Thank you for this clear and to the point video! I am a philosopher and theologian by education and there is so much I could say about this topic but I just keep it with one small but very important point. After many years of study and thinking about this I came to the conclusion that most misunderstandings from the atheist/secular side, but also sometimes from religious people themselves, come from what I would call anachronistic thinking. The biggest problem with approaching texts like the bible is using (post)modern concepts and frames of reference retroactively to a narrative world of the deep past which is totally alien to these modern ways of (scientific) thinking. Of course the book of Genesis for example can be dismantled "scientifically" in no time. No surprise there for me! But Genesis is not a scientific treatise, it is not a history book (at least not in the modern sense) and it never claims to be these things because these frames of references didn't even exist back then. But, with all this said, that does not mean at all that texts like the Bible are therefore devoid of meaning. There is deep and timeless meaning in there but to see this within a contemporary context you need to detach yourself from this hubristic attitude in thinking that our (scientific) way of looking at the world is 'the' way or 'the' truth. That is by the way not scientific at all but rather a dogmatism in itself, a fundamental 'belief' in the truth of the religion of scientism which, ironically enough, cannot be proven scientifically.
Genesis itself isn't devoid of meaning, it's a "new" creation myth that subordinates every aspect and character known to the reader from ancient pagan myths to the new abstract God. It is an introduction to the concept of the abstract God, which is the fundamental innovation of the Hebrew Bible (it wasn't monotheism or even semi-monotheism).
This would be fine if Christians didn’t then turn around and draw scientific conclusions from the Bible. Christians are always the ones making category errors here, not atheists.
As a philosopher and theologian you should also be aware that the ancient writers of the Bible did not see their God as the abstract, metaphysical omniscient, omnipotent God that most modern Christians worship today. For them he was the God of their tribe. And the one who was going to lead them over their very real and powerful enemies. He was more abstract than some gods but he was certainly no less active in their every day lives. It also seems to me that there s no way that you can dismiss the importance of the historicity of the events cited in the Bible. The historicity of the events was absolutely critical to justify their belief in their god. It is only modern theologians who have had to abstract this and mystify god to the extent they do today because science has so decisively shown that the events in the Bible could not have happened or in some cases didn’t happen as depicted. The biggest difference between ancient peoples and modern peoples is that most ancient peoples including The intellectual elites believed fervently in the spiritual world. The only question was which spirit had the most power and how was his favor achieved so that he would use it to help you or your kingdom.
@@SteveHicks-lo4vq The Bible was likely written over a very long period of time and views have naturally shifted, but the God of the Bible is an abstract god, and this point is made again and again throughout the Bible. Abstract is not to say he exists only in the believer's minds, it is to say that, unlike previous gods, this god has no physical form, nor does he need one. In fact, all of the forces of nature and creation are subordinate to this abstract entity. The Bible makes these points many times.
@@idoben-yair429 All Gods are necessarily abstractions as it appears you define them. The only difference for the God of the Bible is that first the Jews and then the Christians forbade physical representations., except for Jesus, ironically. Then the Christians became like Romans, worshipping a human who got promoted to a God. However, what level of abstraction you give to anyone’s view of their God, has nothing to do with whether or not their god exists. My argument was not that he wasn’t an Abstraction. My argument was that the type and level of abstraction changed over time and that the high level of modern abstraction has been driven by the science which has shown pretty conclusively that the Bible is ahistorical and thus much of the evidence it extols for believing in God’s existence is either fictional or highly mythologized. I think it is absurd to argue that the Bible’s history was not written, especially in the Pentateuch, so that people would believe. That purpose is an umistakeabke message in every part of the Bible including the New Testament. And the evidence is supposed to be the actual occurrence of the events there in depicted. ,
Again at this point acting like we don't why Peterson doesn't answer the question the way you like is just pure ignorance And perhaps the greatest reason he should keep doing so.
If NOT believing in god is a religion, and not believing 1+1=3, now you have 2 religions? Only the faithful NEED to feel others share their "challenges".
Firstly, don't start off by personally attack someone for their accent. It discredits the rest of your viewpoints. Also, O'Connor isn't making fun of Peterson, he says that Peterson is obscure and non-specific in his own personal believes. He also clearly states why, and it's not nonsensical. This was all sorted out when they had an hour long conversation, which I suggest you go check out. You are creating a conflict that doesn't exist. I also think you are missing a great deal of the concepts that Peterson tries to encompass, mostly being the memes of the stories and what's unwritten in them, and how divinity isn't what you think he means it is in any way. I also think he would dislike anyone trying to speak FOR him. God isn't necessary a concept of divinity but rather each individuals moral hierarchy. Even if a person claims to be a moral emotivist. Subjective morality is just as much predicated on stories, bible or not, and that is much of the point he is trying to make. You should see some of the content from Robert Sapolski on free will. It will make you better understand the moral hierarchy of non-religious people trough social structures and why you think atheists are fundamentalists. The connection is strong. I also think a lot of the people you proclaim to be atheists are actually agnostics.
Excellent points until your last sentence. Agnostics are weak atheists, but they're still atheists. While in the position of *not knowing* you are *without* the belief. In the court of law, until the evidence is sufficient to prove a person is guilty, you are not agnostic. The person is innocent until proven guilty. Onus probandi is with the prosecution.
She called his accent "fancy". It's a common joke among Americans to label British accents as "smart" or "fancy". I'm pretty sure British people are in on this joke too.
I'm sorry but do you ever have an honest discussion with an atheist? You interpret and explain everything from a christian standpoint. When you (and Jordan Peterson) say that atheist place reason and intellect above all else, the argument for that is that atheists place those above god and the bible. But the atheist by definition doesn't believe in those so every aspect in life that is real is placed above that. Secondly, the atheist doesn't deny the bible because it has a few miracles, it denies it because it is obviously full of stories that never happened and shows a god that good never exists since it is self-contraditory. And doesn't seem to be able to show himself anymore. You can have all kinds of reasoning why you still believe but that is a more honest answer to why the atheist doesn't believe. So 8 minutes in and I'm already done, too bad.
"Honest" is to be defined as a search for the upward path, which is a sort of self improvement, ie: understanding the Truth. Peterson, for one, has had many honest discussions with atheists, agnostics, Muslim fundamentalists, etc. That is his one superpower, despite any of his shortcomings. Can you suggest you are MORE honest? This is simply a striving, so don't propose anyone can be perfect in this. Relating to 'others' is hard. I recommend Iain McGilchrist to address your suggestion that belief in the Divine is fundamental for discussing anything non-material. Truly excellent stuff. 8 minutes is all the grace you can muster? You might be right she's taken a side, and operating in favoritism, but I will suggest that the critic in question was acting ... not in good faith ... in putting out a public critique of Peterson who allowed him the benefit of his superior platform and influence. The fact that Peterson engaged him again afterward is enough for me to favor him that much more. Exchange of ideas does not happen in a vacuum.
Yes, atheists put reason above all else, that's the problem with religious people, their arguments always appeal to feelings. It took me 33 years to finally rationally find God on my own, without any religious teaching, they're all either wrong or speak in a language we rational people can't understand. I'm a scientist since I was 8. It happened to me when I was studying singularities in physics, and that made me question the mathematics used for that, that's when I realized mathematics is both the defining structure of the Universe but also the proofs we have are a human invention, its all an approximation, well, it was Godel who realized that. There is a real structure in the Universe, it can be defined by mathematics, but mathematics is a human language. So that lead me to an essentialist conclusion based on some computation hypothesis, which made more sense given evidence. That's what broke materialism for me. If you go deep down in the levels of abstraction of the universe, you basically find just information, there's nothing really real there, its all interpretation of information, then something must interpret it for the computation to happens. Symbols don't have meaning on their own, that's the basis of computation. That leads me to believe there's something akin to Universal consciousness, I don't even think there are separate consciousness, that fits perfectly with a mechanistic view in with the brain is just a machine processing symbols, the symbols have meaning, external meaning (that solves the problem with qualia). Consciousness compute reality, not the other way around. You can call that consciousness God to make a translation table to the emotional BS of the religions, its funny you eventually end up there, logic is fallible and can't prove there's a God, but you can get closer and closer, but it still requires a leap of faith.
Aside from all the problems of Christianity, Peterson has his own issues. Also Alex call’s Peterson an atheist not because he doesn’t believe in god but because it seems that he defines god as a person’s subjective total greatness and not the Christians objective tri-Omni being
The tri-omini being is more of a logical construct of atomist philosophy, look for it, its older than Christianism. Greek philosophers where already pondering that about how the human minds seems to work as a collective of "your view of self", "others view of you", "your view of society".
yea, it's though theists just assume atheists to be people of different religion like their Islamic counterpart, when it is not at all in anyway, and even if we give them credit and say that atheism is just a different theistic framework, it would still make their point of moral standing just as wobbly, as it would then be a judgement of morality and conflicts between two religion where as we all know, theists or atheists or whatever else, that it is but relative morality argument, basically one upping the other with a more massive powerful and what have you authoritarian entity
5:45 I’m immensely grateful to JP. In my opinion this is his constant battle and why he is disliked by some. The luciferian intellect takes over him from time to time.
Asking "why" in relation to natural occurrences is what infants do, humans and puppies. Adult animals don't do that. And adult humans laugh at that endearing childlike tendency.
Best apologetic for Jordan Peterson’s beliefs and thinking that I have heard. She does a better job of explaining Jordon Peterson, than Jordan Peterson. However she gets most atheist wrong. As an atheist I do not value human intelligence that highly. Witness this video which is filled with intelligent sounding observations, claims and reasoning, yet reaches some absurd conclusions. There is nothing intrinsically sacred about human intelligence. But the problem is that as an atheist, since I believe there is nothing intrinsically sacred or supernatural, human intelligence for all its flaws is the best we have. She is right that mental health dies require movement towards something meaningful and useful, but she is wrong in saying that atheists must lack positive motivation. I am definitely motivated by observing all of the fallacies, inconsistencies and mischaracterizations of those she agrees with. Also I don’t believe that humans will ever discover all of the mysteries of the universe. I think there are observational problems as well as analytical issues which will continue to plague us, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying. There is your positive motivation. The biggest objection to religion I have is that it tends to close off the search for truth since most religions and especially Christianity believe in an apocalyptic outcome with their God entering into history at some point to save us from ourselves. The ultimate belief system for taking responsibility for yourself is atheism. Collectively we are the best masters of our fate, but only if we keep working at it and don’t give up because we think some god is going to intervene to save us. 😊
I'm not sure why any thinking person would give heed to the imperfect opinions of some ignorant psychology professor. There are a handful of EXTREMELY wise sages currently on this planet who can logically and completely answer practically any question that an intelligent soul is likely to ask regarding morals and ethics. The fact that Jordan supports men buggering each other (by which I mean, that he supports homosexuality and other criminal activities, such as the unnecessary consumption of poor innocent animals) is MORE than sufficient proof that he is not as religious as he claims, and that any decent, holy person ought to shun his inane teachings and flee into the loving arms of a teacher of Truth. Furthermore, in a recent interview on Benjamin Shapiro's UA-cam channel, he admitted that his wife figuratively (and I'm sure also LITERALLY) wears the pants in his household. 👖 I would be more than pleased to provide you with links to the UA-cam channels of a few enlightened beings who will quickly set you on the path to perfection, as opposed to the DELUDED moral subjectivism professed by "Doctor" Peterson (pun not intended). Please find below a couple of such ENLIGHTENED masters to which I referred above: Professor Alan Watts (now deceased, so he doesn't have his own UA-cam channel - just search for his videos on numerous extant channels) Swami Sarvapriyananda ( ua-cam.com/users/vedantany1894 or search for "Vivekananda Samiti") Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda ( www.youtube.com/@TheWorldTeacher )
False accusation, she did not go after his accent, she criticized his disingenuous appeal to the emotional to feign a question assumed already answered. He did this through a bit of theater that he knows full well played into his accent.
@@aleksjenner677 you know full well the rhetorical context in which he used that “what” and she rightfully called him out for it. Either address the issue honestly or don’t bother, not going to play games of sophistry.
@@JB-mg5lw Like you say, either adress the issue honestly or don't bother. Immediately going after his accent is not an honest way of adressing "the rhetorical context in which he used that “what”". It discredits her entire video.
"we have to serve something" yeah its yourself, its just dressed up nicely. the easiest person to fool is yourself after all. Without a methodology, everyone can claim to serve anything, do evil, define themselves as good, see the natural evils of the world, define them to be good. "the greater good" is what all dogmatists fight for, be them theist or atheist. "god is good by definition" just leads to "i am good by definition" just like jordan "give em hell" peterson
How do you define something as good? Is it the sum of all good things we long for or is it the one which is best, in a self-sufficient sense? If it is the first one, then you are the reference point, and you define what good is? But, are we really so perfectly good in ourselves to define what is good and what is evil. No. So, we need to go with the second, the one who is good in its self-sufficient sense. But that infinite goodness has to be transcendant to us, because we are not infinite goodness ourselves. In that case, we simply let go, of our moral judgements. We radically accept ourselves and whatever happens. This does not mean that we have no intuitions about right or wrong, we have no reasons for doing them one way or another, or we have no desires or ambitions for our life, which is ultimately based on the particular traditions we come from, or the particular influences or choices we have made with our life, and how they arise again from our natural inclinations, but ultimately, we are constantly seeking to grow our intellect, so that we can conform ourselves to God's image, as best as we can, but even here, we ultimately surrender, and humble ourselves before God's hidden judgements, and live the best way we can, based on the choices we have.
@@melroycorrea7720 well there is a secular version (1) and a theist version (2) of the rise of subjectivity here. (1) either the good is knowable, and we can know it, or it isnt, and we dont know it. If its knowable, we use ouer own intellectual capacities to determin it, If its not we cant do anything about it. Where "god" comes into the picture, is merely as dressup, one might be daoist and still hold to the same principles you or i mentioned in ouer respective comments. In your picture, god is either an addition to your theory, and might be the origin point for morality as you see it, but then its merely your own preception and you adding it from your perspective rather then something that can be demonstrated to be true outside yourself. In my picture we might not know, and Even If we "surreder" ouerselves to this hope of knowing, we merely surreder to "the way" (the dao) of knowing good, we cannot affirm it as an absolute. So it seems to me by positing god, your saying more then you have grounds for positing by your own limited capacities. While i use daoism here to illustrate a point about not knowing, and not positing god, we can still get the same effect when it comes to the good and subjectivity. (2) one can also Reverse the whole example, by positing god and assuming we either know his morality, or dont, If we know it, we can use it to judge the world based on the morality he gave us (lets use the bibles No killing rule). If we assume the rule is objective now, because we assume god is objective, and he gave us the rule, then we can judge everything based on this rule. But If we turn to god himself and see the flood we notice him breaking the rule he gave us. So now we have the choice to say "god did something wrong" (based on his objective morality), or "god is an exception to the rule" (which means ouer morality is diffrent then his), or "the rule has exceptions" (making it relative to some standard or thing (in this case gods standard, and god as person) Notice how the last two examples mirror each other, suddenly we get one morality for us, and one for god, and we have to decide If we should use ouer morality to judge god or not. And Even If we shouldnt, we still have to deal with the paradox of ouer lesser morality, and not being able to emmulate gods morality. These would be fundamental diffrent kinds rather then degrees of moral action, begging many questions, and making us unsure If we should be seen as "good", (by whos standard). Both ways makes subjectivity arise, its just the diffrence between a unrigged subjectivity (which does not dress itself up) and a riged subjectivity given to us by gods commands. Either way we follow a morality that is diffrent then the supposed morality of the highest good. Begging the question why we dress it up as something more?
