter. In any religions, the dogma is fuzzy enough to let believers create all sort of division and sub categories that fight against each other…
He's right about the vacuum, for a lot of people. Many people leave a religion and discover a "God shaped hole" that needs filling. But that's not a bad thing. It's more fulfilling, in my view, to fill that void with things that matter to you: family, friends, investigating the universe and coming up with your own worldview, etc. however, I do agree it can be dangerous, if filled with destructive things. But the agency to fill the vacuum yourself vs outsourcing your worldview to a religion is one of the most fulfilling things one can do.
Matt and other skeptics are more… efficient? There is so much coming out the apologists’ mouths but so little worth saying.
"I don't think" all i need to hear.
Matt is great
I think healthy debate is great,and being everyone has different ideas is just fine. Meet people where their at and keep civility, but it's great to have civil debate. It doesn't mean you have to agree. Just listen and keep an open mind.
Just follow your own truth, and who knows, a good debate may make you dig you heals in, and sometimes it can spin you to thinking.😊
“Center left” lol
He means solid right.
Why are we ignoring the fact that I'm solid right now?
The crazy far left accuses everyone who doesn’t agree with every one of their views of being a far-right fascist. This is because their emotional development is that of a small child.
I’ve been a center left liberal Democrat all my life, and if I don’t agree with someone with testicles beating the sh*t out of a biological female in a boxing match to a woke wackjob in a trans-hating Nazi. It’s pathetic and embarrassing and it’s empowering right wing bigot Republican oligarch scumbags.
JP isn't a scientist.
"Metaphorical truth" can be misconstrued. Daniel Dennet might call it "human truth" but this word "truth" is broadly employed by scientists, believers, and philosophers.
I'd never would ask someone to drop their faith, but I would advocate for respecting other people's boundaries and learning what it means to be human. To recognize who we are as humans and start from there, not from a religion or culture.
That way I think religion/culture can perfectly remain in the world while at the same time not causing as much conflict as it already has.
I was very religious once and despite aknowledging the dangers of it, I would not like to see it dissapear. I think religion is a perfect way of helping to understand ourselves throughout history and in our own life. Religion says something crucial about humans.
If we can all just keep respect with the focus of helping to create a better world and quality of life for everyone, not just a select few (wether that be the elite or a particular religion or atheists!).
You said:
"To recognize who we are as humans and start from there, not from a religion or culture."
But your first sentence was:
"I'd never would ask someone to drop their faith"
But with many people, their faith is all, or it demands to be all, so in order for them to recognise who we are as humans would need them to drop their faiths.
@@pineapplepenumbra I see your point, but I think both can exist as the same time. Extremism is what needs to be eradicated and one can be religious but not extreme.
Religion has been brought forth from humans, thus contains human stuff, stuff that can connect us with people who do not adhere to the religion, because of it being part of who we are as humans. If that makes sense?
@@Rain-Dirt "Extremism is what needs to be eradicated and one can be religious but not extreme."
Agreed, but some beliefs demand extremism.
"Religion has been brought forth from humans, thus contains human stuff"
Yes, but, bizarrely, much of it is anti what is essentially human, and even as a little kid, that shit bothered me, and was part of the reason I couldn't fall for the pap of so called "christianity" despite being taken to church from the year dot.
It made out that being normal and human was a problem, and then pretended that they had a solution to the fake problem, a solution that was only "proven" after death, which was too bloody convenient.
Passing these gaslighting belief systems onto others should be illegal.
@@pineapplepenumbra I find that within religion there is an attempt to an answer in terms of finding ways to deal with reality (the surroundings, enviremont, culture, social structures), which made sense and helped when it was developing.
Today too people find strength in it regarding dealing with their own life and reality, just like back in the day. It serves that purpose. To the kind hearted or people with good will, it can be beneficial. It's when fear and hate gets involved, extremism can arise (which is also true imho outside religion). Religion does seem to be an easy pathway to channel those bad qualities through.
I am not a believer of the idea that religion all started by people who wanted control over others (minds).
In a sense religion is certainly about control, but of one's own life. Funny enough, what god really is, is a transactional security for fear of what is not certain or unknown.
