This show has now said that Trump is a contrarian who disagrees with whatever is told, that he agrees with whatever the last thing he has told is, and that Bill Barr gave him a whole big rundown and ignored him completely. These are contrary positions, you have to choose one.
These two are worse then any hardcore Trump hater. They know the truth, they are intellectual and have proven they are smart, yet somehow the big push agaisnt Trump takes over their brains and makes them like 25-50% dumber whenever anything involves Trump.
I've been an independent my entire life so I can understand Adam, and others, having trouble picking who to vote for. I've been in that position many times. I can even somewhat understand being in that position right after Harris got the nominee if you weren't 100 percent about Trump. But I can't understand still being on the fence this close to the election. EXPECIALLY given that Adam said he thinks Trump is better on policy. I think Adam's biggest, and most unusual problem, is at 0:05:16. I think Adam is letting post election optics influence his vote way too much. Letting how and candidate takes LOSING and people's reaction to that is an absurd consideration. It's even more absurd in hyper partisan times like these. In such times there are going to be highly emotional reactions no matter what happens so why let that influence you? Just vote for who you think is best and be ready to defend your choice. If people can't accept it, then you've accidentally found a way to sort out the friends and family that actually care about you over their party loyalty.
Just watching the stream now but yeah I just don’t understand why that matters so much to him?? How is Adam “a part of it” to quote his own words if Trump acts like a baby after he loses? How does that have any reflection on Adam at all and why would he care if others judge him for some reason? Such an oddball, silly thing to give a shit about.
Adam is just very confusing. The false elector plot was completely disqualifying until it wasn't for seamingly no reason while this thing where trump will make him look bad by being a bad sport is very important. If this was actually important it would already be disqualifying because he was doing it the whole time last election. I've given up taking his takes seriously but maybe its just something flying over my head.
@@Paul_WhiteI’m guessing because he doesn’t think either will be that bad but if one side largely gets too upset that could cause problems. Sounds partisan but I could see “avoiding more summer of love stuff” is maybe an issue someone could consider?? Idk
It fuckin boggles my mind thst they can cycle from "well. Some of those cases against Trump might be justifiable" to " I cant vote for Trump because he might pursue legal cases against some of his political rival" (who, btw, clearly have questions to answer) in the span of a few minutes. That's WILD.
To be fair he has explicitly been running on investigating/prosecuting certain democratic figures. Not that he can't have the opinion that certain people need to be investigated, but it's really irresponsible to say that in the context of a campaign speech. The correct response is always just to leave it to the courts and have no hand in it. Also, it's not that certain left leaning people haven't done the same, but Kamala specifically has actually maintained procedure on this matter. Not too long ago she had a rally with people screaming "lock him up" about Trump, to which she responded with something along the lines of "Let's focus on beating him in the election. The courts can handle anything criminal". That, IMO is proper decorum surrounding separation between the central executive and legal investigation.
I think what they mean by Trump going after political rivals is that they are still afraid that the stupid seal team six hypothetical from Supreme Justice Sotomayor is going to take place. They really aren't meaning that the justice department is going to imprison a rival for doing something criminal. But it's the idea that Trump will just start locking up anyone who's a rival or political opposition. Their argument is that it took years and the courts a long time to decide that charges should be brought on Trump over conduct he was doing while in and out of office. So they exist in this little bubble where they say Trump is handled with kid gloves by the media, the courts, and his rivals. But if the tables turn and Trump is quicker to go after more people for wrongdoing. They will claim that Trump is going to be one sided in his attacks on political figures. So Trump might be able to avoid this by also claiming that he supports any Republicans locked up for wrong doin that was politically motivated.
@@BananaMana69 I gave one standard, being that presidential candidates should not campaign on criminally investigating political opponents. I applied this single standard to both Trump and Kamala because they are the current presidential candidates. I then found that Trump violated this standard while Kamala has explicitly rejected it. The best argument you can make that Kamala has done the same is her rhetoric about being a prosecutor and her frequent "I know Donald Trump's type" speech. You can say that's bad/lazy rhetoric in your opinion, but making descriptive statements about Trump's pre-existing legal troubles is significantly different to prescriptively promising to enact criminal investigations of her political opponents. If you still think I'm holding Trump to a higher standard please tell me where I messed up, genuinely.
Because TDS is a hell of a drug. That's all it really is. Hyper partisanship. For the sake of Sitch and Adam, I'll look at it in the most charitable way possible.... Those like Sitch and Adam want someone to be the bigger person and take it on the chin while the other side does all the dirty BS. They think that truth will ultimately be the victor and the high minded approach always prevails. If we were at the start of this culture war I would agree that is what should be tried for a while. The fact is that we're not. It's been going on for a decade now and building for longer than that. In that time, everything has been taken over by subversive and crooked people. The left has done so much more that I consider it amazing that the right has been as measured as they have. At some point you have to give a little back in order to stop it and get things back to normal. Now, I realize there is risk in this strategy. In doing this you could establish new norms and we wind up worse off than ever. But you can't be so afraid of messing up that you don't try at all. That just lets the bad actors that started all of this win.
it's a division issue, let's be real. Democrats don't see Democrats going after Trump as them going after political opposition, they see it as them following the law. So they hear Trump threatening the same and think "oh, so he's going to break the law to do this".
According to RFK jr the Biden Harris admin authorized some DoD or DoJ directive letting the military gun down citizens for protesting. Clearly one is way worse
If going after political rivals is such a hangup, then the dems should be entirely off the table as they have shown the desire and means to do so, and show no sign of stopping. That doesn't mean you vote for Trump, because he at least will feign trying to do so.