@melroycorrea7720 societies determine what is good, wrong, beneficial, and harmful. Every culture has a different standard of ethical practices, especially when you examine secluded tribes.
@@andrewc1205 Secluded tribes are in the back streets of Riverdale on the far south side of Chicago. Residents have a 1 in 39 chance of becoming a victim of violent crime perpetrated by the elderly knitting club.
@@DeadEndFrog Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response. However, I still wish to give another perspective. Basically, you said, that ultimately whatever we say about the good, it must end up as a subjective opinion or preference. However, we need to acknowledge the truth, that we are not the source or end of existence, nor do we have an infinite intellect or an all powerful will, "like the Idea of God would have". To know, what is truly good, you have to be truly "like God" (refer the first temptation of human beings, mentioned in the creation story of Genesis 3:4-5), infinite in knowledge and good will. But, we are not. That's where we get the idea, to make the act of surrender. Of course, we cannot know God or his will directly, so our surrender is directed to the Tradition which mediates God's will to us. No 'Tradition' is perfect, but atleast it is far greater and far bigger than our individual self. For example, the Catholic Church will claim, that it has an unbroken Tradition of 2000 years, and if, you count the Biblical time-period, you could easily add another 2000 years to it. And so, if I am a Catholic, I have the benefit of 4000 years of systematic moral reflection. No Tradition is perfect, but it is perfect in itself, by which I mean, it is consistent and it is capable of explaining everything pertaining our existence and in its ability to give an orientation to our lives. It also develops overtime as it encounters and responds to new challenges and problems in its environment. And so, when you commit yourself to a Tradition, you have the benefit of all that growth. Of course, you can be syncretic and say, I will choose what suits me, at a given moment, sometimes Jesus, sometimes Dao, and sometimes Buddha, but then you lose the wisdom, the nuances and moral depth within each Tradition. It can make us and our society fragmented, superficial, inconsistent, individualistic and even narcissistic as we see this happening increasingly in the Western societies, despite all the other technological and scientific advancements it has achieved. It is also reflected in an individual's character and in choices, if one leave ourselves too open and subjective in our moral choices, and so, we have so many people who reach the top, without a character of any level of depth. At some point, you have plant your flag somewhere, I mean, to commit yourself to a certain Tradition. That of course, doesn't mean, you become rigid and intolerant towards people of other traditions. You learn from others, but you must also know that you stand somewhere and are committed to something bigger than yourself. Only then life has some substantial meaning and a hope that goes even beyond the grave.
Whatever we think or consider does not mean it is concordant with reality. Because I have always considered boxingn't a sport, would this make my outlook (of non-belief) a religion? You might reconsider what constitutes a religion, and if you do not recognise Zeus as the saviour, you know how it feels to be an atheist for at least one god.
Gottfried Leibniz extrapolated from Aquinas that since God is good and immaculate, that this world must be the "best of all possible worlds". Voltaire's Candide was a scathing satire of this notion. While Voltaire was deeply cynical, he does issue a challenge to both Gottfried and Aquinas that needs to be addressed. How do we account for the imperfections, the suffering, and the horrors of this world, while taking it as evidence of the perfection and goodness of its creator? Aquinas essentially said that all is good even if we are not able to see it as so, but he didn't deny the existence of evil, nor of human imperfection. Alex O'Connor is sweeping over this complex conversation with a flippant dismissal of something Jordan said in a broader conversation.
God is by definition perfect - good being an attribute of perfection. Anything else that is not God is imperfect and thus will lack good to varying degrees. The greater mystery is why would God create anything at all, because it would necessarily be distinct from him and thus imperfect, with all of the consequences that a lack of good will have.
Loving God amidst pain and suffering is more perfect than simply loving God without any adversity. To anticipate the next question: The moral choices men make within time are by their nature everlasting, so the pain and suffering need not last forever for the good moral act to have eternal consequences. Likewise, the pleasure of sin will pass, but the choice to sin will remain.
@@seriouscat2231 Beings with greater or lesser degrees of perfection that are not perfect are by definition imperfect. Evil is an absence of good and imperfect beings lacking good to varying degrees make room for varying degrees of evil.
@@jollypolly1686 I'm not suggesting that Aquinas is wrong here, but that philosophy is a conversation throughout history (called "the Great Conversation" by philosophers). Jordan Peterson is participating in that conversation by offering up his ideas. Alex O'Connor is just "shooting down" Peterson's ideas by mocking them, misrepresenting him, or just outright dismissing him. In doing so, he is not participating in The Great Conversation. By raising real questions or challenges, that conversation can continue, and new truths can be discovered. O'Connor is just shutting the conversation down.
You're using the motte and bailey fallacy when it comes to Faith. JP equivocates on the concept of Faith. Faith and Reason are opposites. Reason is grounded in the inductive-empirical method through sensory reality. Faith is belief despite the evidence. Evidence is irrelevant. When you have faith you don't need reason. "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.” ― Martin Luther
Have you ever made a video/ thought about the contradiction of Free will and Omniscience? I've looked for religious people talking about this, but I can't find it.
@@paradisecityX0 JPs existence is probably the best indicator of how badly the new atheists kicked the asses of the general Christian establishment in the past 20 years. Dawkins, Hitchens (RIP), Harris, etc. weren't actually trying to prove God doesn't exist. They were trying to point out that Christians suck at making arguments for God. And they resoundingly succeeded at making this point. So much so that when the young generation of atheists that they created heard that Peterson was giving them a way to accept Christian principles without actually believing in God, they all leapt at the chance. Which is precisely why Jordan is popular among young people.
@danielcalderone473 atheists and skeptics of religious beliefs have always been slandered, vilified, or discredited. I believe the main goal of the New Atheism movement was to change the way people see atheism. It turned into a demonstration of how apo(ogists are terrible at making arguments for god. Re(igious Apo(ogists can't accept the truth of reality
It was Dawkin's smugness that finally put me off atheism, and started me back towards Christ. Dawkin's calling himself and other new atheists "Brights" was the final straw. And Alex O'Connor is on video saying that he really wanted to believe in God, but God "didn't reach out to him". So I think he feels bitter and rejected, but to let God reach you, you have to shred your own ego, or so I'm finding out. O'Connor needs to realise this. As for Peterson, as his wife was cured of a rare cancer with a 100% fatality rate, by praying the Rosary, I'm pretty sure that Peterson himself is trending Catholic, or Orthodox.
Most atheists who have read the bible will certainly acknowledge the intelligence and the wisdom found in the bible. Where non-Christians have a problem is in the human ignorance found throughout and perhaps certain nonsensical concepts. This has caused even Christians to leave the faith. Even biblical scholars, such as Bart Erhman have left the faith, meaning knowing the bible and its history as well as he does wasn't enough for him to maintain his faith, where he ultimately left due the the problem of unnecessary suffering. As humans, we can imagine things like the most good or the most anything that humans know they can't achieve and assert a Being much greater than us can have these attributes and assert such a Being exists. While the concept and the beliefs and religions that come with that concept can be very beneficial and possibly even necessary for our survival, there is nothing that can actually demonstrate the existence of any Gods/Goddesses. Peterson can be rather vague to the point where people are asking does he really believe a God exists or like many of us, simply noticing the benefits from belief itself. Alex O' Connor usually does a good job of providing plenty of information to thoroughly understand his point, and his observations about Peterson are no different. Most atheists, including O'Connor include agnosticism as well because we understand the level of human ignorance as to not be so arrogant as to say God's don't exist. Everything hinges on the claims of theists. Without those claims, agnostics and atheists would not exist. Because I don't find good enough reasons to believe the unbelievable claims of theists, I simply cannot share their belief yet. Even Alex O'Connor looks for ways to believe the unbelievable but good reasoning cannot get you there. Considering the amount of ex-theists, especially in areas where studying the bible and its history are required, it seems that even theists can't remain convinced upon learning what they have. Christianity being wrong doesn't mean no God exists. Theists finding reasons to leave the faith doesn't mean that no Gods exist. It simply means should any Gods exist, we simply don't have enough to mentally stay convinced if we look too deep. There are certainly many parts of the bible that non-Christians can see as either true or potentially true, but due to the ignorance found in the bible, each piece must be evaluated on its own. The biggest problem the bible has is the most critical pieces of the bible that would produce belief can't actually be verified and is simply accepted as true by those who wish to believe. From my perspective, the bible appears written by humans for humans without the guidance of a higher intelligence. The writers certainly developed a good understanding of our human nature giving plenty of good advice in dealing with that nature. It would be ironic if the Christian God were the God and Jesus was actually the Savior because I think the writers did that message a disservice.
I worship nature, the sum total of everything, and consciousness. Give it what name you like. Debase or agree if you like. I can't be bought bartered bribed or Intimidated into changing that.
Everyone is biased. That's the main complaint against the atheists, that there is no absolutely objectivity. The question is, what is the outcome of your belief.
Ain't that the whole point? She's biased towards one form of god and you're biased towards another. She's aware and acknowledges her own bias, while you don't due to ignorance.
@@midi510 The question is, if confronted with your bias (always a negative thing for smart people), do you strive to fix it or do you grow proud of it?
@@Lerian_V You have absolutely no idea what I believe or what my attitude towards my own bias is. My point was, that there are prominent atheists who say that they see things objectively, when they can't.
"Making fun of" Way to immediately deter all the viewers you baited in by using Alex's name in the title. Bad faith right from the start will do you no favors with the us.
I love the holistic approach and the will to expand far past donkey brained materialism Roni, but whether the events in the Bible really happened really does matter. If the biblical corpus is a merely human work (which appears to be true), we shouldn’t be basing our entire life paradigm/ethics/politics on it. It won’t work to recover meaning in the centuries to come bc humans are only gaining more knowledge. It’s unfortunate, but we must do the hard work to figure out a relationship with the transcendent that can be grounded closer to reality, rather than in stories that can be proven false with biology/archaeology/etc. I wish it were otherwise, but as a species we have to grow out of the Abrahamic paradigm if we’re to recover meaning in the coming millennium.
I agree with you. I wish I could see that actually happen in my lifetime. Not because it would fix things, but it would be interesting to witness. And fascinating to study.
@@isaiah95786 a lot of predictions are being made about religions developing around AI, and many regressing to worshipping nature itself. The kind and variety of these will likely be infinite and indeed be very fascinating.
Ive talked about this with my wife. Dr. Peterson feels like all head, and no heart in his belief. He might believe the judeo-christian worldview to be the superior, but i dont know if he has created a version of the biblical God into an intangible philosophical idea and less like a being with a will for humanity. The spirit of adventure. The characters of the bible all have parts that we all relate to and that thing shows God. I cant describe it necessarily. But his need to know and understand might be a stumbling block to the faith, the belief, or what we might traditionaly call Christianity.
In fact atheism isn't any kind of "belief" or a religion - it is just simply the "absence" of a belief. The difference is that "true" believers will never be convinced that their faith is misplaced or false because they "need" to believe to function. An atheist on the other hand "can" have his mind changed by being presented with "evidence" for the existence of deities / gods. Atheists would "have to change their minds" whether they liked it or not because TRUTH matters!
Before this video I watched your video on woke culture in which you criticise the notion of replacing objective with subjective truth but you appear to do exactly the same in this video, am I misunderstanding? Could you clarify? I don’t agree with all your points on religion but enjoyed your videos and subscribed and look forward to viewing future content.
"Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof? " Nobody in the world knows the answer, there's nothing in physics or biology or any proof in the world. Faith is a matter of opinion and so it's a matter of choice. Why do you believe what you believe?
@greatscott369 What was his name? And, was he inspired by the Holy Spirit? I presume his design had the maximum energetic efficiency (Carnot cycle level best), and the materials of his motor had the best ever combination of metals (jet engine level best). All for the glory of the All-knowing designer, right? Anything less would show that God failed, yet again, right?
I agree with Peterson in many ways but not concerning Christianity. The moment Paterson said "Give'em hell" it was clear he was not a real follower of Jesus precepts. I also disagree with most Christians anyways. The God of the Old Testament has nothing to do with the highest good of St-Augustin, Thomas of Aquino, Baruch Spinoza or Theilard de Chardin.
@@ronifouks 🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere. The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception. University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”. We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle). Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds. The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated. Cont...
Sam Harris is bang on the money when he speaks about the illusory nature of the self. It's hard to get one's head around the notion, because in one's rational exploration of such an idea, one is always firmly anchored in the sense of one's self, inasmuch as one is aware that one is making such a rationalisation, reinforced by all the sense detectors picking up stimuli from the outer (and inner) environment. Harris' arrival at such a realization is no doubt a product of his many years of immersion in numerous meditative styles: Vipassana, Dzogchen etc. However, one can also arrive at such a realization (as Sam himself has stated many times) through the ingestion of a potent enough psychedelic, or one whose dose is sufficient to induce a temporary dissolution of the entire psychological sense of self. In such a scenario, one is fully conscious and aware of the experience being undertaken, but free of any limiting boundaries of the self and unbiased by the usual and unique identity filters that our internal sense of self imposes. Or to put it another way, one is there, but only to witness that there is no-one there. I know this may sound like gobbledygook, but anyone who has experienced even one single event of ego death knows intuitively that the self is not 'real' in any meaningful sense of the word, it is literally a mask that one dons in one's life and then relinquishes at death. In many respects, a lot of people who experience the vast eternity of egoless consciousness through psychedelics come to associate that unifying state with the concept of God. Which is why it is so essential to define exactly what one means by 'God' when one asks "do you believe in God?".
Whether the truth claims of the existence of the Christian god-concept is real or not, real people enact react actions due to that belief. That in itself is worthwhile to study. That's what I suppose he would say.
Do you know what truth that the only truth told me was....both true believers and absolute haters would both be equally disappointed upon returning from their trip to the actual past. Its not how it happened for religious believers, and its not how it happened for evolution. The real events are not for us, never was meant to be.
I am not interested in setving a god that intentionally puts his children in direct line of fire of the devil, and positions himself as the solution to the probblem he created.
As an Atheist, I clicked on this video because I was sincerely interested in watching a well-formed critique. However, in the first minute of this video, the speaker both claims that O'Connor "fundamentally misunderstands Peterson's language" and then demonstrates that she herself fundamentally misunderstands what Atheism is. Atheism is not "the fervent belief in the non-existence of God" as Mrs. Fouks states. Atheism is the answer to one specific question: do you believe the claim that one or more Gods exist? If the answer is yes, then you are a Theist. If the answer is no, then you are an Atheist. As an Atheist I am not convinced that one or more Gods. Now, there is a subgroup of Atheism called Gnostic/Strong Atheism that does go further and makes the claim that no Gods exist. However, that is a subgroup of Atheists, not true of Atheists as a whole. I highly urge Mrs. Fouks to update and correct her understanding of Atheism if she wants to Atheists to find her arguments compelling.
` Atheism is not "the fervent belief in the non-existence of God" ` She doesn't misunderstands what atheism is, that definition of atheism is what she was arguing in her critique to the people criticizing JP's language. She probably knows that, "Agnostics", aka atheists that don't believe in the non existence of God is not the problem or the focus of this discussion. "However, that is a subgroup of Atheists, not true of Atheists as a whole." This subgroup is the vocal majority, its only fair that we don't care about the "weak atheists", no one cares about those.