That is inherent to practically the whole of humanity, wouldn't you agree?
I am btw also convinced we can never get rid of extremism to whatever extend. From what I know of history it seems that progress tends to happen slowly with one step forward, 2 steps back, 1 step forward, 2 steps back... sorta pace.
@@Rain-Dirt "To the kind hearted or people with good will, it can be beneficial."
If all "christians" had been like my mum then these channels wouldn't exist, and my only problem would have been having Sunday mornings (and, possibly, time in school, but maybe not) stolen by that boring yet offensive rubbish.
However, it is clear that the evil inflicted by religions/cults far outweighs the good.
"I am not a believer of the idea that religion all started by people who wanted control over others"
I agree. It almost certainly started as an attempt to explain things that seemed inexplicable, but all too soon, cunning people realised that they could turn it to their advantage.
"what god really is, is a transactional security for fear of what is not certain or unknown."
Yes, but it's all too often supplanting what is known, with damaging nonsense.
"That is inherent to practically the whole of humanity, wouldn't you agree?"
Fewer and fewer as time goes by and more people learn more. The main sticking point is the cult of islam.
"I am btw also convinced we can never get rid of extremism"
The only ways may be even worse than the extremism.
You Americans have dedicated yourself so much to technological progress and to accumulating power and money that philosophically you have remained in debates of the 19th century.
I think it's s very powerful idea that metaphorical truths ARE reality and even more real *for us* than some physical realities
I guess that might be true if your grasps on physical realities is really, really weak.
@Francis-m2d Don't shoot down the idea so flippantly. Why shouldn't we consider some metaphorical truths real? If your brain constructs the world through metaphors, and that's done through real physical processes in your brain, doesn't that suggest that the metaphors can be expressions of *real* complex patterns in the world?
@@OmegaFalcon I just think it's a lot more complicated than that...and on the other hand, people are capable of conjuring up just about anything and calling it read. So I would take metaphoric truths with a grain of salt.
@@Francis-m2d sure, you can't just take anything someone thinks up at face value and call it truth
They are as real as lies are real too. We utter them, therefore their existence is real, but it does not mean it reflects reality.
Interesting coming from Matt who is on the side of stretching the definition of “woman” to mean “a woman is whoever feels like a woman”
attack is the only defense, when defense is not possible...
The “…isn’t even wrong” quote is generally attributed to Pauli, at least in the physics community.
Yes…I’ve tried listening to Jordan but somehow I couldn’t get into it…..doesn’t appeal…long and drawn out…just my thoughts on the subject…❤
So, he thinks Petersons makes a great service for filling a void with pure bs. I always feel like the "argument" of a "void" is so weak.
JP only cares about incoherent indecipherable intellectual sounding mouth sounds
He's a time waster, he gets nothing done because all he does is sit around all day talking about what might be the best way to get things done.
JP is the last person whose ideas and advice should be heeded. 12 Rules for Life 😂 - Rule 1: Ignore JP at all costs.
"Religions convince you that you're poisoned (original sin/animalistic urges), and then offer you the homeopathic remedy (MLM's and meditations for the sinner's spirit) ie Their interpreted version of religion
🤷🏻♂️
That sounds about right to me.
Except🤔
It's even worse, because then they ALL tell you that "Only Their (homeopathic remedy) religion is the one "True Path", and that Any/All other religions (including None), are not only "Not Good Enough", but is such a bad choice that you will suffer more than you could ever imagine not only during this life, but for all eternity without end 😵💫 and most (if not now, then later) will tell you that you should be willing and able to help "remove any and all competition" 🤯
Killing to please the Almighty🙄😱
I mean really
WTF 😳 SMH
They do not all say that though. My church literally has a banner up with religious symbols and the words: ‘God is too big to fit into one religion.’
Yeah, not ALL religious groups are like that, but I agree that this aspect of religions is terrible. It is far too common and should not exist at all.