Yeah that seems like a huge blind spot for them. It’s not even limited to Trump. They tried to cook Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. They basically want to neuter the entire SC. Rudy Giuliani got torched. Pretty much everyone around Trump got dragged into courtrooms at some point.
@@L3monsta Did he try to "lock her up" or CHARGE HER LEGALLY FOR BROKEN LAWS AND WAR CRIMES". Because last time I check he didn't try to frame hillary for some bogus mistake on a form and repeat it 37 times.
Dawkins values what is literally true, what can be verified and measured. Peterson values symbols, metaphor, myths and narratives. There is nothing wrong with either perspective. I believe we need a surplus of both types of people for society to flourish.
Myths etc form an ideal of society or the ideals men should strive for, reality is realizing that while being honest is a great value sometimes white lies are allowed, why do we claim Santa exists? To instill that giving gifts to loved ones to show appreciation and etc matter.
the only time ppl say alleged is to avoid a lawsuit, a lawyer saying its a lie, is a factual claim, and can be sued, so the lawyer is willing to be sued.
The conclusion I have come to, in this world where atheism basically won the culture war, is that eliminating a religion simply allows for a new religion to take its place. Woke is that new religion. Ironically, the main religion that resisted it is Islam, so both managed to thrive, while Christianity has been gutted. I hated the overbearingness of Christianity when I was young, but I vastly preferred it compared to what is happening now. The left fought so long against the religous right that it didn't know what to do when it won, and so just kept going onward to absurd extremes.
i thought the saying that ppl have a god shaped hole in their heart was bs, that humans dont need faith. turns out said god shaped hole really does ache to being filled, that as an atheist that lacks the ability to believe in faith, doesnt mean i respect what faith did when it wasnt abused. but the older i get, the more i realize that faith is needed, and atheists should argue to keep faith out of government, but not remove faith from society.
I feel like Dawkins wants to be closer to JBP in finding some hyper truth from religion justifying it with biology, sociology, and psychology, but he has too much cognitive dissonance to admit it. His, "I am a cultural christian bc Islam has bad foundations" is weak when he can't even give examples of pro social morales that come from Christianity.
The whole "Is the bible factually true?" discussion is absolutely stupid and nonsensical. The bible is a collection of books of all kinds of genres and styles. Asking if the bible is factually true, is as nonsensical a question as "is your library factually true?". It obviously depends on which section you look at. Historical books are as close as factually true as we can have. There are also clearly fictional books, but which point to archetypal deep truths. What about historical fiction? Children's books about history which greatly simplify the stories? Philosophy books, are those factually true? The discussion has to happen about each book separately, because each genre & style has a specific purpose and has to be evaluated on those terms. You don't rate Shakespeare on how factually historical it is and you don't rate a historl book on it'?s poetry.
I’m so tired of “sky daddy” and “not factual” as if that’s a proper response when someone tells you about a movie/book that inspired them to be better and I think non believers should approach believer’s with something like that in mind. Maybe to get hung up “literally factually true in all facets” is to miss the point at the very least
You must be in a region that just dumps them. On you or something. I believe sometimes UA-cam just decides to insert ads embedded all through certain content. It is still probably something they can adjust in the uploading and posting of the live content. Because it seems like there's times I've heard that ads can be manually placed or something. But blame UA-cam overall for any automated ads being put in obnoxiously. Their automated system should never be that bad.
For myself, I have no problem with people going after their political rivals legally. The question is did they commit a crime or no? I think not prosecuting someone because it looks bad optically is just as bad as prosecuting someone falsely because they are a political rival.
Adam, you're an atheist. But one who believes in the adaptive evolutionary advantage of religion on the group level. Now understanding the equilibrium between progress and tradition is vital, it's a meta theory about how human society is optimized. Classical liberals like Johnathan haidt highlight the importance of all opinions in culture and often defend the moral intuitions counterintuitive to their own…ie those of traditionalists and conservatives. Fair enough. But why aren't you religious, Adam? And why shouldn't everyone, even those people deep inside a belief system that you are free from, be given the tools to evaluate the truth themselves? Better methodologies and more reason creates an informed public. That's what we want. That is enlightenment antitheism. Dawkins and other new atheist types are enlightenment antitheists. The same enlightenment principles encoded into the US founding documents.. Questioning dogma non violently has been fundamental to America before there was an America. Dogma persecuted settlers right on over to the new world. Non enlightenment totalitarianism has sometimes enforced removal of one dogma to instill another (marxism etc). But American antitheism is about championing and protecting individual rights while engaging in reason and empiricism through convincing argumentation, promoting the freedom from coercive tendencies within many religions. So anyone who claims atheism without sympathy for antitheism (like you, Adam) is making a pragmatic argument about the need for some people to still have their religion. They believe in belief at the cultural level, while using the principles of reason they apply in their own life to conclude that religious claims are unconvincing for them personally. People need the tools to think. Learn the best arguments. Defend the faith. That's what antitheism is fundamentally about. And atheist proponents of belief like Jordan Peterson must wrestle with the belief that religion is beneficial for society in general, but not for them personally. It's a fine line to walk.