@@luizmonad777 My friend, while I appreciate the response, I am only going to point out a few of the problems your response had. First, I urge you to rethink and update your views on referring to a group by way of only addressing a subgroup. Here is an example. I have no idea what your favorite NFL football team is, or if you even like the game of football. However, for this conversation, let us pretend you are a fan of the Detroit Lions. I say that the Detroit Lions are currently the worst team in the NFL. When you ask me why I have that opinion, I say to you, "In the five games that they have played, they have only made 2 of their 15 field goal attempts. Not only that, but they have missed 2 extra point attempts as well." When you say, "Your criticism is fair if you are specifically talking about the place kicker, but both the offense and defense units are playing well enough that the Lions are not the worst team in the NFL," my response is then, "Look at all the post-game shows. They are leading with the story of how many field goals and extra points the Lions have missed this season. The vocal majority are talking about this subject, so this criticism is valid for all the players on the Lions." Criticizing the kickers on a football team is fair game; however, extending that same criticism to also include the entire team shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how a football team has different units. If someone wants to criticize Gnostic/Strong Atheism, that is fair game; however, extending that same criticism to Atheism in general shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Atheism is. FYI: you also need to brush up on your understanding of Agnosticism. Agnosticism is not "Atheists that don't believe in the non-existence of God," as you put it. Theism/Atheism addresses a person's beliefs. If you believe the claim that one or more Gods exist, you are a Theist. If you do not believe that claim, you are an Atheist. Gnosticsm/Agnosticsm addresses the knowledge a person has. Knowledge and belief, while there is some overlap, are not the exact same thing.
You shallowness is showing, how about supporting your statement as opposed to employing the logical fallacy of argumentation through assertion. All your comment achieved was to demonstrate limited capacity.
@@JB-mg5lw my wall of books on philosophy, theology, academic biblical literature, linguistics, ancient history ( I can go on ) would disagree. At some point, you learn not to bother addressing arbitrary subjective claims. And instead just warn others to not waste their time. Interesting you mentioned "argumentation by assertion fallacy" lol good luck with that. I won't waste my time even addressing that non-sense when clearly stating " you shallowness is showing " in itself would be classified under argument by assertion. if you can't recognize the subjectivity in any of this, then you need to get out more and read more.
@@DarkBlood666 Your justification for your assertion is you have a wall of books. Perhaps next you should read them as you still have posited not a single cogent justification. All you provide is an excuse that everyone should accept your self professed credentials as enough to justify your statements sufficient to stand alone from your (implied) superior understanding. At this point I am comfortable in stating you are a silly person.
@@BoldlyUnfiltered-g2l She's not the only one Peterson said " the god the atheists are dispensing with is not the god portrayed in the biblical texts " . She followed up with an explanation that he doesn't answer the question ( Do you believe in God ? ) because he doesn't want the questioners definition of god foisted upon him , in a sort of gotcha way , that in itself is an acknowledgement that there is a wrong or misleading definition of god out there that isn't being pushed by the people asking the question . Peterson says he is often asked if he believes in god and he doesn't like the question etc , why isn't his answer " of course I do !" and let that be the start of the conversation , in the same way he says there isn't a skybutler, god is more like an enacted mode of being in the world . If you really want to know what Jordan Peterson thinks god is , ask him what an atheist is , and if you want to know what the man who coined the word " Meme " and who fully understands what a Meme is ,ask Richard Dawkins " Do you believe Meme's are true ?" I watched an hour and a half video that almost broke out into a conversation when Peterson and Dawkins started talking about Meme's .The whole point of them meeting and why Peterson wanted to talk to Dawkins was to explore the Meme and embedded metaphors . As ideas or concepts, metaphors are themselves memes ,the ability of one meme to be more or less successful than another partially depends on the metaphors embedded in the meme.
Dawkins states Peterson is drunk on symbols again in their latest conversation - at the same time the while wearing a DNA/helix tie. Isn't part of the basis of Western philosophy, that Aristotle elaborated is that ideas have hierarchies and the natural world is only shadow of, a reflection of those ideas? Did Dawkins not take philosophy 101?
I do believe the Bible can contain deep psychological truths but I don’t think you can be a true Christian without also believing the literal interpretation
@@Observer-g6m if I’m being honest I don’t know why the literal sense is listed with the other three as if it’s a separate way of interpretation. The moral sense, allegorical sense and anagogic sense all rest on the foundation of the literal sense. The Bible reads completely differently if it’s not to be taken literally and I don’t think people who read the Bible without any literal interpretation would usually identify as a Christian.
But how do you know God is the highest good without first using your intellect? This is not about knowing we are the smartest or anything of the sort, but to start with some logical axioms and build from them. Our intellect is limited, but if you mean our intellect as our ability to comprehend stuff, then you are just saying that God is the highest good without knowing what that even means. So you don't have to worship your ability to understand stuff, you test it through generating other thoughts and speaking to other people. I don't think you are very smart (generally) if you think that by being smart the world would be at your feet, because clearly then your intellect is not working good into telling you how the world works.
How do you define something as good? Is it the sum of all good things we long for or is it the one which is best, in a self-sufficient sense? If it is the first one, then you are the reference point, and you define what good is? But, are we really so perfectly good in ourselves to define what is good and what is evil. No. So, we need to go with the second, the one who is good in its self-sufficient sense. But that infinite goodness has to be transcendant to us, because we are not infinite goodness ourselves. In that case, we simply let go, of our moral judgements. We radically accept ourselves and whatever happens. This does not mean that we have no intuitions about right or wrong, we have no reasons for doing them one way or another, or we have no desires or ambitions for our life, which is ultimately based on the particular traditions we come from, or the particular influences or choices we have made with our life, and how they arise again from our natural inclinations, but ultimately, we are constantly seeking to grow our intellect, so that we can conform ourselves to God's image, as best as we can, but even here, we ultimately surrender, and humble ourselves before God's hidden judgements, and live the best way we can, based on the choices we have.
I also think Jordan, and Weinstein might assume that culture as an epigenetic concept perpetuates the best ideas... I think they perpetuate the most popular ideas-- I think there's often an influence in history very clear the cynical lens. The last 70 years or so have perpetuated a lot of foolish cultural ideas based on technological memes (temes).
You didn't bother watching, did you? To understand deeper meaning, you have to "try too much", you can't have deeper meaning just shoved down your throat.
Except that O’Connor himself admitted he was wrong in his assessment of Peterson in this video, he said so to Peterson in his interview with him. And also admitted that he now understands Peterson’s position better after talking to him.
There are tradition before Christianity atleast where you find the same thing that BEING/EXISTENCE is GOD.. why do you think that judeo Christian traditions are the only one who talk about this.. Have you read other traditions.. Vedas also define God as BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS, BLISS.. How is it that you think that it is the speciality of Judeo Christian viewpoint..
Awesome. My take is what you believe and how you believe in god ultimately is a reflection on you. The 2001 film AI captures this perfectly. A big driver of your beliefs is your emotions and desires. An example of this is if your commercially minded your likely going to want to bless your goods and desire high returns on them. One thing I struggle with is free will. I think it's a complicated subject that is central to Christianity. But I think we respond to things based on our inner image and programming or genetic disposition. I think the film a beautiful mind John Nash talks about governing dynamics or how I see it our choices are driven by events and previous events and our mind set. Choice is an illusion that exists somewhere between that. Please correct me or share your thoughts on free will. I think double slit experiment is a tricky one with many ideas around it but Richard Dawkins talks about something's are so sensitive that they can impact the outcome by doing the experiment like measuring pressure in a car tyre effects overall pressure in tyre. But we like to think more that it's us that can make the universe in split in two with the power of our mind. Please share your thoughts. Love your work.
There are so many problems with this video. From the title (Alex interviewed Peterson. He didn't debate him.), to the end of the video, where you clearly don't know what Atheism means.. A lack of "blind faith" is not "blind faith". This video's sloppy at best, and dishonest at worst.
@@enammemberseptember7366 that's not an ideology though... It's an objective truth based on reality. An ideology starts with the conclusion desired, then tries to connect it to reality. Basically, ideology has "sacred beliefs" which are presupposed as objectively true. Example: If you presuppose that men and women are the same (false, they are different), then transgenderism (the ideology that logically follows the false presupposition) would be sound and objectively true. If men = woman, then there's no sex, only gender (expression) and it's 100% a social construct. But the actual reality is that men and women are different... Just like some men are different from other men. If you want the truth and not just blind faith. You need to go through your own "sacred beliefs", aka something you would die before ever changing your mind. An ideologue, is someone who believes that their sacred beliefs are true and consistent with reality. Faith is merely when one ignores accrual reality and operates in the ideological worldview. Faith is essentially willful ignorance and should never be seen as a virtue. Faith actually ends up being a false virtue to stop true believers from experiencing cognitive dissonance. They can just virtue signal to themselves by staying loyal to the ideology. Faith is a psychological, cultural, "spiritual" and societal control mechanism/concept. Ever argued about God with a true believer? There's nothing you can say to convince them they are brainwashed and wrong. That's the beauty of brainwashing... The one who is brainwashed (or ideologically captured) doesn't know they are brainwashed. You can't convince them they are brainwashed because their mind is operating in a closed system worldview, their very faculties of logic and reason, compromised by false "sacred beliefs"... Oh you want to challenge the sacred beliefs right? Guess again... You will only get them to double down, stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la la"... The only way to change a mind is to change their social, cultural and spiritual environment. Much like getting an addict off drugs/alcohol/porn/etc. you can't just take away their desire... You need to remove them from the toxic environment that lead them to being addicts... That means you got to get rid of their shame, their bad friends/group/partner and start rebuilding meaningful relationships that will lead to them finding a purpose in life other than their next fix. Food for thought
In the beginning I am that I am Created that which is From that which is not The spirit of I am who I am Moved on the depths Of the formless and void Moving by spirit The essence of pattern The image of existence Onto which all things Kinds and likenesses Are called to map All meaning and purpose I am what I am Spoke in fractal terms The geometric shapes of All things real, material Being the observer Collapsing the wave Of non being function Of all created things Kinds and likenesses of being In the simultaneity of the pattern Of being I am that I am Divided light from darkness A cosmological constant Of darkness moving Faster than light And light moving At least time Through the pattern Now known as the face Of the deep I am that I am Thus created by moving Speaking and observing Calling to meaning Dividing time-space-energy To form the kinds Likenesses and images Of all being
I would say, (men) kids (the people of my age) those of 20 years old or whatever (though regarded as adults maybe across the whole world) as well as adults (who are much older than that extent of...) can be at problem(s) with when a lady makes videos like..., and it's natural to get attracted. But it's a problem. (I'm not talking about like don't make videos; you can continue doing by simply avoiding showing yourself. The most important thing is that it's not something about which I'm just talking about in a vacuum. Rather, it's what which the life goes with in ours day to day life, where women got abused or whatever in many ways (in little to much disgusting ways) let's say.
I am from Asia and dont know much about Christianity. But i dont understand the obessession of Israelis when you are a Christian from America or West in general. Any flaws Isreali displays everyone seems to discard it completely.
JP isn't an atheist, but Alex is right to call him out for how much he dodges the question about his beliefs when directly asked. Look, let's be blunt. There is no such thing as magic or the supernatural. No one ever was born of a virgin, walked on water or rose from the dead. The description of a Jesus with these superpowers is as ridiculous as Santa and his flying reindeer. There is no. such. thing. as. magic. However, when taken as metaphor, as JP explains very well, there is value and wisdom to be gained about how to live in these myths. The problem with JP is he pushes Christianity but won't own up to the fact that if Jesus didn't resurrect (he didn't) then Christianity is false. It's as if he knows it's false but wants people to believe in it anyway. There is something suspect about how he talks about the religion. It seems like he doesn't believe in it literally but doesn't want anyone to know because he knows how much spooky nonsense Christians actually believe and he doesn't want to offend them.
Yeah it's just as stupid as believing in aliens and evolution. Yeah l get what you're saying. They're both stupid and should not be taken seriously. Like the hoax of the moon landing and dinosaurs. Fuck it all. It's all nonsense
“Spooky nonsense” Oh the irony!! Listening to militant atheists pontificating about ultimate “TRUTH” and “SPOOKY NONSENSE” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!! Furthermore, listening to strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists pontificating about ultimate “TRUTH” and “NONSENSE” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ultimately meaningless HOLLOW AND SOULLESS, OVERGROWN AMOEBAS WITH DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR is as entertaining as watching someone trying to thrash the front of his car with the branch of a tree in order to BEAT IT INTO SUBMISSION! It's very Basil Fawlty like at times and very Monty Python like at times! But without the comedy value! CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect!!
God is the Prime Mover: the uncreated creator of all that is and source of all that lives -- the eternal force behind the laws of physics and probability. Usually atheists have an invisible old man in the sky in mind
But not the God of the Bible. That guy has been ruled out by critical thinkers. Every decent philosophical argument for a god does not conclude which god created the universe. Every religion just inserts their god into that gap. Still, that doesn't solve the problems with other philosophical arguments that disprove gods existence. I recommend Majesty of Reason for better understanding.
@andrewc1205 The strawman/parody of that God has been ruled out by critical thinkers and believers alike. God created the universe, not a god. No philosophical arguments have ever once disproved any god's existence-- strawmen/parodies of them, sure. Not impressed by Majesty of "Reason" (anybody with a self-congradulating stage name is not to be taken seriously). Graham Oppy is more substantive. Better yet, how about you describe the God you don't believe in -- odds are l don't believe in that strawman/parody god either.
How do you feel about the secular scholarly consensus of Yahweh being a deity from the Canaanite Pantheon? How much of the Hebrew bible (Old Testament) do you believe is actually history versus myth/legend? I assume you are aware of the historicity of the Biblical writings. How do you determine the authenticity of scripture, knowing how late most of the letters and gospels were written? Do you understand how the gospels evolved in supernatural claims, from Mark to John? Do you believe the claims of witnesses to the resurrection are accurate? When you read the New Testament scripture, do you notice the use of a third-person narrative and how that affects the authenticity of certain situations?
If you believe in hell, or any afterlife, answer these questions: What is consciousness without a functioning brain? There are no conclusive studies that prove consciousness remains after complete cessation. What is pain or suffering or any emotional response without a physical body to experience these things? Emotions and pain are processes/experiences that require a functioning central nervous system and chemical responses in the body. What are memories without a functioning brain to store and retrieve the information? We know memory loss affects millions of people and has many causes. These memories are not backed up in the cloud to be retrieved upon death. What are the 5 senses without the organs that are required of them to work. A soul would lack all the necessary physical components needed to sense the universe around it. Retinas are required for vision. A tempanic membrane is necessary to hear. Nerve endings are necessary for sensing touch. What is a spirit/soul without any of the above? Can you prove consciousness survives beyond our physical bodies? Can you prove the Christian god exists beyond the scripture? What is heaven or hell without these senses? I have never witnessed anything supernatural or divine. This tends to be more present in people with excessive visual or auditory imagination (aka hyperphantasia / hyperauralia).
@paradisecityX0 what are your thoughts on a soul or afterlife? If consciousness exists beyond the physical mind, what would it do? A soul would lack all the necessary physical components needed to sense the universe around it. Retinas are required for vision. A tempanic membrane is necessary to hear. Nerve endings are necessary for sensing touch. A healthy brain in necessary for memories. What is a soul without senses, emotions, and memories?
You may disagree, but why is he "insufferable"? He is very articulate, well informed and his arguments are logical. Is that what you find insufferable?