@@Traverser17 Well since it is just a thought it technically does NOT exist at all. 😂😂😂
2:15 peter jordanson 😂😂
He is just trying to secularise in fear of foriegn ifluence of eastern traditions
There are probably some good insights into life that Iron Age people came up with, but why religion would be one of them makes no sense when they attributed all kinds of things they didn't understand about the world to God. Jordan seems to think there is a great religious insight that spans history, evidenced by Bible stories. I think Jordan spouts nonsense hidden by words most people don't use in normal conversation,
Bingo! He speaks a lot (and uses big words), but says very little of substance.
Seems to me that no one would be watching this lad if it weren't for his guests! All the comments seem to focus on them rather than on him.
A deep longing like say Carl Sagan is so much more beautiful than the lack of it due to a load of garbage in your head. To quote Feynman.. he was much happier knowing that he does know something than in believing something incorrect.
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned."
@Raoul684 ah yes. Thanks for the correction.
Jordan Peterson is like many others, he is a skeptic until he is not, but a greased weasel always.
If people want to come up with reasons justifying an ethics not based on mystical beings, may I suggest the Objectivist Ethics by Ayn Rand. It is fully grounded in reality.
There is something that fills the gap: it's called philosophy and it's been around for thousands of years.
Judge him by the quality of the company he keeps. He's a scam artist. Best to run in the opposite direction, or you will be burned.
Murray is as confused as Peterson. Peterson doesdn't construct a "bridge" although its nice Dougie thinks Peterson addresses the "deeps" whatever the fuck that means. Deepities?
being 'right ' on this, does not mean he is 'right' on that
Murphy is an independent thinker. Bravo.
Stop pretending we can read other people's minds. Just listen and notice how they act.
Yes when it happens it is clearly pretending. Not very good acting [insert name for extra offense] and follow up with pale proof of intelligence PhD
Would the term troll simply be a weakened version of calling an Indigenous group savages in order to justify shooting guns around and claiming intellectual ownership and responsibility. All the while express mailing the pardon straight up and down between themself and the unreachable heights of the unknown?
This user: @@Sean-gh1op has to be a bot. Check the awful name and ridiculous all-over-the-place replies 😂
Douglas Murray's fear-based rhetoric combined with his selective use of evidence & oversimplification sees him focus on extreme cases to make sweeping generalisations about entire groups & movements, all too often omitting counterarguments or alternative perspectives.
The young woman who was asking question towards the end is a narcissist who isn’t asking for knowledge or answers, she’s demanding her god approve of her question.
I like to listen intellectuals talking to learn some brims but after listening Jordan Peterson multiple time i realized It was either he wasn't to be understood or it was all bs. But imagine being a professor and aiming to not be understood?[yep it was the second option]
Faith seems to be unnecessary when simply the want to continue existing provides enough motivation to do what is necessary. Faith in myself does not require me to externalize any attachment and again science explains our origin enough we can sort of stop our exploration at the beginning of life from water on Earth, we really have no business looking at "who created the 'big bang'" would faith not be living in the present instead of looking so far into the past that it goes beyond the timeline of even life itself?
Open ended questions are more constructive here than descriptions of observations that end in a full stop. (This is more of a statement than an observation in itself)
@Dreamtime_958that is not really accurate, but just accurate enough to be funny 😂
@@claesyoungberg1695 Yeh man u can believe anything if convinced, just because energetic forces originate in thought doesn't make the thought true just because its a collective language even if it does work its still a construct of the mind and mental imagery is created in the mind too even if we inner-wards reflect what we see in nature. Thats not to say that its not like one of the best things humans could do
When tradition and ritual are gone there is no need to replace with the other nonsense.
8:50 look at that guy’s body language. You could just roll your eyes at the camera , dude.
Again if you do not like Jordon Peterson and don't believe in God why are you wasting time giving your opinion on things you don't believe in.
Jordan Peterson has millions of followers, and government officials are using THEIR religion to infect everything. Oklahoma for example. So no, we will not just sit down and shut up
Because both have a profound impact on society. Do you really need it explained to you?
@leishayoung4124 Appreciate the effort but if one doesn't believe in God and you take that as a fact then your life time is limited to the time on earth and there is no guarantee you'll live the average life expextency so I would think it wise to live not in a hurry, but expedient to what you considered important. If you feel it important to have discussion in things you don't believe in and hold your own opinion which for all tense and purposes may only last your lifetime, not sure what matters in after your life, but if you feel it necessary to discuss more power to you.