Anti theists promote the idea that we should "get rid of" religions. A prescription that is no longer a position of only describing our current reality. It requires them to be asserting a claim not backed by strong evidence, even if they themselves promote only believing claims that do have strong evidence. There is just certain things that secular humanism does not satisfy for all people. Like afterlife beliefs, and human origins, hypotheticals of thought which align goals for the betterment of all humans. The enlightenment allows mankind to research and record. To study and pass on findings and observations to the next generations. But they don't present morals backed by any foundations. They blindly assert that humanism is something good to practice. But they have no way to put up any guardrails on humanism. And removing the guardrails of Christian ethics only allows them to be able to change any law to their liking instead of a law that is good regardless if they like it or not. The enlightenment let more people seek better advancements in medicine and to seek liberty. But it didn't change what things are bad when we look into them. If anything it reinforced traditions that upheld certain values. It's good to have a way to make certain unnecessary traditions obsolete and to have a way to stop perpetuating bad traditions. But promoting the idea that nobody should be traditionally religious is a very unhealthy way to talk about the human experience. Until humans know our own future, we are gonna be guessing at what gives us a better future. So we should be trying to decide on what traditions are worth perpetuating and passing down.
Man, Dawkins whole argumentation really feels low IQ to me. He's just insisting on keeping the conversation on surface level gotcha questions instead of actually discussing the substance of what Jordan Peterson wants to talk about. DiD CaIn aCtUAlly ExIsTEd ? WaS tHe ViRGin Marie rEalLy a ViRgin ?? It's disappointing because he's obviously an intelligent man but the anti theist elephant is too strong I guess.
I only liked Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, and maybe Nikki Haley, possibly Vivek Ramaswamy if he got more like his podcast appearances, as candidates the last two presidential cycles. Admittedly, I am young, but I just believe the last two cycles have been terrible based on what the majority of partisan voters pick. I guess this means I am a contrarian or something since nobody voted for these candidates.
I always miss the good ones. S&A philosophy stream from what I heard. Trey had it right, it's always a turd sandwich and a giant douche... Until we change the paradigm of course.
The issue is you think its that but I might think its a flawed leader vs evil. The next election, you think its a great leader vs poor but I think its turd vs douche.
14:15 aren’t special prosecutors appointed to allow for an unbiased investigation? If someone is actually guilty then investigate them. Whether it’s Trump or Biden
I wish you would consider bringing someone like Alex O'Connor onto the channel to explain the "anti-atheist" position. Even though he no longer aligns with that view, I believe he can offer a clearer and more balanced explanation of the concerns and reasoning behind it. Right now, it feels like there's a bit of strawmanning going on, or at least a misinterpretation of what that worldview actually represents. Additionally, I don't quite understand the reluctance to admit that certain biblical stories are factually false. It's possible to derive value and lessons from fiction, and the issue with believing the Bible literally is the potential harm that comes with it. That’s the real fear: Will people take a more symbolic, philosophical approach like Jordan Peterson, or will they follow the scriptures literally, which often results in negative consequences for society?
@@SitchAndAdamShow Well, homosexuality is still a big one in some pockets. And while I don't think it's a big deal the whole Project 2025 seems to be derived from a lot of religious beliefs and if enacted could hurt groups of people. And the idea is that if these views become more mainstream they could potentially be enacted o pushed heavily. That is what the fight against religion is typically about. If you are looking for specifics, I am sure we can find some anecodetes but on scale we don't have much to worry about at this moment but again, the concern is still there. A few specifics ones I found and copied for you. It's pretty easy to find Some verses suggest that those who do not follow the Christian faith will face eternal damnation (John 14:6, Matthew 25:46). While this belief may be held spiritually, a literal enforcement in society could lead to intolerance, discrimination, or marginalization of non-Christians or those with differing beliefs. Gender roles: Verses like 1 Timothy 2:12, which states that women should not teach or hold authority over men, and Ephesians 5:22, which suggests women should submit to their husbands, reinforce patriarchal structures. If applied literally, these ideas could hinder gender equality and reinforce harmful social dynamics. Sexual autonomy: Women’s autonomy over their bodies could be compromised by biblical interpretations that emphasize traditional gender roles, modesty, or purity. Holy war: The Old Testament contains stories of divinely sanctioned wars, such as the conquest of Canaan (Joshua 6), which are often interpreted as allegorical today. However, a literal application of such texts could justify violence in the name of religion, leading to extremism or conflict. (The Middle East) Biblical law as national law: Attempting to implement biblical laws in governance, such as theocratic rules found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, would conflict with secular and pluralistic legal systems. This could undermine the separation of church and state, and erode the rights of those who do not share the same religious views. Old Testament laws: Books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy outline strict punishments, including the death penalty for offenses such as adultery, blasphemy, or working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, Leviticus 20:10). Enacting such punishments literally today would clash with modern ideas of justice, human rights, and proportionality. Stoning and corporal punishment: Literal adherence to these forms of punishment would violate contemporary standards of human rights and could lead to state-sanctioned violence.