@@kjetilknyttnev3702 Nah, O'Connor is a dogmatic materialist married to his physicalist views, and his positions on anything spiritual are poorly-formed and childish at best.
to me , it’s as though i had lost three CHILDREN : i lost 3 rabbits in three days ! i'm abominable sinner, that's why : i wish i had never existed ! i don't want to exist ever since they went to Heaven : i'm a monster : i feel guilty: i don't see the point of living without rabbits : i lost the three loves of my life : my progenitors won't adopt bunnies : life without bunnies, oh no, HORRIBLE !!! wha a sadness to not have bunnies ! i miss them ! i want them to be with me ! the worst is yet to come : now the r and d say they're going to DESTROY , MURDER my hens and dog: again because of my infame sins : oh NO, NO:: Maker , have mercy on my hens !!!! it's depressing losing your animals !! my rabbits and animals are my sole reason to live i think : i think i ain't got nothing else, no one else : empty house without rabbits :
room, living- room, therasse without caytlin, amanda and crystal my three rabbits : i think i should be in hell and they should be on the earth !! they were INNOCENT, they have NOT sinned !!! I have sinned !!! i'm the one who did bad stuff against the Maker and the curse went on my animals, not on me ?? i feel like my animals got PUNISHED , not me : i've been unjust, not the Maker: he's just : i wish i had never done all these abominations so that crystal, amanda and caytlin would be alive: i want to see you, pet you, look at your beautiful eyes, my fauve de bourgogne rabbit, my mini rabbit and my lop ears rabbit but i can't: i want to hug you, kiss you, i can't: i feel like i'm a zombie without my bunnies : i'm worried about my hens and doggy: WOW !!! the terrible revelations messages from the r and d for my hens and dogs:
scary, HORROR !!!! i think i should ve never existed if i destroy all my loved ones with my sins, causing their death , illness, suffering : horrible things the r and d say they're gonna do to my animals very soon : i want to kick the bucket : i think i should've never existed : everytime i sin strongly, terribly, one or several of my animals die : when will the Maker chastise ME and not my animals ?? the day i don't have animals no more ..... / i want animals !!!!! more than all things!!! i think the animals are the SOLE stuff i want !!!! i think i can NEVER be happy if i don't have animals !!!!
i think that Maker does not chastise me but my animals : i mean he takes away from you the most important, the most valuable thing you think you have : to me, the most IMPORTANT thing are my animals: that's the reason why when i do something ultra bad, the Maker makes pass away one or several of my animals : this time it was the WORST SIN i've ever made ?? for it was not one or two animals , but THREE animals in three days: no wonder why r had said at the same time or simultaneously : i get why they said that : it meant three DEATHS , three SICKNESS at the same time : three sick animals FOR NO REASON , SUPERNATURALLY, at the same time :
on top of that, the r said 3 weeks : now one week has passed : what ? they didn't say the whole say : two weeks for what ?? the DEATH of my hens , or dogs, burned live jennifer ( hen ), fighting to death chelby, brianna and brittany ( hens ) ? shortly after, kylie can't pee and passes away ( dog ) : oh NO , if only i had never been , if only i had never had a life !!!! all this is two or three weeks or a bit more ???? i want to cease living !!!! they must have suffered HORRIBLY !!! how caytlin suddenly screamed , of pain probably, ultra loudly : SCARY !!! and a day after, how amanda would scream, again and again, having convulsions , moving his head ultra fast , putting it ultra on the back, again and again, doing little screams again and again, his legs so hard, so tense, mega extended, wow, he would move and move :
oh poor him ! all this because of my sins ! HORRIBLE seeing this !!!! i wish it had been me , not him ! increible that amanda died one hour after i think, not right away when all this was happening : and then putting his body normal, then moving his body again , his legs mega fast, wow : and crystal couldn’t put his head normal, he was so weak : he would simply put his head on the floor, powerless, without strength : all this because of my sins : farewell everyone ! i can't take it no more : thanks for all
i need to seek the help of Maker and born again christians : but even if i beg pastors to pray for me to stop sinning, for me to stop massacring every single beloved animal i adopt , i CAN NOT stop sinning : i think i'm like these high level murderers: all i do is destroy : that's why i think i deserve to die : i think i MUST de , for if i carry on living and i adopt animals, they will all DIE as newborn animals, i'm sure: i sin so much , so terribly, that they wouldn't last not even one week, poor them !
their destiny would have been different if they had been adopted by someone who is NOT a monstrous sinner unlike me : they would 've lived 10 years, not 2 and 1 year, my adored bunnies : these bunnies were EVERYTHING to me : these hens and dog are MY ONLY loved ones : my only reason to be : or i can live for the rest of my life not adopting any animal but what a SAD life without any animal , too DEPRESSING, oh no, i think i CAN NOT live without animals : i'd be like a zombie, always depressed and sad : i think i must sacrifice myself for my animals : anyway, i don't want to live since the Maker wants me to become his and get pregnant and have sexual intercourse and i'm virgin, with phobia of sexual intercourse : i'm anti pregnancy and anti sexual intercourse : thus, since this is very soon according to the messages from d and r , in october and december 2024, i think all i have left to do is join the majority ( die ) : what else can i do ?
hell is horrible : wow, poor persons there !!! i don't want to get devoured by 15 cm worms, spiders: i don't want to BURN, you can't breath in there: there's no water, you're TOO THIRSTY : but i DESERVE hell : i've been TOO WICKED to animals and men all my life : a vegan that murders all my animals , wow, false vegan i suppose !!!!!! to me , these animals ARE MY CHILDREN, my BABIES !!!!!! i DO NOT want to destroy the destiny, DESTROY the destiny, of holy little animals that i ADORE !!!! poor little dogs !!! my porgenitor is about to adopt two dogs: OH WOW, i'm too afraid for them poor little things , adorable little angels !!!!!!!!!!!!!
i CAN NOT get rid of my sins !!! hatred, wrath, evil thoughts, evil wishes : i beg you Maker, curse me, NOT my animals and future animals !!! i beg you Maker, destroy ME, NOT my animal angels !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i think i should not adopt any animal but just go see animals in ethical places such as pedagogic farms , hoping that they treat animals well there : but it's NOT the same than living with the animals, and being able to pet them, kiss them, see them, look at their beautiful faces and bodies and eyes, hugg them , whenever you like : i don’t see the point of living without animals and rabbits : i think that i see the point of living SOLELY with animals and rabbits : why living if you don’t have animals or bunnies ?? i think the only reason why i should get up in the morning is my animals and rabbits if i had some : i think i do NOT find any meaning in life ever since caytlin, crystal and amanda passed away : i think i can NOT find any meaning in life without animals and rabbits : i don’t want to do anyting ever since they went away : i don’t want to eat : i don’t want to exist : i don’t want to adopt and then die : if i adopt 5 animals = the 5 die : if i adopt 3 animals = the 3 die : if i adopt 10 animals = the 10 die : STOP !!! i don’t want to do this : this tourments me : i’m horrified : all this agony of my animals, all these deaths, because of my sins : WOW !!!! and yet i desperetedly wish to adopt PLENTY of animals !!! i think i’ve lost all will to live ever since my rabbits went to Heaven : i think i’m like a zombie now : for the joy to come back, the life to come back, for me to feel alive again, i NEED rabbits : but not for them to die 4 days after i had them : !!!!!! NOOOOO !!!! r said in my head : attack on the hens : they have one- two weeks left to live ?? what do i do ?? then my dog when , in 3-4 weeks ?? zero animal mega soon ??!!! in less than 30 days, i go from having 5 animals to 0 animal ??!!??!!??!! : i think life without animals is HORRIBLE, i think it’s NOT life at all : !!!!!
i don’t see the point in living if i do not have animals or rabbits : i think i don’t see the point in doing anything ever since my rabbits left me : what’s the point in existing if it’s without animals or bunnies ?? i think i see no point in doing nothing anymore ever since i lost my rabbits : i think that my only reason to live was my animals : i think that i ‘ve lost everything : i think that my life is MEANINGLESS without my bunnies and animals : i think i am fed up with this life without rabbits : i don’t want to live any longer , without animals or rabbits : i just wanted to make my rabbits happy : i just want to give happiness to rabbits : but i DO NOT want to murder any animal anymore !!!! i think i’ve lost interest in everything : i think i don’t enjoy anything anymore : i think i force myself to do everything now : i think i can’t be interested in anything any longer : i don’t know why i remain alive : i think i do not want to remain alive : i just force myself to do all the things a human daily do such as eating, brushing my teeth, going to the toilet, taking a shower , ect : i think that nothing in the world is more important to me than animals : i wish it hadn't happen : i think the worst is living without rabbits for the rest of my life , for my progenitor won't give me rabbits : what a depressing life i'm going to have without my rabbits and without rabbits
Up until fairly recently christianity was not thought of as symbolic but as the word of god. Now that science has shown that the word of god as contained in the bible is not the word of an intelligent, all knowing being has the need for the argument that the word of god was meant to be symbolic, come to the fore.
The most I living, the more I see that, people was born with silver spoon in they mouth, are those that use to follow atheism… but when problems in they life come , when the darkness of the night come , when money is gone, the sickness appears and the pains come to they lives , like a miracle God come… because God is the only that can give us the true piece!! Matthew 11:28 , come to me , all who are weary and heavy-laden , and I give you rest . Like you did say “ philosophy of atheism nihilism are liked with depression hopelessness and an unrelenting anxiety”… true!!! If we don’t have faith in God , we will need to find something to worship … as Hollywood star , drugs , alcohol , promiscuity and so on!! Nice video lady!!
"You can make an ought from an is, you just have to make an ought from an is. Everything follows from that without the need for God." - fixed that for you
in more words: the universe created life after billions of years of preparing the raw ingredients. In this sense, it's an ought that was there before life and therefore it's not derived from an is. In addition, life is the only thing that can design and support islands of reduction of entropy in the universe, so one could decide we ought to preserve it and therefore generate an ought from an is as a personal moral compass.
@@PepitoSbezzeguti your ought is that we must preserve what the universe prepared to create for billions of years. Or that we must preserve something because of its unique features. The "is" of life is just what you apply them to. And your ought of preserving life is derived from the two (or however many) "oughts". I agree, you can use this as a personal moral framework. But it is not making an ought from an is.
I was on a walk and I started thinking, how do I define God? My answers were on the line of: That which restricts knowledge, That which blinds the senses, That which intercepts truth, That which devours purpose, The devil whom you sell your soul to.
Such an off-putting way to start the video. Also, why is this video being reacted to rather than the actual conversation they had after this video was made?
😊🤗💖🙏🏋🦁🦬🌼🌴🌻 Thank You , Roni Fouks , Blessings Always , ,,so God and i walk into a Room , there is a Birthday Party going on , so , we talk here and there and some people ask Me , Who are You , and ask about My Friend beside Me , So i Tell them , o Yes , that is God ,, Romans 8:19 English Standard Version , Sons and Daughters , Chosen Ones , For the creation waits with eager , longing for the revealing , of the Sons and Daughters of God. Prayer for All : ,,,, Abba Father i belong to you ,,,, Gods Blessings in The Lord Jesus Christ , 😊🤗💖🙏🏋🦁🦬🌼🌴🌻
Thank you for this clear and to the point video! I am a philosopher and theologian by education and there is so much I could say about this topic but I just keep it with one small but very important point. After many years of study and thinking about this I came to the conclusion that most misunderstandings from the atheist/secular side, but also sometimes from religious people themselves, come from what I would call anachronistic thinking. The biggest problem with approaching texts like the bible is using (post)modern concepts and frames of reference retroactively to a narrative world of the deep past which is totally alien to these modern ways of (scientific) thinking. Of course the book of Genesis for example can be dismantled "scientifically" in no time. No surprise there for me! But Genesis is not a scientific treatise, it is not a history book (at least not in the modern sense) and it never claims to be these things because these frames of references didn't even exist back then. But, with all this said, that does not mean at all that texts like the Bible are therefore devoid of meaning. There is deep and timeless meaning in there but to see this within a contemporary context you need to detach yourself from this hubristic attitude in thinking that our (scientific) way of looking at the world is 'the' way or 'the' truth. That is by the way not scientific at all but rather a dogmatism in itself, a fundamental 'belief' in the truth of the religion of scientism which, ironically enough, cannot be proven scientifically.
Genesis itself isn't devoid of meaning, it's a "new" creation myth that subordinates every aspect and character known to the reader from ancient pagan myths to the new abstract God. It is an introduction to the concept of the abstract God, which is the fundamental innovation of the Hebrew Bible (it wasn't monotheism or even semi-monotheism).
This would be fine if Christians didn’t then turn around and draw scientific conclusions from the Bible. Christians are always the ones making category errors here, not atheists.
As a philosopher and theologian you should also be aware that the ancient writers of the Bible did not see their God as the abstract, metaphysical omniscient, omnipotent God that most modern Christians worship today. For them he was the God of their tribe. And the one who was going to lead them over their very real and powerful enemies. He was more abstract than some gods but he was certainly no less active in their every day lives. It also seems to me that there s no way that you can dismiss the importance of the historicity of the events cited in the Bible. The historicity of the events was absolutely critical to justify their belief in their god. It is only modern theologians who have had to abstract this and mystify god to the extent they do today because science has so decisively shown that the events in the Bible could not have happened or in some cases didn’t happen as depicted. The biggest difference between ancient peoples and modern peoples is that most ancient peoples including The intellectual elites believed fervently in the spiritual world. The only question was which spirit had the most power and how was his favor achieved so that he would use it to help you or your kingdom.
@@SteveHicks-lo4vq The Bible was likely written over a very long period of time and views have naturally shifted, but the God of the Bible is an abstract god, and this point is made again and again throughout the Bible.
Abstract is not to say he exists only in the believer's minds, it is to say that, unlike previous gods, this god has no physical form, nor does he need one. In fact, all of the forces of nature and creation are subordinate to this abstract entity. The Bible makes these points many times.
@@idoben-yair429 All Gods are necessarily abstractions as it appears you define them. The only difference for the God of the Bible is that first the Jews and then the Christians forbade physical representations., except for Jesus, ironically. Then the Christians became like Romans, worshipping a human who got promoted to a God. However, what level of abstraction you give to anyone’s view of their God, has nothing to do with whether or not their god exists. My argument was not that he wasn’t an Abstraction. My argument was that the type and level of abstraction changed over time and that the high level of modern abstraction has been driven by the science which has shown pretty conclusively that the Bible is ahistorical and thus much of the evidence it extols for believing in God’s existence is either fictional or highly mythologized. I think it is absurd to argue that the Bible’s history was not written, especially in the Pentateuch, so that people would believe. That purpose is an umistakeabke message in every part of the Bible including the New Testament. And the evidence is supposed to be the actual occurrence of the events there in depicted.
,
Now I get it. There is no Jordan Peterson. He's a metaphor for wisdom so profound that no one can understand it.
Finally you are starting to believe, there was never JP, there is Western culture and wisdom that we need to reclaim.
Most people can answer the question do you believe in God in about 0.5 seconds Jordan couldn't answer it in 50 years
Do you believe in god?
I found Petersons intervention, that it is really a subject matter, how you define God, consistent...
@@aryanchaudhary4400 that's such a complicated question it would take me 2 trillion years to answer I suppose my answer would have to be raskolnikov
Again at this point acting like we don't why Peterson doesn't answer the question the way you like is just pure ignorance
And perhaps the greatest reason he should keep doing so.