@ Absolute garbage!
@@leishayoung4124 Your life or my comment as it comes down to this
if they could only trully listen to each other they couldve become brothers. until then its only judgment and division, a childish ruthlessness.
5:45 -yes "we" have come up with other things in is place. Syntheism is one very good example.
@18:25 its stated that Jordan Peterson attempted to read ones mind in saying he " doesnt, not believe god doesnt exist" to which he claims to dismiss Jordan entirely.
But @21:15 its stated " im not saying there is no god...or religions are wrong, im saying im not convinced"
Sounds a bit contradictory and stubborn.
Believing there is no god, and not having the belief there is, is totally different
They aren't the same at all.
This is not a thing.
I don't think that's a thing.
Completely different.
Why is so many males are on the stage talking and talking and talking… debating other males . When are we start listening to female voices? Im 64 years old and tiered of hearing males always
Let me sum it up for Y'all....
Theism is life imitating art.
Atheism is art imitating like life.
All is theatre.
Peterson is clearly not smart enough to
'He has a name only he knows.'
It means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows' is it true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after, or is it metaphorically true?
If it is true and not metaphorically true. Why do you choose to talk about metaphorical truths?
Shouldn't we be talking about how you all lose?
'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein.
'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation.
Can belief open the door the truth closes? No.
Can belief close the door the truth opens? No.
Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes.
Can the truth open the door belief closes? Yes.
Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth?
Is it true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Or is it a metaphorical truth?
If God brainwash people, who brainwash those who see metaphorical truth?
'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.'
What has this attribute, the truth or belief?
What is social hypnosis? Is it fair to say, everyone who says, this is the definition of belief, are under a spell?
If anyone was not under a spell, would it not be self-evident, this is truth and not belief?
Who has brainwashed all of you to see belief where there is none?
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12.
Blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples does blue 12.11 have?
Blue 6 says, four apples. Red 6 says, he is deceiving you, it's based on belief.
Has blue 6 uttered a metaphorical truth, or is it reality and truth?
And what even is a metaphorical truth? I don't think I have every said in my entire life, 'well it's metaphorically true.'
As I understand it, things are either true or false, and we use metaphors to illustrate. I never heard of anything being metaphorically true. Is that like, me imagine I am the President, and I can fly. Then you say, you are not the President, nor can you fly. And I say, no, but it's metaphorically true.
Let me give you a useful story about Superman.
Kal El comes to earth, his father sends him in his spaceship. Imagine that part is true, but he does not actually fly by the power of his imagination. Which are stories that have circulated about him and become part of his story.
Mr. Flying Pants: You fly around all the time, between study, work, and doing the dishes. I don’t see any difference between you flying around and Superman.
Disbeliever: Exactly!
Kal El: There is the ship in my barn and the crystals.
This comedy has been going on for decades now.
Who understands the parable?
Both Mr. Flying Pants and Disbeliever are both equally deluded. They both believe in a false positive.
Peterson says, if predators are real, how is dragon not real? Disbeliever says, predators are not real, because dragons are not real.
Both are deluded. They are both wrong! The disbeliever says, walking on water is not real, therefore Christ cannot appear. That is a false positive. Kal El is not real, because flying by the power of imagination is not real. That is a false positive. And you learn that when you check Clark Kent's barn, and you find the ship and the crystals. Then you see you were right about flying by the power of imagination, but you were wrong about him not being from above. You were wrong about him not being separated from humanity. You were wrong about his identity cannot be known, and you were wrong about his claim cannot be verified.
That is a metaphorical truth. It's metaphorically true that I am Superman. It's actually true that I am Christ.
Why should you care about this metaphorical truth? Because it's simply a mirror of the actual truth.
But if I claimed this proves that I am from an alien planet. Then I would confuse the metaphorical truth, the reflection of Christ in Superman, with reality. Superman is a metaphorical truth to Christ. My parents didn't send me from Krypton. That is not the point of the story. The point is that Christ is separated from the world, and identifiable. And Superman a fictional character, mirrors what is true about Christ. This mirror is metaphorical. I am real!