@@alteredendeavor If people were following the Bible literally I think you would take way more issue with Jewish religions than Christians. For example Gentile Christians do not adopt the old laws as things that are commandments to keep following. Their interpretation is that the ten commandments were the law. And those were told to followers by Jesus on his sermons. And all through the new testament is an invitation to come unto Christ. With many references to throw off the chains of bondage and iniquity. To choose to do good things. And how the kingdom is not one of man. The issue I see with the anti theist views is they still want to judge current Christians by older testament law just because it's in the book at the beginning. But they blame mistakes of men and moral growth through centuries on the idea of religion itself. Lumping in every bad part of organized religions to still apply when Christianity came about to establish a better standard of religious followers. True it was used to manipulate the masses who were not given access to all the scriptures, being in a different language, and being given to them in snippets, and a lot of the people couldn't read. So you had Kings and rulers who used the idea of Divine Providence, to falsely promote that any actions they did was the will of God because it happened physically. But we know that it is not the right way to interpret authority. When Christianity became everyone having access to biblical text and the ability to read and write. They realized very quickly that their kings were being motivated by greed, anger, fear, conquest, taking territory, legacy, etc. The patriarchy issue is still talked about, but it's more along the lines of how the laws and organization are structured. The men are leaders whos job is to be the servants to the lowest among them. And women seeking to be involved with the organization and the laws are doing it to change those things with their own hearts and minds. It isn't required for women to have to be in the highest leadership roles religiously. Because they are designed to be unchanging. And only a placeholder until a second coming of Jesus and the kingdom. Women are not looked at as inferior, they were praised by Jesus for being women. And for using their talents for spreading good cheer. Also they do not have to shoulder the burden of being responsible for bad leadership. All that goes squarely on the men for not following the order that Christ tasked them with. It's literally extra responsibility to be better leaders. And to maintain good standing with the other men who are not being good examples. Literalists also understand that the laws of man and nations are different than the laws of the kingdom of God. You have the verses: render unto Caeser that which is Caesars, and render unto God that which is God's. I don't think it's a bad strawman to say anti theists are inventing a Christian position that not many Christians would be holding to today. And quite unlikely that the bad things would be repeated if the laws of the nation are designed to be laws of liberty and life. Separated from those of people who are worshipping the god of their choice. The whole point of freedom of religion was so that each person can worship how and when without the government imposing it on everyone.
You gotta be creative of how you say controversial things to get past the UA-cam censors. Or you have to say phrases that aren't common enough to get auto flagged by a shadow bot that hides them. It's seems a lot easier to get comments visible as a main thread or post. But the individual comments get hidden more easily. Sometimes they get flagged for further review before becoming visible and other times they just disappear. Then if you want to see which are being hidden you need to select newest on the comments tab. To see which replies are going to be more visible that way.
Wtf Adam? You don't need Christianity to think forgiveness is fundamental to the healing of the forgiver and forgivee. You're embracing numerous Christian tropes that atheists are immoral by being atheist. Aren't you atheist? Where do you get your morality? The same place as everyone else.
name any other ideology that preaches it? innocent until proven guilty, is literally the moral of the story of sodom and gomorrah, that if there are innocent ppl in the city, it shall be spared even if its just 1. which you can see, with blackwells formulation that jailing 1 innocent person in a corrupt trial makes the entire system corrupt, so its better to let 100 guilty ppl free compared to letting 1 innocent jailed. dennis prager, coined the term, cut flower politics, that atheists grow up in america, unaware how much christianity is soaked into all the world views, and how the system operates, that they think they can keep and maintain the system once they sever the ties of christianity, but its like picking a flower, you cut it from its roots, and its now just dying, it looks pretty, it seems alive but you wanting to remove christianity you remove all the foundations that have been used to create said values.
Might makes right philosophy and forcing enemies to submit to your rule is opposite of forgiving your enemies and loving your enemies. What monotheism+Christianity did to philosophy and culture was the idea that all people came from the same place. Are part of the same family, are given the same respect for being accountable to a higher law. The inherent problem with non religious thinking. Is the idea that at the end of the day any bad thing that happens to anyone is a matter of luck. With no right or wrong interpretations. They expressly want to have a system where they can't define right or wrong actions. And the atheists currently have hit a wall about trying to keep the deconstructionists in check Humanism wasn't a strong enough ideal. To overcome other ideas of gaining power, might makes right, or elitism, or people only saying something is good if they agree with it.
@@AKABattousai virtually no atheists believe what you suggest they do. It is actually a straw man. Learn about moral relativism vs pluralism and moral realism. You have a strange view of history but it's par for the course for theists. You want to claim the origin of human rights when that was established by the code of hamurabi and ancient Greeks among others. It's propaganda. There is no good evidence for theism. Morality is evolutionarily formed like other types of cognition. It's social cognition. It's not a blank slate with a god writing the laws in us. This is all evolutionary psych and Haidt. It's not moral nihilism.
@@SitchAndAdamShow you don't. If you read Haidt, like you claim to, you'd understand morality to be deeply evolved social cognition. You can assign Christianity to it, but that's post hoc. And that's Peterson's point. You say it's Christianity but it's a compiled list of stories from humans over millenia Jung called the collective unconscious. We're born with it. I've even heard you discuss tit for tat with forgiveness. We evolved via social game theory. You just haven't thought it through yet.
0:00 Trump Campaign Promise?
55:58 Jordan Peterson vs Richard Dawkins!
2:05:42 Superchats
This show has now said that Trump is a contrarian who disagrees with whatever is told, that he agrees with whatever the last thing he has told is, and that Bill Barr gave him a whole big rundown and ignored him completely. These are contrary positions, you have to choose one.
These two are worse then any hardcore Trump hater. They know the truth, they are intellectual and have proven they are smart, yet somehow the big push agaisnt Trump takes over their brains and makes them like 25-50% dumber whenever anything involves Trump.
I've been an independent my entire life so I can understand Adam, and others, having trouble picking who to vote for. I've been in that position many times. I can even somewhat understand being in that position right after Harris got the nominee if you weren't 100 percent about Trump. But I can't understand still being on the fence this close to the election. EXPECIALLY given that Adam said he thinks Trump is better on policy.