If NOT believing in god is a religion, and not believing 1+1=3, now you have 2 religions?
Only the faithful NEED to feel others share their "challenges".
haha, for someone who is concerned about using "slights of hand" to refute arguments, you literally use one in every subsection of this video.😅
also, i do love the pride flag on your bookshelf. nice touch.
Firstly, don't start off by personally attack someone for their accent. It discredits the rest of your viewpoints.
Also, O'Connor isn't making fun of Peterson, he says that Peterson is obscure and non-specific in his own personal believes. He also clearly states why, and it's not nonsensical.
This was all sorted out when they had an hour long conversation, which I suggest you go check out. You are creating a conflict that doesn't exist.
I also think you are missing a great deal of the concepts that Peterson tries to encompass, mostly being the memes of the stories and what's unwritten in them, and how divinity isn't what you think he means it is in any way. I also think he would dislike anyone trying to speak FOR him.
God isn't necessary a concept of divinity but rather each individuals moral hierarchy. Even if a person claims to be a moral emotivist. Subjective morality is just as much predicated on stories, bible or not, and that is much of the point he is trying to make.
You should see some of the content from Robert Sapolski on free will. It will make you better understand the moral hierarchy of non-religious people trough social structures and why you think atheists are fundamentalists. The connection is strong. I also think a lot of the people you proclaim to be atheists are actually agnostics.
Excellent points until your last sentence. Agnostics are weak atheists, but they're still atheists. While in the position of *not knowing* you are *without* the belief. In the court of law, until the evidence is sufficient to prove a person is guilty, you are not agnostic. The person is innocent until proven guilty. Onus probandi is with the prosecution.
By making this comment, you proved her point.
I call new atheists "atheist-wannabe agnostics".
@@jasonpalacios1363 By making this comment, you've made no point at all.
She called his accent "fancy". It's a common joke among Americans to label British accents as "smart" or "fancy". I'm pretty sure British people are in on this joke too.
I'm sorry but do you ever have an honest discussion with an atheist? You interpret and explain everything from a christian standpoint. When you (and Jordan Peterson) say that atheist place reason and intellect above all else, the argument for that is that atheists place those above god and the bible. But the atheist by definition doesn't believe in those so every aspect in life that is real is placed above that. Secondly, the atheist doesn't deny the bible because it has a few miracles, it denies it because it is obviously full of stories that never happened and shows a god that good never exists since it is self-contraditory. And doesn't seem to be able to show himself anymore. You can have all kinds of reasoning why you still believe but that is a more honest answer to why the atheist doesn't believe.
So 8 minutes in and I'm already done, too bad.
"Honest" is to be defined as a search for the upward path, which is a sort of self improvement, ie: understanding the Truth. Peterson, for one, has had many honest discussions with atheists, agnostics, Muslim fundamentalists, etc. That is his one superpower, despite any of his shortcomings. Can you suggest you are MORE honest? This is simply a striving, so don't propose anyone can be perfect in this. Relating to 'others' is hard.
I recommend Iain McGilchrist to address your suggestion that belief in the Divine is fundamental for discussing anything non-material. Truly excellent stuff.
8 minutes is all the grace you can muster? You might be right she's taken a side, and operating in favoritism, but I will suggest that the critic in question was acting ... not in good faith ... in putting out a public critique of Peterson who allowed him the benefit of his superior platform and influence. The fact that Peterson engaged him again afterward is enough for me to favor him that much more. Exchange of ideas does not happen in a vacuum.
Yes, atheists put reason above all else, that's the problem with religious people, their arguments always appeal to feelings. It took me 33 years to finally rationally find God on my own, without any religious teaching, they're all either wrong or speak in a language we rational people can't understand. I'm a scientist since I was 8.
It happened to me when I was studying singularities in physics, and that made me question the mathematics used for that, that's when I realized mathematics is both the defining structure of the Universe but also the proofs we have are a human invention, its all an approximation, well, it was Godel who realized that. There is a real structure in the Universe, it can be defined by mathematics, but mathematics is a human language.
So that lead me to an essentialist conclusion based on some computation hypothesis, which made more sense given evidence. That's what broke materialism for me. If you go deep down in the levels of abstraction of the universe, you basically find just information, there's nothing really real there, its all interpretation of information, then something must interpret it for the computation to happens.
Symbols don't have meaning on their own, that's the basis of computation. That leads me to believe there's something akin to Universal consciousness, I don't even think there are separate consciousness, that fits perfectly with a mechanistic view in with the brain is just a machine processing symbols, the symbols have meaning, external meaning (that solves the problem with qualia).
Consciousness compute reality, not the other way around. You can call that consciousness God to make a translation table to the emotional BS of the religions, its funny you eventually end up there, logic is fallible and can't prove there's a God, but you can get closer and closer, but it still requires a leap of faith.
"a god that's good" is a childish idea. God just is, it is not good or bad, its above morals, literally, because its a God.
You know by your comment you just proved her point so you already lost the argument.
I love how J. Peterson's theology drives evangelical atheists crazy
Aside from all the problems of Christianity, Peterson has his own issues. Also Alex call’s Peterson an atheist not because he doesn’t believe in god but because it seems that he defines god as a person’s subjective total greatness and not the Christians objective tri-Omni being
Exactly! Many Christians tend to miss that detail.
@@andrewc1205they miss it on purpose. Cause they’re desperate to be relevant.
The tri-omini being is more of a logical construct of atomist philosophy, look for it, its older than Christianism. Greek philosophers where already pondering that about how the human minds seems to work as a collective of "your view of self", "others view of you", "your view of society".
Everyone MUST worship something? Can a christian not imagine "worship" is only a believer's malady?
yea, it's though theists just assume atheists to be people of different religion like their Islamic counterpart, when it is not at all in anyway, and even if we give them credit and say that atheism is just a different theistic framework, it would still make their point of moral standing just as wobbly, as it would then be a judgement of morality and conflicts between two religion where as we all know, theists or atheists or whatever else, that it is but relative morality argument, basically one upping the other with a more massive powerful and what have you authoritarian entity
My Aunt is going to die in the next half year, because of bloodissues. Pleas pray for her soul and body.
What is this “SOUL” of which you speak? 🤔
5:45 I’m immensely grateful to JP. In my opinion this is his constant battle and why he is disliked by some. The luciferian intellect takes over him from time to time.
Lucifer is one of God's many mistakes.
If not a mistake, it was either intentional or without forethought.
In any case God is a silly goose.
The problem of evil is a thorn in the ass of the Christians
God is at least high on ADHD…
Thanks for new playlist to listen to at work. Looking forward to seeing ur channel blow up
Asking "why" in relation to natural occurrences is what infants do, humans and puppies. Adult animals don't do that. And adult humans laugh at that endearing childlike tendency.
Best apologetic for Jordan Peterson’s beliefs and thinking that I have heard. She does a better job of explaining Jordon Peterson, than Jordan Peterson. However she gets most atheist wrong. As an atheist I do not value human intelligence that highly. Witness this video which is filled with intelligent sounding observations, claims and reasoning, yet reaches some absurd conclusions. There is nothing intrinsically sacred about human intelligence. But the problem is that as an atheist, since I believe there is nothing intrinsically sacred or supernatural, human intelligence for all its flaws is the best we have. She is right that mental health dies require movement towards something meaningful and useful, but she is wrong in saying that atheists must lack positive motivation. I am definitely motivated by observing all of the fallacies, inconsistencies and mischaracterizations of those she agrees with. Also I don’t believe that humans will ever discover all of the mysteries of the universe. I think there are observational problems as well as analytical issues which will continue to plague us, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying. There is your positive motivation. The biggest objection to religion I have is that it tends to close off the search for truth since most religions and especially Christianity believe in an apocalyptic outcome with their God entering into history at some point to save us from ourselves. The ultimate belief system for taking responsibility for yourself is atheism. Collectively we are the best masters of our fate, but only if we keep working at it and don’t give up because we think some god is going to intervene to save us. 😊
Excellent overview of JBP’s thought on the transcendent within the world and beyond it. Thank you!
I'm not sure why any thinking person would give heed to the imperfect opinions of some ignorant psychology professor. There are a handful of EXTREMELY wise sages currently on this planet who can logically and completely answer practically any question that an intelligent soul is likely to ask regarding morals and ethics.
The fact that Jordan supports men buggering each other (by which I mean, that he supports homosexuality and other criminal activities, such as the unnecessary consumption of poor innocent animals) is MORE than sufficient proof that he is not as religious as he claims, and that any decent, holy person ought to shun his inane teachings and flee into the loving arms of a teacher of Truth.
Furthermore, in a recent interview on Benjamin Shapiro's UA-cam channel, he admitted that his wife figuratively (and I'm sure also LITERALLY) wears the pants in his household. 👖
I would be more than pleased to provide you with links to the UA-cam channels of a few enlightened beings who will quickly set you on the path to perfection, as opposed to the DELUDED moral subjectivism professed by "Doctor" Peterson (pun not intended).
Please find below a couple of such ENLIGHTENED masters to which I referred above:
Professor Alan Watts
(now deceased, so he doesn't have his own UA-cam channel - just search for his videos on numerous extant channels)
Swami Sarvapriyananda
( ua-cam.com/users/vedantany1894
or search for "Vivekananda Samiti")
Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda
( www.youtube.com/@TheWorldTeacher )
So happy you resonated with it! 🙏🏻♥️
Immediate ad hominem going after his English accent as your opener. Nice one, very convincing.
False accusation, she did not go after his accent, she criticized his disingenuous appeal to the emotional to feign a question assumed already answered. He did this through a bit of theater that he knows full well played into his accent.
@@JB-mg5lw 0:29 "First of all just because you say 'what' in a fancy British accent doesn't mean your question was intelligent."
@@aleksjenner677 you know full well the rhetorical context in which he used that “what” and she rightfully called him out for it. Either address the issue honestly or don’t bother, not going to play games of sophistry.
@@JB-mg5lw Like you say, either adress the issue honestly or don't bother. Immediately going after his accent is not an honest way of adressing "the rhetorical context in which he used that “what”". It discredits her entire video.
@@aleksjenner677 "What?!" Are you on the spectrum? Or do you just intentionally miss social cues?
"we have to serve something" yeah its yourself, its just dressed up nicely. the easiest person to fool is yourself after all.
Without a methodology, everyone can claim to serve anything, do evil, define themselves as good, see the natural evils of the world, define them to be good. "the greater good" is what all dogmatists fight for, be them theist or atheist. "god is good by definition" just leads to "i am good by definition"
just like jordan "give em hell" peterson
How do you define something as good? Is it the sum of all good things we long for or is it the one which is best, in a self-sufficient sense? If it is the first one, then you are the reference point, and you define what good is? But, are we really so perfectly good in ourselves to define what is good and what is evil. No. So, we need to go with the second, the one who is good in its self-sufficient sense. But that infinite goodness has to be transcendant to us, because we are not infinite goodness ourselves. In that case, we simply let go, of our moral judgements. We radically accept ourselves and whatever happens. This does not mean that we have no intuitions about right or wrong, we have no reasons for doing them one way or another, or we have no desires or ambitions for our life, which is ultimately based on the particular traditions we come from, or the particular influences or choices we have made with our life, and how they arise again from our natural inclinations, but ultimately, we are constantly seeking to grow our intellect, so that we can conform ourselves to God's image, as best as we can, but even here, we ultimately surrender, and humble ourselves before God's hidden judgements, and live the best way we can, based on the choices we have.
@@melroycorrea7720 well there is a secular version (1) and a theist version (2) of the rise of subjectivity here.
(1) either the good is knowable, and we can know it, or it isnt, and we dont know it. If its knowable, we use ouer own intellectual capacities to determin it, If its not we cant do anything about it. Where "god" comes into the picture, is merely as dressup, one might be daoist and still hold to the same principles you or i mentioned in ouer respective comments.
In your picture, god is either an addition to your theory, and might be the origin point for morality as you see it, but then its merely your own preception and you adding it from your perspective rather then something that can be demonstrated to be true outside yourself.
In my picture we might not know, and Even If we "surreder" ouerselves to this hope of knowing, we merely surreder to "the way" (the dao) of knowing good, we cannot affirm it as an absolute.
So it seems to me by positing god, your saying more then you have grounds for positing by your own limited capacities. While i use daoism here to illustrate a point about not knowing, and not positing god, we can still get the same effect when it comes to the good and subjectivity.
(2) one can also Reverse the whole example, by positing god and assuming we either know his morality, or dont, If we know it, we can use it to judge the world based on the morality he gave us (lets use the bibles No killing rule). If we assume the rule is objective now, because we assume god is objective, and he gave us the rule, then we can judge everything based on this rule.
But If we turn to god himself and see the flood we notice him breaking the rule he gave us.
So now we have the choice to say "god did something wrong" (based on his objective morality), or "god is an exception to the rule" (which means ouer morality is diffrent then his), or "the rule has exceptions" (making it relative to some standard or thing (in this case gods standard, and god as person)
Notice how the last two examples mirror each other, suddenly we get one morality for us, and one for god, and we have to decide If we should use ouer morality to judge god or not. And Even If we shouldnt, we still have to deal with the paradox of ouer lesser morality, and not being able to emmulate gods morality.
These would be fundamental diffrent kinds rather then degrees of moral action, begging many questions, and making us unsure If we should be seen as "good", (by whos standard).
Both ways makes subjectivity arise, its just the diffrence between a unrigged subjectivity (which does not dress itself up) and a riged subjectivity given to us by gods commands. Either way we follow a morality that is diffrent then the supposed morality of the highest good. Begging the question why we dress it up as something more?
@melroycorrea7720 societies determine what is good, wrong, beneficial, and harmful. Every culture has a different standard of ethical practices, especially when you examine secluded tribes.
@@andrewc1205
Secluded tribes are in the back streets of Riverdale on the far south side of Chicago. Residents have a 1 in 39 chance of becoming a victim of violent crime perpetrated by the elderly knitting club.
@@DeadEndFrog Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response.
However, I still wish to give another perspective.
Basically, you said, that ultimately whatever we say about the good, it must end up as a subjective opinion or preference.
However, we need to acknowledge the truth, that we are not the source or end of existence, nor do we have an infinite intellect or an all powerful will, "like the Idea of God would have". To know, what is truly good, you have to be truly "like God" (refer the first temptation of human beings, mentioned in the creation story of Genesis 3:4-5), infinite in knowledge and good will. But, we are not.
That's where we get the idea, to make the act of surrender. Of course, we cannot know God or his will directly, so our surrender is directed to the Tradition which mediates God's will to us. No 'Tradition' is perfect, but atleast it is far greater and far bigger than our individual self. For example, the Catholic Church will claim, that it has an unbroken Tradition of 2000 years, and if, you count the Biblical time-period, you could easily add another 2000 years to it. And so, if I am a Catholic, I have the benefit of 4000 years of systematic moral reflection. No Tradition is perfect, but it is perfect in itself, by which I mean, it is consistent and it is capable of explaining everything pertaining our existence and in its ability to give an orientation to our lives. It also develops overtime as it encounters and responds to new challenges and problems in its environment. And so, when you commit yourself to a Tradition, you have the benefit of all that growth.