If he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is he metaphorically separated, or actually separated from the world?
He is actually separated.
If Kal El was sent here by his father in his spaceship, is he metaphorically separated or is he actually separated?
He is actually separated, but he can only be a metaphorical truth, because he is pure fiction.
Confusing me with pure fiction, is delusion, not enlightenment! I exist in the real world and speak for myself, Superman cannot do that. That is how you know I am real and he is fiction.
And if people don't care about metaphorical truth, which is at least useful. What about metaphorically false? Perry White and Christ are metaphorically false.
If anyone has seen his conversation with Roger Penrose, its so embarrassing. Its obvious that Peterson try to be a intellectual, meeting Penrose who really is( and he’s a very kind and polite person) . Peterson couldn’t specify what he was rambling about. And he says things that is not right.. and cherry picking what he wants. And he is very hostile towards women, although he’s support is his female : his wife and daughter.. and probably his mother.
Who farted at 6:11 ?
😂😂
Trump?
I find this "easy chair" format off putting.
Did this gentleman compare the influence and power of Donald Trump vs Lena Dunhan? Both sides indeed…
'He has a name only he knows.'
It means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows' is it true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after, or is it metaphorically true?
If it is true and not metaphorically true. Why do you choose to talk about metaphorical truths?
Shouldn't we be talking about how you all lose?
'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein.
'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation.
Can belief open the door the truth closes? No.
Can belief close the door the truth opens? No.
Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes.
Can the truth open the door belief closes? Yes.
Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth?
Is it true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Or is it a metaphorical truth?
If God brainwash people, who brainwash those who see metaphorical truth?
'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.'
What has this attribute, the truth or belief?
What is social hypnosis? Is it fair to say, everyone who says, this is the definition of belief, are under a spell?
If anyone was not under a spell, would it not be self-evident, this is truth and not belief?
Who has brainwashed all of you to see belief where there is none?
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12.
Blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples does blue 12.11 have?
Blue 6 says, four apples. Red 6 says, he is deceiving you, it's based on belief.
Has blue 6 uttered a metaphorical truth, or is it reality and truth?
And what even is a metaphorical truth? I don't think I have every said in my entire life, 'well it's metaphorically true.'
As I understand it, things are either true or false, and we use metaphors to illustrate. I never heard of anything being metaphorically true. Is that like, me imagine I am the President, and I can fly. Then you say, you are not the President, nor can you fly. And I say, no, but it's metaphorically true.
Let me give you a useful story about Superman.
Kal El comes to earth, his father sends him in his spaceship. Imagine that part is true, but he does not actually fly by the power of his imagination. Which are stories that have circulated about him and become part of his story.
Mr. Flying Pants: You fly around all the time, between study, work, and doing the dishes. I don’t see any difference between you flying around and Superman.
Disbeliever: Exactly!
Kal El: There is the ship in my barn and the crystals.
This comedy has been going on for decades now.
Who understands the parable?
Both Mr. Flying Pants and Disbeliever are both equally deluded. They both believe in a false positive.
Peterson says, if predators are real, how is dragon not real? Disbeliever says, predators are not real, because dragons are not real.
Both are deluded. They are both wrong! The disbeliever says, walking on water is not real, therefore Christ cannot appear. That is a false positive. Kal El is not real, because flying by the power of imagination is not real. That is a false positive. And you learn that when you check Clark Kent's barn, and you find the ship and the crystals. Then you see you were right about flying by the power of imagination, but you were wrong about him not being from above. You were wrong about him not being separated from humanity. You were wrong about his identity cannot be known, and you were wrong about his claim cannot be verified.
That is a metaphorical truth. It's metaphorically true that I am Superman. It's actually true that I am Christ.
Why should you care about this metaphorical truth? Because it's simply a mirror of the actual truth.
But if I claimed this proves that I am from an alien planet. Then I would confuse the metaphorical truth, the reflection of Christ in Superman, with reality. Superman is a metaphorical truth to Christ. My parents didn't send me from Krypton. That is not the point of the story. The point is that Christ is separated from the world, and identifiable. And Superman a fictional character, mirrors what is true about Christ. This mirror is metaphorical. I am real!