I think Adam's biggest, and most unusual problem, is at 0:05:16. I think Adam is letting post election optics influence his vote way too much. Letting how and candidate takes LOSING and people's reaction to that is an absurd consideration. It's even more absurd in hyper partisan times like these. In such times there are going to be highly emotional reactions no matter what happens so why let that influence you? Just vote for who you think is best and be ready to defend your choice. If people can't accept it, then you've accidentally found a way to sort out the friends and family that actually care about you over their party loyalty.
Just watching the stream now but yeah I just don’t understand why that matters so much to him?? How is Adam “a part of it” to quote his own words if Trump acts like a baby after he loses? How does that have any reflection on Adam at all and why would he care if others judge him for some reason? Such an oddball, silly thing to give a shit about.
Adam is just very confusing. The false elector plot was completely disqualifying until it wasn't for seamingly no reason while this thing where trump will make him look bad by being a bad sport is very important. If this was actually important it would already be disqualifying because he was doing it the whole time last election. I've given up taking his takes seriously but maybe its just something flying over my head.
@@Paul_WhiteI’m guessing because he doesn’t think either will be that bad but if one side largely gets too upset that could cause problems. Sounds partisan but I could see “avoiding more summer of love stuff” is maybe an issue someone could consider?? Idk
It fuckin boggles my mind thst they can cycle from "well. Some of those cases against Trump might be justifiable" to " I cant vote for Trump because he might pursue legal cases against some of his political rival" (who, btw, clearly have questions to answer) in the span of a few minutes.
That's WILD.
To be fair he has explicitly been running on investigating/prosecuting certain democratic figures. Not that he can't have the opinion that certain people need to be investigated, but it's really irresponsible to say that in the context of a campaign speech. The correct response is always just to leave it to the courts and have no hand in it. Also, it's not that certain left leaning people haven't done the same, but Kamala specifically has actually maintained procedure on this matter. Not too long ago she had a rally with people screaming "lock him up" about Trump, to which she responded with something along the lines of "Let's focus on beating him in the election. The courts can handle anything criminal". That, IMO is proper decorum surrounding separation between the central executive and legal investigation.
I think what they mean by Trump going after political rivals is that they are still afraid that the stupid seal team six hypothetical from Supreme Justice Sotomayor is going to take place.
They really aren't meaning that the justice department is going to imprison a rival for doing something criminal.
But it's the idea that Trump will just start locking up anyone who's a rival or political opposition.
Their argument is that it took years and the courts a long time to decide that charges should be brought on Trump over conduct he was doing while in and out of office.
So they exist in this little bubble where they say Trump is handled with kid gloves by the media, the courts, and his rivals.
But if the tables turn and Trump is quicker to go after more people for wrongdoing. They will claim that Trump is going to be one sided in his attacks on political figures.
So Trump might be able to avoid this by also claiming that he supports any Republicans locked up for wrong doin that was politically motivated.
You mean the hypocrisy of allowing Trump to be persecuted by his opposition by legal means and not allowing him to retaliate in kind?
@@gigachad3925Why is the standard always so much higher for Trump?
@@BananaMana69 I gave one standard, being that presidential candidates should not campaign on criminally investigating political opponents. I applied this single standard to both Trump and Kamala because they are the current presidential candidates. I then found that Trump violated this standard while Kamala has explicitly rejected it. The best argument you can make that Kamala has done the same is her rhetoric about being a prosecutor and her frequent "I know Donald Trump's type" speech. You can say that's bad/lazy rhetoric in your opinion, but making descriptive statements about Trump's pre-existing legal troubles is significantly different to prescriptively promising to enact criminal investigations of her political opponents. If you still think I'm holding Trump to a higher standard please tell me where I messed up, genuinely.
Trump talked about going after political opponents.
Democrats actually did it.
Why are we acting like the former is worse than the latter?
Trump tried and failed to go after Hillary though. At very least he opened the flood gates for this
Because TDS is a hell of a drug. That's all it really is. Hyper partisanship. For the sake of Sitch and Adam, I'll look at it in the most charitable way possible....
Those like Sitch and Adam want someone to be the bigger person and take it on the chin while the other side does all the dirty BS. They think that truth will ultimately be the victor and the high minded approach always prevails. If we were at the start of this culture war I would agree that is what should be tried for a while. The fact is that we're not. It's been going on for a decade now and building for longer than that. In that time, everything has been taken over by subversive and crooked people. The left has done so much more that I consider it amazing that the right has been as measured as they have. At some point you have to give a little back in order to stop it and get things back to normal.
Now, I realize there is risk in this strategy. In doing this you could establish new norms and we wind up worse off than ever. But you can't be so afraid of messing up that you don't try at all. That just lets the bad actors that started all of this win.
Because TDS
it's a division issue, let's be real. Democrats don't see Democrats going after Trump as them going after political opposition, they see it as them following the law. So they hear Trump threatening the same and think "oh, so he's going to break the law to do this".
According to RFK jr the Biden Harris admin authorized some DoD or DoJ directive letting the military gun down citizens for protesting.
Clearly one is way worse
If going after political rivals is such a hangup, then the dems should be entirely off the table as they have shown the desire and means to do so, and show no sign of stopping. That doesn't mean you vote for Trump, because he at least will feign trying to do so.
This is the problem. Both sides are guilty of this
Yeah that seems like a huge blind spot for them. It’s not even limited to Trump. They tried to cook Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. They basically want to neuter the entire SC. Rudy Giuliani got torched. Pretty much everyone around Trump got dragged into courtrooms at some point.
@@L3monsta I am curious, can you name me one time Trump actually did so when in office last time?