Of course, you can be syncretic and say, I will choose what suits me, at a given moment, sometimes Jesus, sometimes Dao, and sometimes Buddha, but then you lose the wisdom, the nuances and moral depth within each Tradition. It can make us and our society fragmented, superficial, inconsistent, individualistic and even narcissistic as we see this happening increasingly in the Western societies, despite all the other technological and scientific advancements it has achieved. It is also reflected in an individual's character and in choices, if one leave ourselves too open and subjective in our moral choices, and so, we have so many people who reach the top, without a character of any level of depth. At some point, you have plant your flag somewhere, I mean, to commit yourself to a certain Tradition. That of course, doesn't mean, you become rigid and intolerant towards people of other traditions. You learn from others, but you must also know that you stand somewhere and are committed to something bigger than yourself. Only then life has some substantial meaning and a hope that goes even beyond the grave.
I've nearly always considered atheism to be the religion of "no God".
Whatever we think or consider does not mean it is concordant with reality.
Because I have always considered boxingn't a sport, would this make my outlook (of non-belief) a religion?
You might reconsider what constitutes a religion, and if you do not recognise Zeus as the saviour, you know how it feels to be an atheist for at least one god.
Whatever you worship, whatever your highest value is, that's your god.
Gottfried Leibniz extrapolated from Aquinas that since God is good and immaculate, that this world must be the "best of all possible worlds". Voltaire's Candide was a scathing satire of this notion. While Voltaire was deeply cynical, he does issue a challenge to both Gottfried and Aquinas that needs to be addressed. How do we account for the imperfections, the suffering, and the horrors of this world, while taking it as evidence of the perfection and goodness of its creator? Aquinas essentially said that all is good even if we are not able to see it as so, but he didn't deny the existence of evil, nor of human imperfection. Alex O'Connor is sweeping over this complex conversation with a flippant dismissal of something Jordan said in a broader conversation.
God is by definition perfect - good being an attribute of perfection. Anything else that is not God is imperfect and thus will lack good to varying degrees.
The greater mystery is why would God create anything at all, because it would necessarily be distinct from him and thus imperfect, with all of the consequences that a lack of good will have.
@@jollypolly1686, greater or lesser degrees of perfection are not the same as imperfection or evil.
Loving God amidst pain and suffering is more perfect than simply loving God without any adversity. To anticipate the next question: The moral choices men make within time are by their nature everlasting, so the pain and suffering need not last forever for the good moral act to have eternal consequences. Likewise, the pleasure of sin will pass, but the choice to sin will remain.
@@seriouscat2231 Beings with greater or lesser degrees of perfection that are not perfect are by definition imperfect. Evil is an absence of good and imperfect beings lacking good to varying degrees make room for varying degrees of evil.
@@jollypolly1686 I'm not suggesting that Aquinas is wrong here, but that philosophy is a conversation throughout history (called "the Great Conversation" by philosophers). Jordan Peterson is participating in that conversation by offering up his ideas. Alex O'Connor is just "shooting down" Peterson's ideas by mocking them, misrepresenting him, or just outright dismissing him. In doing so, he is not participating in The Great Conversation. By raising real questions or challenges, that conversation can continue, and new truths can be discovered. O'Connor is just shutting the conversation down.
You're using the motte and bailey fallacy when it comes to Faith. JP equivocates on the concept of Faith. Faith and Reason are opposites. Reason is grounded in the inductive-empirical method through sensory reality. Faith is belief despite the evidence. Evidence is irrelevant. When you have faith you don't need reason.
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.” ― Martin Luther
Your understanding of faith and reason is Protestant. Try the Catholic view and see the difference.
Have you ever made a video/ thought about the contradiction of Free will and Omniscience? I've looked for religious people talking about this, but I can't find it.
You should see historyforatheists response to Alex on the Galileo affair.
He just doubles down on objectively false information
Will check it out!
@@ronifouks That site pretty much debunks New Atheist Bad History in general, especially mythicism and the so-called "dark ages"
@@paradisecityX0 JPs existence is probably the best indicator of how badly the new atheists kicked the asses of the general Christian establishment in the past 20 years. Dawkins, Hitchens (RIP), Harris, etc. weren't actually trying to prove God doesn't exist. They were trying to point out that Christians suck at making arguments for God. And they resoundingly succeeded at making this point. So much so that when the young generation of atheists that they created heard that Peterson was giving them a way to accept Christian principles without actually believing in God, they all leapt at the chance. Which is precisely why Jordan is popular among young people.
@danielcalderone473 atheists and skeptics of religious beliefs have always been slandered, vilified, or discredited. I believe the main goal of the New Atheism movement was to change the way people see atheism. It turned into a demonstration of how apo(ogists are terrible at making arguments for god. Re(igious Apo(ogists can't accept the truth of reality
It was Dawkin's smugness that finally put me off atheism, and started me back towards Christ. Dawkin's calling himself and other new atheists "Brights" was the final straw.
And Alex O'Connor is on video saying that he really wanted to believe in God, but God "didn't reach out to him". So I think he feels bitter and rejected, but to let God reach you, you have to shred your own ego, or so I'm finding out. O'Connor needs to realise this.
As for Peterson, as his wife was cured of a rare cancer with a 100% fatality rate, by praying the Rosary, I'm pretty sure that Peterson himself is trending Catholic, or Orthodox.
Pew research does not support your prayer claim.
Most atheists who have read the bible will certainly acknowledge the intelligence and the wisdom found in the bible. Where non-Christians have a problem is in the human ignorance found throughout and perhaps certain nonsensical concepts. This has caused even Christians to leave the faith. Even biblical scholars, such as Bart Erhman have left the faith, meaning knowing the bible and its history as well as he does wasn't enough for him to maintain his faith, where he ultimately left due the the problem of unnecessary suffering.
As humans, we can imagine things like the most good or the most anything that humans know they can't achieve and assert a Being much greater than us can have these attributes and assert such a Being exists. While the concept and the beliefs and religions that come with that concept can be very beneficial and possibly even necessary for our survival, there is nothing that can actually demonstrate the existence of any Gods/Goddesses.
Peterson can be rather vague to the point where people are asking does he really believe a God exists or like many of us, simply noticing the benefits from belief itself. Alex O' Connor usually does a good job of providing plenty of information to thoroughly understand his point, and his observations about Peterson are no different. Most atheists, including O'Connor include agnosticism as well because we understand the level of human ignorance as to not be so arrogant as to say God's don't exist.
Everything hinges on the claims of theists. Without those claims, agnostics and atheists would not exist. Because I don't find good enough reasons to believe the unbelievable claims of theists, I simply cannot share their belief yet. Even Alex O'Connor looks for ways to believe the unbelievable but good reasoning cannot get you there. Considering the amount of ex-theists, especially in areas where studying the bible and its history are required, it seems that even theists can't remain convinced upon learning what they have. Christianity being wrong doesn't mean no God exists. Theists finding reasons to leave the faith doesn't mean that no Gods exist. It simply means should any Gods exist, we simply don't have enough to mentally stay convinced if we look too deep.
There are certainly many parts of the bible that non-Christians can see as either true or potentially true, but due to the ignorance found in the bible, each piece must be evaluated on its own. The biggest problem the bible has is the most critical pieces of the bible that would produce belief can't actually be verified and is simply accepted as true by those who wish to believe. From my perspective, the bible appears written by humans for humans without the guidance of a higher intelligence. The writers certainly developed a good understanding of our human nature giving plenty of good advice in dealing with that nature. It would be ironic if the Christian God were the God and Jesus was actually the Savior because I think the writers did that message a disservice.
Too much to read.
Sometimes it's easy to subscribe to a channel
I worship nature, the sum total of everything, and consciousness. Give it what name you like. Debase or agree if you like. I can't be bought bartered bribed or Intimidated into changing that.
Wow I am actually impressed by this channel Subscribed.
Everyone fundamentally misunderstands Peterson's Language
Peterson fundamentally misuses language to say nothing and appear intelligent
I am sure JbP has the most difficulty.
Perfectly described
I am very sure that everyone in your life is enriched by knowing you. keep up the good work. God bless you.
This video is unimaginably biased i hope you can see that in your self
Everyone is biased. That's the main complaint against the atheists, that there is no absolutely objectivity. The question is, what is the outcome of your belief.
You just proved her point.
Ain't that the whole point? She's biased towards one form of god and you're biased towards another. She's aware and acknowledges her own bias, while you don't due to ignorance.
@@midi510 The question is, if confronted with your bias (always a negative thing for smart people), do you strive to fix it or do you grow proud of it?
@@Lerian_V
You have absolutely no idea what I believe or what my attitude towards my own bias is. My point was, that there are prominent atheists who say that they see things objectively, when they can't.
"Making fun of"
Way to immediately deter all the viewers you baited in by using Alex's name in the title.
Bad faith right from the start will do you no favors with the us.
I can only appreciate how everything is well put together. keep up the good work
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
I love the holistic approach and the will to expand far past donkey brained materialism Roni, but whether the events in the Bible really happened really does matter. If the biblical corpus is a merely human work (which appears to be true), we shouldn’t be basing our entire life paradigm/ethics/politics on it. It won’t work to recover meaning in the centuries to come bc humans are only gaining more knowledge. It’s unfortunate, but we must do the hard work to figure out a relationship with the transcendent that can be grounded closer to reality, rather than in stories that can be proven false with biology/archaeology/etc. I wish it were otherwise, but as a species we have to grow out of the Abrahamic paradigm if we’re to recover meaning in the coming millennium.
I agree with you. I wish I could see that actually happen in my lifetime. Not because it would fix things, but it would be interesting to witness. And fascinating to study.
@@isaiah95786 a lot of predictions are being made about religions developing around AI, and many regressing to worshipping nature itself. The kind and variety of these will likely be infinite and indeed be very fascinating.
@@BasedDialectics I don’t think religion will develop around AI. Or well maybe I just hope not.
If Luciferians are smart people and Jordy is NOT Luciferian, is Jordy a Dumbifferian?
JP just sounds crazy when he talks about anything else than his own field of expertise
Ive talked about this with my wife.
Dr. Peterson feels like all head, and no heart in his belief. He might believe the judeo-christian worldview to be the superior, but i dont know if he has created a version of the biblical God into an intangible philosophical idea and less like a being with a will for humanity.
The spirit of adventure. The characters of the bible all have parts that we all relate to and that thing shows God. I cant describe it necessarily. But his need to know and understand might be a stumbling block to the faith, the belief, or what we might traditionaly call Christianity.
In fact atheism isn't any kind of "belief" or a religion - it is just simply the "absence" of a belief.
The difference is that "true" believers will never be convinced that their faith is misplaced or false because they "need" to believe to function.
An atheist on the other hand "can" have his mind changed by being presented with "evidence" for the existence of deities / gods.
Atheists would "have to change their minds" whether they liked it or not because TRUTH matters!
Before this video I watched your video on woke culture in which you criticise the notion of replacing objective with subjective truth but you appear to do exactly the same in this video, am I misunderstanding? Could you clarify?
I don’t agree with all your points on religion but enjoyed your videos and subscribed and look forward to viewing future content.
"Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof? "
Nobody in the world knows the answer, there's nothing in physics or biology or any proof in the world. Faith is a matter of opinion and so it's a matter of choice. Why do you believe what you believe?
Impressive breakdown! You earned a sub
Dawkins "guiding light" is what gives you medicines and motors. Jordy's "guiding light" is "the story".
Actually the inventor of the motor was a pastor.
@greatscott369 What was his name? And, was he inspired by the Holy Spirit? I presume his design had the maximum energetic efficiency (Carnot cycle level best), and the materials of his motor had the best ever combination of metals (jet engine level best). All for the glory of the All-knowing designer, right? Anything less would show that God failed, yet again, right?
I agree with Peterson in many ways but not concerning Christianity.
The moment Paterson said "Give'em hell" it was clear he was not a real follower of Jesus precepts.
I also disagree with most Christians anyways.
The God of the Old Testament has nothing to do with the highest good of St-Augustin, Thomas of Aquino, Baruch Spinoza or Theilard de Chardin.
"I'm a Christian, but reject Christianity."
So, no, you are not a Christian.
We can't leave out the F. Spaghetti Monster.
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Can someone add time stamps please?
Done 👌🏻
@@ronifouks thanks!
@@ronifouks
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere.
The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
Cont...
Sam Harris is bang on the money when he speaks about the illusory nature of the self. It's hard to get one's head around the notion, because in one's rational exploration of such an idea, one is always firmly anchored in the sense of one's self, inasmuch as one is aware that one is making such a rationalisation, reinforced by all the sense detectors picking up stimuli from the outer (and inner) environment.
Harris' arrival at such a realization is no doubt a product of his many years of immersion in numerous meditative styles: Vipassana, Dzogchen etc. However, one can also arrive at such a realization (as Sam himself has stated many times) through the ingestion of a potent enough psychedelic, or one whose dose is sufficient to induce a temporary dissolution of the entire psychological sense of self. In such a scenario, one is fully conscious and aware of the experience being undertaken, but free of any limiting boundaries of the self and unbiased by the usual and unique identity filters that our internal sense of self imposes. Or to put it another way, one is there, but only to witness that there is no-one there.
I know this may sound like gobbledygook, but anyone who has experienced even one single event of ego death knows intuitively that the self is not 'real' in any meaningful sense of the word, it is literally a mask that one dons in one's life and then relinquishes at death.
In many respects, a lot of people who experience the vast eternity of egoless consciousness through psychedelics come to associate that unifying state with the concept of God. Which is why it is so essential to define exactly what one means by 'God' when one asks "do you believe in God?".
if in fact alex is interested in what he does not know why does he so seriously reject it
Because he's afraid that he might recognize it as truth. The sin of pride.
@@user-g38fib48
Is that different from judging someone you think is prideful?
Whether the truth claims of the existence of the Christian god-concept is real or not, real people enact react actions due to that belief. That in itself is worthwhile to study. That's what I suppose he would say.
Do you know what truth that the only truth told me was....both true believers and absolute haters would both be equally disappointed upon returning from their trip to the actual past. Its not how it happened for religious believers, and its not how it happened for evolution. The real events are not for us, never was meant to be.
Good morning Ms Fouks!! JP is a truth warrior , thank you mam, also you are very articulate and i enjoy listening to you
Thank you! 🙏🏻♥️
@@DonGilbertoGuruledeNuevoMejico it started that way for me too, until I heard the second sentence.
I am not interested in setving a god that intentionally puts his children in direct line of fire of the devil, and positions
himself as the solution to the probblem he created.
For all the Atheist that has a problem with what she said, you just basically proved her point so you already lost the argument.
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@jasonpalacios1363 For every bad argument there's always a simp to back it up
@@gravitheist5431 Man you Atheist/SJW turds are really stupid and this proves it.
Not knowing what an "atheist" is makes you lose the argument.
As an Atheist, I clicked on this video because I was sincerely interested in watching a well-formed critique. However, in the first minute of this video, the speaker both claims that O'Connor "fundamentally misunderstands Peterson's language" and then demonstrates that she herself fundamentally misunderstands what Atheism is. Atheism is not "the fervent belief in the non-existence of God" as Mrs. Fouks states. Atheism is the answer to one specific question: do you believe the claim that one or more Gods exist? If the answer is yes, then you are a Theist. If the answer is no, then you are an Atheist. As an Atheist I am not convinced that one or more Gods. Now, there is a subgroup of Atheism called Gnostic/Strong Atheism that does go further and makes the claim that no Gods exist. However, that is a subgroup of Atheists, not true of Atheists as a whole. I highly urge Mrs. Fouks to update and correct her understanding of Atheism if she wants to Atheists to find her arguments compelling.