If he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is he metaphorically separated, or actually separated from the world?
He is actually separated.
If Kal El was sent here by his father in his spaceship, is he metaphorically separated or is he actually separated?
He is actually separated, but he can only be a metaphorical truth, because he is pure fiction.
Confusing me with pure fiction, is delusion, not enlightenment! I exist in the real world and speak for myself, Superman cannot do that. That is how you know I am real and he is fiction.
And if people don't care about metaphorical truth, which is at least useful. What about metaphorically false? Perry White and Christ are metaphorically false.
You have become Peterson . Bravo.
Go away.
Guys pls come to india we have lot of discussions and debates here
But are those debates productive and what is being debated? Because India has a ton of problems that still aren't being addressed.
living as if it were true is self deception
You can tell that murry wants to defend perterson more than he does. Atheïsm is almost done.
Disingenuous Douglas quite rightly Dissociates himself from Another Charlatan
Even truth itself is a metaphor
Gibberish deepity nonsense.
That doesn't mean anything.
*I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU SPELLING 'METAPHORICAL' WRONG!*
I very much like the phrase by Matt Dillahunty, "You're not even wrong." I use this phrase myself and usually add: "God doesn't even NOT exist. If you think this way you're not even in the conversation." As for the interlocutor, Pangburn? After listening to his tepid 'defence' of some aspects of Jordan Peterson's overrated piffle... Obviously, Pangburn isn't remotely worth listening to twice.
this is what happens when we dont have historyin our education
any posit without proof is non-sense
Amazing, Douglas Murray's name isn't found anywhere on this video's description or title. All this channel does is use Jordan's name as a honey pot to attract the angry atheists. This channel is a joke.
JP from 8 years ago was awesome. But nowadays, he just babbles without saying anything. It's very sad.
Why is this guy putting (instead of words in unknown young peoples mouths) but worse still (paradigms in young peoples heads) like the classic disconnection from those he wishes to save
And I am not referring to Matt...😬
To me atheism is the key that allows one to use archetypes without delusional potential
Would it be like a comparison to someone believing they have supernatural powers twice removed
A fear of trolls is being wrapped in cotton wool and pretending to be exposed
@@Sean-gh1opSo🤨 3rd Cousin-Powers? 😂😁
I like a lot of what peterson says about a lot of things. But, I don't like his talking on religion. I get sick of his constant talk of archetypes and the karamozov brothers. But, his advice to young people is often very good. Especially the bit about 'clean your room' . With the 'fix the real things closer to you, before trying to fix the world' bit. I do think though, his 'legal stance' and such got him too much fame and going into things that he's less knowledgeable in. 👍🏼💙💖💙💝💙🥰✌
Im not gonna agree or disagree with atheism or Christianity because i try not to hold many opinions knowing that i am a human and only perceive a pinholes worth of whats happening around us. I will say however this channel is a hate channel dedicated to jordan peterson. Its kinda pathetic they cant get off the topic of this man if they think his beliefs are so dumb. I guess its for the views but you should be thanking him secretly for keeping your videos somewhat relevant to pop culture
Atheism isn't a claim about anything, so you don't have to agree with it. You just have to be or not be convinced of the God-claims presented.
@Pbdave1092 its a claim against everything that isnt atheism
Why would you not agree with the position that a person isn't convinced that God exists since there is absolutely no convincing evidence that any god does exist?
Jordan Peterson a liberal? What? I swear Douglas just spits nonsense. The guy believes Europeans are the greatest thing to touch earth.
Would the term troll simply be a weakened version of calling an Indigenous group savages in order to justify shooting guns around and claiming intellectual ownership and responsibility. All the while express mailing the pardon straight up and down between themself and the unreachable heights of the unknown?
Aside from very rare occasions, after listening to Peterson, i find his tirades wearisome and meandering. Often arguing specific points to muddy and defract from the whole flow of conversation. Dillahunty offers much more clarity in plain english … sadly his footwear - those damn ugly cowboy boots - are somewhat less impressive … my advice fling them in the bin and replace with a decent pair of shoes. Gift them to Pererson as an option.