@@Amphidex sitch and Adam bring it up all the time. He tried to actualise his "lock her up" retoric but was shut down by members within his party
@@L3monsta Did he try to "lock her up" or CHARGE HER LEGALLY FOR BROKEN LAWS AND WAR CRIMES".
Because last time I check he didn't try to frame hillary for some bogus mistake on a form and repeat it 37 times.
Dawkins values what is literally true, what can be verified and measured. Peterson values symbols, metaphor, myths and narratives. There is nothing wrong with either perspective. I believe we need a surplus of both types of people for society to flourish.
Myths etc form an ideal of society or the ideals men should strive for, reality is realizing that while being honest is a great value sometimes white lies are allowed, why do we claim Santa exists? To instill that giving gifts to loved ones to show appreciation and etc matter.
@39:18 "An attorney usually knows better than to say somebody is lying." HAHAHHAHAAHAHAH. Sitch is such a sweet kid
the only time ppl say alleged is to avoid a lawsuit, a lawyer saying its a lie, is a factual claim, and can be sued, so the lawyer is willing to be sued.
The conclusion I have come to, in this world where atheism basically won the culture war, is that eliminating a religion simply allows for a new religion to take its place. Woke is that new religion. Ironically, the main religion that resisted it is Islam, so both managed to thrive, while Christianity has been gutted. I hated the overbearingness of Christianity when I was young, but I vastly preferred it compared to what is happening now. The left fought so long against the religous right that it didn't know what to do when it won, and so just kept going onward to absurd extremes.
i thought the saying that ppl have a god shaped hole in their heart was bs, that humans dont need faith. turns out said god shaped hole really does ache to being filled, that as an atheist that lacks the ability to believe in faith, doesnt mean i respect what faith did when it wasnt abused. but the older i get, the more i realize that faith is needed, and atheists should argue to keep faith out of government, but not remove faith from society.
I feel like Dawkins wants to be closer to JBP in finding some hyper truth from religion justifying it with biology, sociology, and psychology, but he has too much cognitive dissonance to admit it.
His, "I am a cultural christian bc Islam has bad foundations" is weak when he can't even give examples of pro social morales that come from Christianity.
"Bleachbit is so expensive no one uses it"
Sir it's free and open source.
The whole "Is the bible factually true?" discussion is absolutely stupid and nonsensical. The bible is a collection of books of all kinds of genres and styles.
Asking if the bible is factually true, is as nonsensical a question as "is your library factually true?". It obviously depends on which section you look at. Historical books are as close as factually true as we can have. There are also clearly fictional books, but which point to archetypal deep truths. What about historical fiction? Children's books about history which greatly simplify the stories? Philosophy books, are those factually true?
The discussion has to happen about each book separately, because each genre & style has a specific purpose and has to be evaluated on those terms. You don't rate Shakespeare on how factually historical it is and you don't rate a historl book on it'?s poetry.
I’m so tired of “sky daddy” and “not factual” as if that’s a proper response when someone tells you about a movie/book that inspired them to be better and I think non believers should approach believer’s with something like that in mind.
Maybe to get hung up “literally factually true in all facets” is to miss the point at the very least
Sitch finds Dawkins' lack of faith... disturbing 😂
Wait you don't include ads?! I get 3min long ads every 5min! The things I do to listen to you two..
You must be in a region that just dumps them. On you or something.
I believe sometimes UA-cam just decides to insert ads embedded all through certain content.
It is still probably something they can adjust in the uploading and posting of the live content. Because it seems like there's times I've heard that ads can be manually placed or something.
But blame UA-cam overall for any automated ads being put in obnoxiously. Their automated system should never be that bad.
Dr. Phil claimed the video so all that ad revenue is going to him.
@@SitchAndAdamShowgod damnit dr. Phil!!!
Great show as always. Blun-T-fly-4-life!
Sitch has TDS
For myself, I have no problem with people going after their political rivals legally. The question is did they commit a crime or no? I think not prosecuting someone because it looks bad optically is just as bad as prosecuting someone falsely because they are a political rival.
Adam, you're an atheist. But one who believes in the adaptive evolutionary advantage of religion on the group level.
Now understanding the equilibrium between progress and tradition is vital, it's a meta theory about how human society is optimized.
Classical liberals like Johnathan haidt highlight the importance of all opinions in culture and often defend the moral intuitions counterintuitive to their own…ie those of traditionalists and conservatives.
Fair enough.
But why aren't you religious, Adam? And why shouldn't everyone, even those people deep inside a belief system that you are free from, be given the tools to evaluate the truth themselves?
Better methodologies and more reason creates an informed public. That's what we want.
That is enlightenment antitheism.
Dawkins and other new atheist types are enlightenment antitheists.
The same enlightenment principles encoded into the US founding documents..
Questioning dogma non violently has been fundamental to America before there was an America.
Dogma persecuted settlers right on over to the new world.
Non enlightenment totalitarianism has sometimes enforced removal of one dogma to instill another (marxism etc).
But American antitheism is about championing and protecting individual rights while engaging in reason and empiricism through convincing argumentation, promoting the freedom from coercive tendencies within many religions.
So anyone who claims atheism without sympathy for antitheism (like you, Adam) is making a pragmatic argument about the need for some people to still have their religion. They believe in belief at the cultural level, while using the principles of reason they apply in their own life to conclude that religious claims are unconvincing for them personally.
People need the tools to think.
Learn the best arguments.
Defend the faith.
That's what antitheism is fundamentally about.
And atheist proponents of belief like Jordan Peterson must wrestle with the belief that religion is beneficial for society in general, but not for them personally. It's a fine line to walk.