` Atheism is not "the fervent belief in the non-existence of God" ` She doesn't misunderstands what atheism is, that definition of atheism is what she was arguing in her critique to the people criticizing JP's language.
She probably knows that, "Agnostics", aka atheists that don't believe in the non existence of God is not the problem or the focus of this discussion.
"However, that is a subgroup of Atheists, not true of Atheists as a whole." This subgroup is the vocal majority, its only fair that we don't care about the "weak atheists", no one cares about those.
@@luizmonad777 My friend, while I appreciate the response, I am only going to point out a few of the problems your response had. First, I urge you to rethink and update your views on referring to a group by way of only addressing a subgroup. Here is an example. I have no idea what your favorite NFL football team is, or if you even like the game of football. However, for this conversation, let us pretend you are a fan of the Detroit Lions. I say that the Detroit Lions are currently the worst team in the NFL. When you ask me why I have that opinion, I say to you, "In the five games that they have played, they have only made 2 of their 15 field goal attempts. Not only that, but they have missed 2 extra point attempts as well." When you say, "Your criticism is fair if you are specifically talking about the place kicker, but both the offense and defense units are playing well enough that the Lions are not the worst team in the NFL," my response is then, "Look at all the post-game shows. They are leading with the story of how many field goals and extra points the Lions have missed this season. The vocal majority are talking about this subject, so this criticism is valid for all the players on the Lions."
Criticizing the kickers on a football team is fair game; however, extending that same criticism to also include the entire team shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how a football team has different units. If someone wants to criticize Gnostic/Strong Atheism, that is fair game; however, extending that same criticism to Atheism in general shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Atheism is.
FYI: you also need to brush up on your understanding of Agnosticism. Agnosticism is not "Atheists that don't believe in the non-existence of God," as you put it. Theism/Atheism addresses a person's beliefs. If you believe the claim that one or more Gods exist, you are a Theist. If you do not believe that claim, you are an Atheist. Gnosticsm/Agnosticsm addresses the knowledge a person has. Knowledge and belief, while there is some overlap, are not the exact same thing.
I think you are misunderstanding Alex's whole point. He probably would even agree with most of what you are saying, that's the truly ironic thing
Nothing new here, just more theological rationalizations for more word salad.
U r a troll. U will never learn anything
You shallowness is showing, how about supporting your statement as opposed to employing the logical fallacy of argumentation through assertion. All your comment achieved was to demonstrate limited capacity.
@@JB-mg5lw my wall of books on philosophy, theology, academic biblical literature, linguistics, ancient history ( I can go on ) would disagree. At some point, you learn not to bother addressing arbitrary subjective claims. And instead just warn others to not waste their time. Interesting you mentioned "argumentation by assertion fallacy" lol good luck with that. I won't waste my time even addressing that non-sense when clearly stating " you shallowness is showing " in itself would be classified under argument by assertion. if you can't recognize the subjectivity in any of this, then you need to get out more and read more.
@@DarkBlood666 Your justification for your assertion is you have a wall of books. Perhaps next you should read them as you still have posited not a single cogent justification. All you provide is an excuse that everyone should accept your self professed credentials as enough to justify your statements sufficient to stand alone from your (implied) superior understanding. At this point I am comfortable in stating you are a silly person.
Wouldn't the accusation of shallowness also be considered subjective? If so Then wouldn't you be doing precisely the same thing that your criticizing?
You keep missing the point , good effort though .
What did this thinking lady miss?
@@BoldlyUnfiltered-g2l
She's not the only one
Peterson said " the god the atheists are dispensing with is not the god portrayed in the biblical texts " . She followed up with an explanation that he doesn't answer the question ( Do you believe in God ? ) because he doesn't want the questioners definition of god foisted upon him , in a sort of gotcha way , that in itself is an acknowledgement that there is a wrong or misleading definition of god out there that isn't being pushed by the people asking the question .
Peterson says he is often asked if he believes in god and he doesn't like the question etc , why isn't his answer " of course I do !" and let that be the start of the conversation , in the same way he says there isn't a skybutler, god is more like an enacted mode of being in the world .
If you really want to know what Jordan Peterson thinks god is , ask him what an atheist is , and if you want to know what the man who coined the word " Meme " and who fully understands what a Meme is ,ask Richard Dawkins " Do you believe Meme's are true ?"
I watched an hour and a half video that almost broke out into a conversation when Peterson and Dawkins started talking about Meme's .The whole point of them meeting and why Peterson wanted to talk to Dawkins was to explore the Meme and embedded metaphors .
As ideas or concepts, metaphors are themselves memes ,the ability of one meme to be more or less successful than another partially depends on the metaphors embedded in the meme.
Dawkins states Peterson is drunk on symbols again in their latest conversation - at the same time the while wearing a DNA/helix tie.
Isn't part of the basis of Western philosophy, that Aristotle elaborated is that ideas have hierarchies and the natural world is only shadow of, a reflection of those ideas? Did Dawkins not take philosophy 101?
Yeah Peterson couldnt be more conservative approaching what it would be called authoritarian conservative.
I do believe the Bible can contain deep psychological truths but I don’t think you can be a true Christian without also believing the literal interpretation
What about Bishop Barron’s comment about the 4 ancient Christian ways of interpreting Scripture?
@@Observer-g6m if I’m being honest I don’t know why the literal sense is listed with the other three as if it’s a separate way of interpretation. The moral sense, allegorical sense and anagogic sense all rest on the foundation of the literal sense. The Bible reads completely differently if it’s not to be taken literally and I don’t think people who read the Bible without any literal interpretation would usually identify as a Christian.
I think Alex believes Jordan to be theist, rather than atheist.
But how do you know God is the highest good without first using your intellect?
This is not about knowing we are the smartest or anything of the sort, but to start with some logical axioms and build from them.
Our intellect is limited, but if you mean our intellect as our ability to comprehend stuff, then you are just saying that God is the highest good without knowing what that even means. So you don't have to worship your ability to understand stuff, you test it through generating other thoughts and speaking to other people.
I don't think you are very smart (generally) if you think that by being smart the world would be at your feet, because clearly then your intellect is not working good into telling you how the world works.
"But...."
"...I don't think you're very smart."
Do you comprehend Irony?
@@bobSeigar lol, good one.
How do you define something as good? Is it the sum of all good things we long for or is it the one which is best, in a self-sufficient sense? If it is the first one, then you are the reference point, and you define what good is? But, are we really so perfectly good in ourselves to define what is good and what is evil. No. So, we need to go with the second, the one who is good in its self-sufficient sense. But that infinite goodness has to be transcendant to us, because we are not infinite goodness ourselves. In that case, we simply let go, of our moral judgements. We radically accept ourselves and whatever happens. This does not mean that we have no intuitions about right or wrong, we have no reasons for doing them one way or another, or we have no desires or ambitions for our life, which is ultimately based on the particular traditions we come from, or the particular influences or choices we have made with our life, and how they arise again from our natural inclinations, but ultimately, we are constantly seeking to grow our intellect, so that we can conform ourselves to God's image, as best as we can, but even here, we ultimately surrender, and humble ourselves before God's hidden judgements, and live the best way we can, based on the choices we have.
I’d respect and love Harris even more if he were simply a materialist and not a Buddhist⚛️❤
Great video, thx
♥️♥️♥️
I also think Jordan, and Weinstein might assume that culture as an epigenetic concept perpetuates the best ideas... I think they perpetuate the most popular ideas-- I think there's often an influence in history very clear the cynical lens. The last 70 years or so have perpetuated a lot of foolish cultural ideas based on technological memes (temes).
Volume sounds low.
@Roni Fouks As a Marxist, i agree with you on some things, like the idea that religion is needed in the world
This video will hit 1 million views, and maybe even more. You did a great job in helping deconstruct his profound ideas on for me. Thanks.
It's up to you if you're going to make videos showing yourself on camera or not. Hence don't take it as men do force to do so or something like this.
O'connor is untouchable while Peterson is indefensible. You're just trying too much.
You didn't bother watching, did you? To understand deeper meaning, you have to "try too much", you can't have deeper meaning just shoved down your throat.
@kuolkarlpeterskuol6634 "Peterson is untouchable while O'Connor is indefensible. You're just trying too much.", same rhetorical effect
Except that O’Connor himself admitted he was wrong in his assessment of Peterson in this video, he said so to Peterson in his interview with him. And also admitted that he now understands Peterson’s position better after talking to him.
@@gentlemanbronco3246 why do you want deeper meaning
Only available via exploration. The Socratic method fails here. @@holahola6860
Well…. You tried 🤷♂️
There are tradition before Christianity atleast where you find the same thing that BEING/EXISTENCE is GOD.. why do you think that judeo Christian traditions are the only one who talk about this.. Have you read other traditions.. Vedas also define God as BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS, BLISS..
How is it that you think that it is the speciality of Judeo Christian viewpoint..
Awesome. My take is what you believe and how you believe in god ultimately is a reflection on you. The 2001 film AI captures this perfectly. A big driver of your beliefs is your emotions and desires. An example of this is if your commercially minded your likely going to want to bless your goods and desire high returns on them. One thing I struggle with is free will. I think it's a complicated subject that is central to Christianity. But I think we respond to things based on our inner image and programming or genetic disposition. I think the film a beautiful mind John Nash talks about governing dynamics or how I see it our choices are driven by events and previous events and our mind set. Choice is an illusion that exists somewhere between that. Please correct me or share your thoughts on free will. I think double slit experiment is a tricky one with many ideas around it but Richard Dawkins talks about something's are so sensitive that they can impact the outcome by doing the experiment like measuring pressure in a car tyre effects overall pressure in tyre. But we like to think more that it's us that can make the universe in split in two with the power of our mind. Please share your thoughts. Love your work.
There are so many problems with this video. From the title (Alex interviewed Peterson. He didn't debate him.), to the end of the video, where you clearly don't know what Atheism means.. A lack of "blind faith" is not "blind faith".
This video's sloppy at best, and dishonest at worst.
You are going to show… anyone can show its mass and call it existential…
Oh please. Giving that grifter Peterson more attention then he deserves.
Truth means "consistent with reality". Ideologies are all lies... Including yours
That's stupid. Ideologies can be true. I hold the ideology that the Earth is a spheroid. That ideology agrees with reality
@@enammemberseptember7366 that's not an ideology though... It's an objective truth based on reality. An ideology starts with the conclusion desired, then tries to connect it to reality. Basically, ideology has "sacred beliefs" which are presupposed as objectively true. Example: If you presuppose that men and women are the same (false, they are different), then transgenderism (the ideology that logically follows the false presupposition) would be sound and objectively true. If men = woman, then there's no sex, only gender (expression) and it's 100% a social construct.
But the actual reality is that men and women are different... Just like some men are different from other men.
If you want the truth and not just blind faith. You need to go through your own "sacred beliefs", aka something you would die before ever changing your mind.
An ideologue, is someone who believes that their sacred beliefs are true and consistent with reality. Faith is merely when one ignores accrual reality and operates in the ideological worldview. Faith is essentially willful ignorance and should never be seen as a virtue. Faith actually ends up being a false virtue to stop true believers from experiencing cognitive dissonance. They can just virtue signal to themselves by staying loyal to the ideology. Faith is a psychological, cultural, "spiritual" and societal control mechanism/concept.
Ever argued about God with a true believer? There's nothing you can say to convince them they are brainwashed and wrong. That's the beauty of brainwashing... The one who is brainwashed (or ideologically captured) doesn't know they are brainwashed. You can't convince them they are brainwashed because their mind is operating in a closed system worldview, their very faculties of logic and reason, compromised by false "sacred beliefs"...
Oh you want to challenge the sacred beliefs right? Guess again... You will only get them to double down, stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la la"...
The only way to change a mind is to change their social, cultural and spiritual environment. Much like getting an addict off drugs/alcohol/porn/etc. you can't just take away their desire... You need to remove them from the toxic environment that lead them to being addicts... That means you got to get rid of their shame, their bad friends/group/partner and start rebuilding meaningful relationships that will lead to them finding a purpose in life other than their next fix.
Food for thought
Which is why the church funded scientific research and taught children to read and write.
What a brilliant woman you are!!
Sexy and intelligent also !!!
In the beginning
I am that I am
Created that which is
From that which is not
The spirit of
I am who I am
Moved on the depths
Of the formless and void
Moving by spirit
The essence of pattern
The image of existence
Onto which all things
Kinds and likenesses
Are called to map
All meaning and purpose
I am what I am
Spoke in fractal terms
The geometric shapes of
All things real, material
Being the observer
Collapsing the wave
Of non being function
Of all created things
Kinds and likenesses of being
In the simultaneity of the pattern
Of being
I am that I am
Divided light from darkness
A cosmological constant
Of darkness moving
Faster than light
And light moving
At least time
Through the pattern
Now known as the face
Of the deep
I am that I am
Thus created by moving
Speaking and observing
Calling to meaning
Dividing time-space-energy
To form the kinds
Likenesses and images
Of all being
I would say, (men) kids (the people of my age) those of 20 years old or whatever (though regarded as adults maybe across the whole world) as well as adults (who are much older than that extent of...) can be at problem(s) with when a lady makes videos like..., and it's natural to get attracted. But it's a problem.
(I'm not talking about like don't make videos; you can continue doing by simply avoiding showing yourself. The most important thing is that it's not something about which I'm just talking about in a vacuum. Rather, it's what which the life goes with in ours day to day life, where women got abused or whatever in many ways (in little to much disgusting ways) let's say.
I am from Asia and dont know much about Christianity. But i dont understand the obessession of Israelis when you are a Christian from America or West in general. Any flaws Isreali displays everyone seems to discard it completely.
JP isn't an atheist, but Alex is right to call him out for how much he dodges the question about his beliefs when directly asked.
Look, let's be blunt. There is no such thing as magic or the supernatural. No one ever was born of a virgin, walked on water or rose from the dead. The description of a Jesus with these superpowers is as ridiculous as Santa and his flying reindeer.
There is no. such. thing. as. magic.
However, when taken as metaphor, as JP explains very well, there is value and wisdom to be gained about how to live in these myths. The problem with JP is he pushes Christianity but won't own up to the fact that if Jesus didn't resurrect (he didn't) then Christianity is false. It's as if he knows it's false but wants people to believe in it anyway. There is something suspect about how he talks about the religion. It seems like he doesn't believe in it literally but doesn't want anyone to know because he knows how much spooky nonsense Christians actually believe and he doesn't want to offend them.
Yeah it's just as stupid as believing in aliens and evolution. Yeah l get what you're saying. They're both stupid and should not be taken seriously. Like the hoax of the moon landing and dinosaurs. Fuck it all. It's all nonsense
“Spooky nonsense”
Oh the irony!! Listening to militant atheists pontificating about ultimate “TRUTH” and “SPOOKY NONSENSE” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!!
Furthermore, listening to strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists pontificating about ultimate “TRUTH” and “NONSENSE” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ultimately meaningless HOLLOW AND SOULLESS, OVERGROWN AMOEBAS WITH DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR is as entertaining as watching someone trying to thrash the front of his car with the branch of a tree in order to BEAT IT INTO SUBMISSION!
It's very Basil Fawlty like at times and very Monty Python like at times! But without the comedy value!
CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect!!
@@Promatheos Magic helped an Israelite general when God couldn't. 1 Samuel 28
So, I think you are wrong in your bible knowledge.
God is the Prime Mover: the uncreated creator of all that is and source of all that lives -- the eternal force behind the laws of physics and probability.