Jordan Peterson, the man who put the pseudo into pseudo intellectual.
'He has a name only he knows.'
It means he arrives first and the world can only arrive after.
If the vision is true, 'he has a name only he knows' is it true he arrives first and the world can only arrive after, or is it metaphorically true?
If it is true and not metaphorically true. Why do you choose to talk about metaphorical truths?
Shouldn't we be talking about how you all lose?
'Religion is not based on historical truth,' says Wittgenstein.
'I am he that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open,' says God in Revelation.
Can belief open the door the truth closes? No.
Can belief close the door the truth opens? No.
Can the truth close the door belief opens? Yes.
Can the truth open the door belief closes? Yes.
Who am I that opens so no one can close, and close so no one can open, belief or the truth?
Is it true the truth has this attribute and not belief. Or is it a metaphorical truth?
If God brainwash people, who brainwash those who see metaphorical truth?
'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.'
What has this attribute, the truth or belief?
What is social hypnosis? Is it fair to say, everyone who says, this is the definition of belief, are under a spell?
If anyone was not under a spell, would it not be self-evident, this is truth and not belief?
Who has brainwashed all of you to see belief where there is none?
Christ can only have one beginning, blue 12.11. Christ can only have one end, blue 2.1 to blue 12/12.
Blue 12.11 has two baskets, and in each basket there are two apples. How many apples does blue 12.11 have?
Blue 6 says, four apples. Red 6 says, he is deceiving you, it's based on belief.
Has blue 6 uttered a metaphorical truth, or is it reality and truth?
And what even is a metaphorical truth? I don't think I have every said in my entire life, 'well it's metaphorically true.'
As I understand it, things are either true or false, and we use metaphors to illustrate. I never heard of anything being metaphorically true. Is that like, me imagine I am the President, and I can fly. Then you say, you are not the President, nor can you fly. And I say, no, but it's metaphorically true.
Let me give you a useful story about Superman.
Kal El comes to earth, his father sends him in his spaceship. Imagine that part is true, but he does not actually fly by the power of his imagination. Which are stories that have circulated about him and become part of his story.
Mr. Flying Pants: You fly around all the time, between study, work, and doing the dishes. I don’t see any difference between you flying around and Superman.
Disbeliever: Exactly!
Kal El: There is the ship in my barn and the crystals.
This comedy has been going on for decades now.
Who understands the parable?
Both Mr. Flying Pants and Disbeliever are both equally deluded. They both believe in a false positive.
Peterson says, if predators are real, how is dragon not real? Disbeliever says, predators are not real, because dragons are not real.
Both are deluded. They are both wrong! The disbeliever says, walking on water is not real, therefore Christ cannot appear. That is a false positive. Kal El is not real, because flying by the power of imagination is not real. That is a false positive. And you learn that when you check Clark Kent's barn, and you find the ship and the crystals. Then you see you were right about flying by the power of imagination, but you were wrong about him not being from above. You were wrong about him not being separated from humanity. You were wrong about his identity cannot be known, and you were wrong about his claim cannot be verified.
That is a metaphorical truth. It's metaphorically true that I am Superman. It's actually true that I am Christ.
Why should you care about this metaphorical truth? Because it's simply a mirror of the actual truth.
But if I claimed this proves that I am from an alien planet. Then I would confuse the metaphorical truth, the reflection of Christ in Superman, with reality. Superman is a metaphorical truth to Christ. My parents didn't send me from Krypton. That is not the point of the story. The point is that Christ is separated from the world, and identifiable. And Superman a fictional character, mirrors what is true about Christ. This mirror is metaphorical. I am real!
If he arrives first and the world can only arrive after. Is he metaphorically separated, or actually separated from the world?
He is actually separated.
If Kal El was sent here by his father in his spaceship, is he metaphorically separated or is he actually separated?
He is actually separated, but he can only be a metaphorical truth, because he is pure fiction.
Confusing me with pure fiction, is delusion, not enlightenment! I exist in the real world and speak for myself, Superman cannot do that. That is how you know I am real and he is fiction.
And if people don't care about metaphorical truth, which is at least useful. What about metaphorically false? Perry White and Christ are metaphorically false.