Anti theists promote the idea that we should "get rid of" religions. A prescription that is no longer a position of only describing our current reality.
It requires them to be asserting a claim not backed by strong evidence, even if they themselves promote only believing claims that do have strong evidence.
There is just certain things that secular humanism does not satisfy for all people. Like afterlife beliefs, and human origins, hypotheticals of thought which align goals for the betterment of all humans.
The enlightenment allows mankind to research and record. To study and pass on findings and observations to the next generations.
But they don't present morals backed by any foundations. They blindly assert that humanism is something good to practice. But they have no way to put up any guardrails on humanism. And removing the guardrails of Christian ethics only allows them to be able to change any law to their liking instead of a law that is good regardless if they like it or not.
The enlightenment let more people seek better advancements in medicine and to seek liberty.
But it didn't change what things are bad when we look into them. If anything it reinforced traditions that upheld certain values.
It's good to have a way to make certain unnecessary traditions obsolete and to have a way to stop perpetuating bad traditions.
But promoting the idea that nobody should be traditionally religious is a very unhealthy way to talk about the human experience.
Until humans know our own future, we are gonna be guessing at what gives us a better future. So we should be trying to decide on what traditions are worth perpetuating and passing down.
Man, Dawkins whole argumentation really feels low IQ to me.
He's just insisting on keeping the conversation on surface level gotcha questions instead of actually discussing the substance of what Jordan Peterson wants to talk about.
DiD CaIn aCtUAlly ExIsTEd ?
WaS tHe ViRGin Marie rEalLy a ViRgin ??
It's disappointing because he's obviously an intelligent man but the anti theist elephant is too strong I guess.
How is asking Barr if something can be done the same as doing it?
Its not. But clearly asking if it's possible to do x makes trump as guilty as doing it, to sitch
Seems like UA-cam didn't like my message about Musk
I only liked Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, and maybe Nikki Haley, possibly Vivek Ramaswamy if he got more like his podcast appearances, as candidates the last two presidential cycles. Admittedly, I am young, but I just believe the last two cycles have been terrible based on what the majority of partisan voters pick. I guess this means I am a contrarian or something since nobody voted for these candidates.
I always miss the good ones. S&A philosophy stream from what I heard. Trey had it right, it's always a turd sandwich and a giant douche... Until we change the paradigm of course.
The issue is you think its that but I might think its a flawed leader vs evil. The next election, you think its a great leader vs poor but I think its turd vs douche.
Sitch really shouldn't refer to Kamala as a "coconut cream pie" since I like coconuts and creampies but don't like Kamala 😅
14:15 aren’t special prosecutors appointed to allow for an unbiased investigation? If someone is actually guilty then investigate them. Whether it’s Trump or Biden
Russian collusion for example
@@117Ender are you saying Russia collusion happened?
You guys really need to check out some Decoding the Gurus content on Peterson and the Weinsteins.
I wish you would consider bringing someone like Alex O'Connor onto the channel to explain the "anti-atheist" position. Even though he no longer aligns with that view, I believe he can offer a clearer and more balanced explanation of the concerns and reasoning behind it. Right now, it feels like there's a bit of strawmanning going on, or at least a misinterpretation of what that worldview actually represents.
Additionally, I don't quite understand the reluctance to admit that certain biblical stories are factually false. It's possible to derive value and lessons from fiction, and the issue with believing the Bible literally is the potential harm that comes with it. That’s the real fear: Will people take a more symbolic, philosophical approach like Jordan Peterson, or will they follow the scriptures literally, which often results in negative consequences for society?
What are some examples of harm being done through biblical literalism?
@@SitchAndAdamShow Well, homosexuality is still a big one in some pockets. And while I don't think it's a big deal the whole Project 2025 seems to be derived from a lot of religious beliefs and if enacted could hurt groups of people. And the idea is that if these views become more mainstream they could potentially be enacted o pushed heavily. That is what the fight against religion is typically about. If you are looking for specifics, I am sure we can find some anecodetes but on scale we don't have much to worry about at this moment but again, the concern is still there.
A few specifics ones I found and copied for you. It's pretty easy to find
Some verses suggest that those who do not follow the Christian faith will face eternal damnation (John 14:6, Matthew 25:46). While this belief may be held spiritually, a literal enforcement in society could lead to intolerance, discrimination, or marginalization of non-Christians or those with differing beliefs.
Gender roles: Verses like 1 Timothy 2:12, which states that women should not teach or hold authority over men, and Ephesians 5:22, which suggests women should submit to their husbands, reinforce patriarchal structures. If applied literally, these ideas could hinder gender equality and reinforce harmful social dynamics.
Sexual autonomy: Women’s autonomy over their bodies could be compromised by biblical interpretations that emphasize traditional gender roles, modesty, or purity.
Holy war: The Old Testament contains stories of divinely sanctioned wars, such as the conquest of Canaan (Joshua 6), which are often interpreted as allegorical today. However, a literal application of such texts could justify violence in the name of religion, leading to extremism or conflict. (The Middle East)
Biblical law as national law: Attempting to implement biblical laws in governance, such as theocratic rules found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, would conflict with secular and pluralistic legal systems. This could undermine the separation of church and state, and erode the rights of those who do not share the same religious views.
Old Testament laws: Books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy outline strict punishments, including the death penalty for offenses such as adultery, blasphemy, or working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, Leviticus 20:10). Enacting such punishments literally today would clash with modern ideas of justice, human rights, and proportionality.
Stoning and corporal punishment: Literal adherence to these forms of punishment would violate contemporary standards of human rights and could lead to state-sanctioned violence.