Usually atheists have an invisible old man in the sky in mind
But not the God of the Bible. That guy has been ruled out by critical thinkers.
Every decent philosophical argument for a god does not conclude which god created the universe. Every religion just inserts their god into that gap.
Still, that doesn't solve the problems with other philosophical arguments that disprove gods existence. I recommend Majesty of Reason for better understanding.
@andrewc1205 The strawman/parody of that God has been ruled out by critical thinkers and believers alike.
God created the universe, not a god.
No philosophical arguments have ever once disproved any god's existence-- strawmen/parodies of them, sure.
Not impressed by Majesty of "Reason" (anybody with a self-congradulating stage name is not to be taken seriously). Graham Oppy is more substantive.
Better yet, how about you describe the God you don't believe in -- odds are l don't believe in that strawman/parody god either.
How do you feel about the secular scholarly consensus of Yahweh being a deity from the Canaanite Pantheon? How much of the Hebrew bible (Old Testament) do you believe is actually history versus myth/legend?
I assume you are aware of the historicity of the Biblical writings. How do you determine the authenticity of scripture, knowing how late most of the letters and gospels were written?
Do you understand how the gospels evolved in supernatural claims, from Mark to John?
Do you believe the claims of witnesses to the resurrection are accurate?
When you read the New Testament scripture, do you notice the use of a third-person narrative and how that affects the authenticity of certain situations?
If you believe in hell, or any afterlife, answer these questions:
What is consciousness without a functioning brain? There are no conclusive studies that prove consciousness remains after complete cessation.
What is pain or suffering or any emotional response without a physical body to experience these things? Emotions and pain are processes/experiences that require a functioning central nervous system and chemical responses in the body.
What are memories without a functioning brain to store and retrieve the information? We know memory loss affects millions of people and has many causes. These memories are not backed up in the cloud to be retrieved upon death.
What are the 5 senses without the organs that are required of them to work. A soul would lack all the necessary physical components needed to sense the universe around it.
Retinas are required for vision.
A tempanic membrane is necessary to hear.
Nerve endings are necessary for sensing touch.
What is a spirit/soul without any of the above? Can you prove consciousness survives beyond our physical bodies?
Can you prove the Christian god exists beyond the scripture?
What is heaven or hell without these senses?
I have never witnessed anything supernatural or divine. This tends to be more present in people with excessive visual or auditory imagination (aka hyperphantasia / hyperauralia).
@paradisecityX0 what are your thoughts on a soul or afterlife?
If consciousness exists beyond the physical mind, what would it do?
A soul would lack all the necessary physical components needed to sense the universe around it.
Retinas are required for vision.
A tempanic membrane is necessary to hear.
Nerve endings are necessary for sensing touch.
A healthy brain in necessary for memories.
What is a soul without senses, emotions, and memories?
O'Connor is totally insufferable and incredibly dogmatic
both tbh
@@IsaacWyatt-z8j Haha true
I mean I watched him with Justin Brieley recently on the seen unseen podcast and I disagree with your sentiment
You may disagree, but why is he "insufferable"? He is very articulate, well informed and his arguments are logical.
Is that what you find insufferable?
@@kjetilknyttnev3702 Nah, O'Connor is a dogmatic materialist married to his physicalist views, and his positions on anything spiritual are poorly-formed and childish at best.
to me , it’s as though i had lost three CHILDREN : i lost 3 rabbits in three days ! i'm abominable sinner, that's why : i wish i had never existed ! i don't want to exist ever since they went to Heaven : i'm a monster : i feel guilty: i don't see the point of living without rabbits : i lost the three loves of my life : my progenitors won't adopt bunnies : life without bunnies, oh no, HORRIBLE !!! wha a sadness to not have bunnies ! i miss them ! i want them to be with me ! the worst is yet to come : now the r and d say they're going to DESTROY , MURDER my hens and dog: again because of my infame sins : oh NO, NO:: Maker , have mercy on my hens !!!! it's depressing losing your animals !! my rabbits and animals are my sole reason to live i think : i think i ain't got nothing else, no one else : empty house without rabbits :
room, living- room, therasse without caytlin, amanda and crystal my three rabbits : i think i should be in hell and they should be on the earth !! they were INNOCENT, they have NOT sinned !!! I have sinned !!! i'm the one who did bad stuff against the Maker and the curse went on my animals, not on me ?? i feel like my animals got PUNISHED , not me : i've been unjust, not the Maker: he's just : i wish i had never done all these abominations so that crystal, amanda and caytlin would be alive: i want to see you, pet you, look at your beautiful eyes, my fauve de bourgogne rabbit, my mini rabbit and my lop ears rabbit but i can't: i want to hug you, kiss you, i can't: i feel like i'm a zombie without my bunnies : i'm worried about my hens and doggy: WOW !!! the terrible revelations messages from the r and d for my hens and dogs:
scary, HORROR !!!! i think i should ve never existed if i destroy all my loved ones with my sins, causing their death , illness, suffering : horrible things the r and d say they're gonna do to my animals very soon : i want to kick the bucket : i think i should've never existed : everytime i sin strongly, terribly, one or several of my animals die : when will the Maker chastise ME and not my animals ?? the day i don't have animals no more ..... / i want animals !!!!! more than all things!!! i think the animals are the SOLE stuff i want !!!! i think i can NEVER be happy if i don't have animals !!!!
i think that Maker does not chastise me but my animals : i mean he takes away from you the most important, the most valuable thing you think you have : to me, the most IMPORTANT thing are my animals: that's the reason why when i do something ultra bad, the Maker makes pass away one or several of my animals : this time it was the WORST SIN i've ever made ?? for it was not one or two animals , but THREE animals in three days: no wonder why r had said at the same time or simultaneously : i get why they said that : it meant three DEATHS , three SICKNESS at the same time : three sick animals FOR NO REASON , SUPERNATURALLY, at the same time :
on top of that, the r said 3 weeks : now one week has passed : what ? they didn't say the whole say : two weeks for what ?? the DEATH of my hens , or dogs, burned live jennifer ( hen ), fighting to death chelby, brianna and brittany ( hens ) ? shortly after, kylie can't pee and passes away ( dog ) : oh NO , if only i had never been , if only i had never had a life !!!! all this is two or three weeks or a bit more ???? i want to cease living !!!! they must have suffered HORRIBLY !!! how caytlin suddenly screamed , of pain probably, ultra loudly : SCARY !!! and a day after, how amanda would scream, again and again, having convulsions , moving his head ultra fast , putting it ultra on the back, again and again, doing little screams again and again, his legs so hard, so tense, mega extended, wow, he would move and move :
oh poor him ! all this because of my sins ! HORRIBLE seeing this !!!! i wish it had been me , not him ! increible that amanda died one hour after i think, not right away when all this was happening : and then putting his body normal, then moving his body again , his legs mega fast, wow : and crystal couldn’t put his head normal, he was so weak : he would simply put his head on the floor, powerless, without strength : all this because of my sins : farewell everyone ! i can't take it no more : thanks for all
i need to seek the help of Maker and born again christians : but even if i beg pastors to pray for me to stop sinning, for me to stop massacring every single beloved animal i adopt , i CAN NOT stop sinning : i think i'm like these high level murderers: all i do is destroy : that's why i think i deserve to die : i think i MUST de , for if i carry on living and i adopt animals, they will all DIE as newborn animals, i'm sure: i sin so much , so terribly, that they wouldn't last not even one week, poor them !
their destiny would have been different if they had been adopted by someone who is NOT a monstrous sinner unlike me : they would 've lived 10 years, not 2 and 1 year, my adored bunnies : these bunnies were EVERYTHING to me : these hens and dog are MY ONLY loved ones : my only reason to be : or i can live for the rest of my life not adopting any animal but what a SAD life without any animal , too DEPRESSING, oh no, i think i CAN NOT live without animals :
i'd be like a zombie, always depressed and sad : i think i must sacrifice myself for my animals : anyway, i don't want to live since the Maker wants me to become his and get pregnant and have sexual intercourse and i'm virgin, with phobia of sexual intercourse : i'm anti pregnancy and anti sexual intercourse : thus, since this is very soon according to the messages from d and r , in october and december 2024, i think all i have left to do is join the majority ( die ) : what else can i do ?
hell is horrible : wow, poor persons there !!! i don't want to get devoured by 15 cm worms, spiders: i don't want to BURN, you can't breath in there: there's no water, you're TOO THIRSTY : but i DESERVE hell : i've been TOO WICKED to animals and men all my life : a vegan that murders all my animals , wow, false vegan i suppose !!!!!! to me , these animals ARE MY CHILDREN, my BABIES !!!!!! i DO NOT want to destroy the destiny, DESTROY the destiny, of holy little animals that i ADORE !!!! poor little dogs !!! my porgenitor is about to adopt two dogs: OH WOW, i'm too afraid for them poor little things , adorable little angels !!!!!!!!!!!!!
i CAN NOT get rid of my sins !!! hatred, wrath, evil thoughts, evil wishes : i beg you Maker, curse me, NOT my animals and future animals !!! i beg you Maker, destroy ME, NOT my animal angels !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i think i should not adopt any animal but just go see animals in ethical places such as pedagogic farms , hoping that they treat animals well there : but it's NOT the same than living with the animals, and being able to pet them, kiss them, see them, look at their beautiful faces and bodies and eyes, hugg them , whenever you like : i don’t see the point of living without animals and rabbits : i think that i see the point of living SOLELY with animals and rabbits : why living if you don’t have animals or bunnies ?? i think the only reason why i should get up in the morning is my animals and rabbits if i had some : i think i do NOT find any meaning in life ever since caytlin, crystal and amanda passed away : i think i can NOT find any meaning in life without animals and rabbits : i don’t want to do anyting ever since they went away : i don’t want to eat : i don’t want to exist : i don’t want to adopt and then die : if i adopt 5 animals = the 5 die : if i adopt 3 animals = the 3 die : if i adopt 10 animals = the 10 die : STOP !!! i don’t want to do this : this tourments me : i’m horrified : all this agony of my animals, all these deaths, because of my sins : WOW !!!! and yet i desperetedly wish to adopt PLENTY of animals !!! i think i’ve lost all will to live ever since my rabbits went to Heaven : i think i’m like a zombie now : for the joy to come back, the life to come back, for me to feel alive again, i NEED rabbits : but not for them to die 4 days after i had them : !!!!!! NOOOOO !!!! r said in my head : attack on the hens : they have one- two weeks left to live ?? what do i do ?? then my dog when , in 3-4 weeks ?? zero animal mega soon ??!!! in less than 30 days, i go from having 5 animals to 0 animal ??!!??!!??!! : i think life without animals is HORRIBLE, i think it’s NOT life at all : !!!!!
i don’t see the point in living if i do not have animals or rabbits : i think i don’t see the point in doing anything ever since my rabbits left me : what’s the point in existing if it’s without animals or bunnies ?? i think i see no point in doing nothing anymore ever since i lost my rabbits : i think that my only reason to live was my animals : i think that i ‘ve lost everything : i think that my life is MEANINGLESS without my bunnies and animals : i think i am fed up with this life without rabbits : i don’t want to live any longer , without animals or rabbits : i just wanted to make my rabbits happy : i just want to give happiness to rabbits : but i DO NOT want to murder any animal anymore !!!! i think i’ve lost interest in everything : i think i don’t enjoy anything anymore : i think i force myself to do everything now : i think i can’t be interested in anything any longer : i don’t know why i remain alive : i think i do not want to remain alive : i just force myself to do all the things a human daily do such as eating, brushing my teeth, going to the toilet, taking a shower , ect : i think that nothing in the world is more important to me than animals : i wish it hadn't happen : i think the worst is living without rabbits for the rest of my life , for my progenitor won't give me rabbits : what a depressing life i'm going to have without my rabbits and without rabbits
Very interesting 😊.
WHY, o WHY is British (London)accent fancy?
Just propagandas. Itis the same as all other accents.
Is British manchester fancy?
Yes it is
You are intelligent. And my god so cute !!
I’m afraid I can’t take anyone seriously that takes JP seriously
He's correct about a lot of things and wrong about a lot of things. But at least he's not troll like U.
Love the irony of your comment showing just how unserious a person you likely are.
Very cute of you to call me a troll.
Not sure how I could be one, when I’m simply stating facts
I guess I’ve struck a nerve with Jordy Boys 😢
Why?
Up until fairly recently christianity was not thought of as symbolic but as the word of god. Now that science has shown that the word of god as contained in the bible is not the word of an intelligent, all knowing being has the need for the argument that the word of god was meant to be symbolic, come to the fore.
I once heard this, and it really resonated with me: "Believe in God, and understand yourself-not the other way around."
The most I living, the more I see that, people was born with silver spoon in they mouth, are those that use to follow atheism… but when problems in they life come , when the darkness of the night come , when money is gone, the sickness appears and the pains come to they lives , like a miracle God come… because God is the only that can give us the true piece!!
Matthew 11:28 , come to me , all who are weary and heavy-laden , and I give you rest .
Like you did say “ philosophy of atheism nihilism are liked with depression hopelessness and an unrelenting anxiety”… true!!!
If we don’t have faith in God , we will need to find something to worship … as Hollywood star , drugs , alcohol , promiscuity and so on!!
Nice video lady!!
Coffee. Until you try recaffeinating, you haven't lived.
Circular logic, I choose you!
You seem with the Alex. haha
God is dead, and we killed him... so who cares?
Yes you can make an ought from an is, you just gotta decide life over no life. Everything follows from that without the need for God.
"You can make an ought from an is, you just have to make an ought from an is. Everything follows from that without the need for God." - fixed that for you
@@imbrokeplshalp life is not an is, it's very rare in the universe and it can die easily
@@PepitoSbezzeguti it's an ought because it's rare and can be lost?
in more words: the universe created life after billions of years of preparing the raw ingredients. In this sense, it's an ought that was there before life and therefore it's not derived from an is. In addition, life is the only thing that can design and support islands of reduction of entropy in the universe, so one could decide we ought to preserve it and therefore generate an ought from an is as a personal moral compass.
@@PepitoSbezzeguti your ought is that we must preserve what the universe prepared to create for billions of years. Or that we must preserve something because of its unique features. The "is" of life is just what you apply them to. And your ought of preserving life is derived from the two (or however many) "oughts". I agree, you can use this as a personal moral framework. But it is not making an ought from an is.
He
I was on a walk and I started thinking, how do I define God?
My answers were on the line of:
That which restricts knowledge,
That which blinds the senses,
That which intercepts truth,
That which devours purpose,
The devil whom you sell your soul to.
What is this “SOUL” of which you speak? 🤔
@@TheWorldTeacher I leave that up to your interpretation, but for me I guess it would be some combination of the four statements above that one.
Such an off-putting way to start the video. Also, why is this video being reacted to rather than the actual conversation they had after this video was made?
😊🤗💖🙏🏋🦁🦬🌼🌴🌻
Thank You , Roni Fouks , Blessings Always ,
,,so God and i walk into a Room ,
there is a Birthday Party going on ,
so , we talk here and there and some people ask Me ,
Who are You , and ask about My Friend beside Me ,
So i Tell them , o Yes , that is God ,,
Romans 8:19 English Standard Version ,
Sons and Daughters , Chosen Ones ,
For the creation waits with eager ,
longing for the revealing ,
of the Sons and Daughters of God.
Prayer for All :
,,,, Abba Father i belong to you ,,,,
Gods Blessings in The Lord Jesus Christ ,
😊🤗💖🙏🏋🦁🦬🌼🌴🌻