@@alteredendeavor If people were following the Bible literally I think you would take way more issue with Jewish religions than Christians.
For example Gentile Christians do not adopt the old laws as things that are commandments to keep following.
Their interpretation is that the ten commandments were the law. And those were told to followers by Jesus on his sermons. And all through the new testament is an invitation to come unto Christ. With many references to throw off the chains of bondage and iniquity. To choose to do good things. And how the kingdom is not one of man.
The issue I see with the anti theist views is they still want to judge current Christians by older testament law just because it's in the book at the beginning.
But they blame mistakes of men and moral growth through centuries on the idea of religion itself. Lumping in every bad part of organized religions to still apply when Christianity came about to establish a better standard of religious followers.
True it was used to manipulate the masses who were not given access to all the scriptures, being in a different language, and being given to them in snippets, and a lot of the people couldn't read. So you had Kings and rulers who used the idea of Divine Providence, to falsely promote that any actions they did was the will of God because it happened physically.
But we know that it is not the right way to interpret authority. When Christianity became everyone having access to biblical text and the ability to read and write. They realized very quickly that their kings were being motivated by greed, anger, fear, conquest, taking territory, legacy, etc.
The patriarchy issue is still talked about, but it's more along the lines of how the laws and organization are structured.
The men are leaders whos job is to be the servants to the lowest among them. And women seeking to be involved with the organization and the laws are doing it to change those things with their own hearts and minds.
It isn't required for women to have to be in the highest leadership roles religiously. Because they are designed to be unchanging. And only a placeholder until a second coming of Jesus and the kingdom.
Women are not looked at as inferior, they were praised by Jesus for being women. And for using their talents for spreading good cheer.
Also they do not have to shoulder the burden of being responsible for bad leadership. All that goes squarely on the men for not following the order that Christ tasked them with.
It's literally extra responsibility to be better leaders. And to maintain good standing with the other men who are not being good examples.
Literalists also understand that the laws of man and nations are different than the laws of the kingdom of God. You have the verses: render unto Caeser that which is Caesars, and render unto God that which is God's.
I don't think it's a bad strawman to say anti theists are inventing a Christian position that not many Christians would be holding to today. And quite unlikely that the bad things would be repeated if the laws of the nation are designed to be laws of liberty and life. Separated from those of people who are worshipping the god of their choice. The whole point of freedom of religion was so that each person can worship how and when without the government imposing it on everyone.
Why tf am I not allowed to comment
You gotta be creative of how you say controversial things to get past the UA-cam censors.
Or you have to say phrases that aren't common enough to get auto flagged by a shadow bot that hides them.
It's seems a lot easier to get comments visible as a main thread or post. But the individual comments get hidden more easily.
Sometimes they get flagged for further review before becoming visible and other times they just disappear.
Then if you want to see which are being hidden you need to select newest on the comments tab. To see which replies are going to be more visible that way.
Comment away!
Wtf Adam? You don't need Christianity to think forgiveness is fundamental to the healing of the forgiver and forgivee. You're embracing numerous Christian tropes that atheists are immoral by being atheist. Aren't you atheist? Where do you get your morality? The same place as everyone else.
name any other ideology that preaches it? innocent until proven guilty, is literally the moral of the story of sodom and gomorrah, that if there are innocent ppl in the city, it shall be spared even if its just 1. which you can see, with blackwells formulation that jailing 1 innocent person in a corrupt trial makes the entire system corrupt, so its better to let 100 guilty ppl free compared to letting 1 innocent jailed.
dennis prager, coined the term, cut flower politics, that atheists grow up in america, unaware how much christianity is soaked into all the world views, and how the system operates, that they think they can keep and maintain the system once they sever the ties of christianity, but its like picking a flower, you cut it from its roots, and its now just dying, it looks pretty, it seems alive but you wanting to remove christianity you remove all the foundations that have been used to create said values.
Might makes right philosophy and forcing enemies to submit to your rule is opposite of forgiving your enemies and loving your enemies.
What monotheism+Christianity did to philosophy and culture was the idea that all people came from the same place. Are part of the same family, are given the same respect for being accountable to a higher law.
The inherent problem with non religious thinking. Is the idea that at the end of the day any bad thing that happens to anyone is a matter of luck. With no right or wrong interpretations.
They expressly want to have a system where they can't define right or wrong actions.
And the atheists currently have hit a wall about trying to keep the deconstructionists in check
Humanism wasn't a strong enough ideal. To overcome other ideas of gaining power, might makes right, or elitism, or people only saying something is good if they agree with it.
I got my morality from Christianity. I talk about it in the video.
@@AKABattousai virtually no atheists believe what you suggest they do. It is actually a straw man.
Learn about moral relativism vs pluralism and moral realism.
You have a strange view of history but it's par for the course for theists. You want to claim the origin of human rights when that was established by the code of hamurabi and ancient Greeks among others. It's propaganda. There is no good evidence for theism. Morality is evolutionarily formed like other types of cognition. It's social cognition. It's not a blank slate with a god writing the laws in us. This is all evolutionary psych and Haidt. It's not moral nihilism.
@@SitchAndAdamShow you don't. If you read Haidt, like you claim to, you'd understand morality to be deeply evolved social cognition. You can assign Christianity to it, but that's post hoc. And that's Peterson's point. You say it's Christianity but it's a compiled list of stories from humans over millenia Jung called the collective unconscious. We're born with it. I've even heard you discuss tit for tat with forgiveness. We evolved via social game theory. You just haven't thought it through yet.
Second…
First