What did he mean by this?

holy kek

Likely that Peterson and Harris have different stances on what essence, or a definition of essence ought to entail (or something of that kind/of that ontological ilk) and they spent a bunch of time trying to get a higher level conversation off the ground but couldn't because of this foundational difference

Peterson isnt an atheist

I know, I was referring to dawkins&co

i dunno man, maybenthey're tired of the people beheading each other in the name of skydaddy and they really don't think the comfort of the ignorant is a worthy gain in exchange for the sacrifice of human life at the altar of religious fervour.

yuck

>tear ducks

do you have an original thought in your head or do you just regurgitate reddit memes

hey, i don't believe what they say anyway, i have gven my life to christ. but to pretend not to know why atheists push so hard is an act that makes you seem like a prick with no capacity for empathy.

Fuck you Harris, release the damn thing already.

>Hit ontological roadblock.

This is what it always comes down to, isn't it? Those I am at odds with can and will never resolve things or convince the other of superiority because we're subscribing to different ontologies (well, except I always do win because mine works and doesn't lead to personal dissolution).

when will this be out? the episode

he's really saying "I'm a sophist, ttyl"

...

checked

Episode will be released probably next week. Also, why do the mods always delete Peterson threads?

>tear ducks

jordan peterson is a christian

How are those 2 mutually exclusive. and how the fck does that lead to the existence of God being true.

can someone explain to me how does Peterson prove God is real or whatever. I've watched all his recent videos and from what I've gathered he's not a Christian in the literal sense(he hinted at this on that video where he cries and the joe rogan podcast). JP is what some conservative people in the UK call themselves as atheist Christians, as in they don't actually believe in a supernatural entity, they just think Christianity shaped our society and the stories in the Bible are just allegories/metaphors for some philosophical or psychological idea.

its time to stop posting

because we aren't discussing Maps of Meaning enough.

>i sincerely don't understand that non-religious people dislike people getting their heads cut off by religious nuts, and would like for it to stop

No. The whole point of Faith is that it does not require proof.

In the case of Islam I'm totally ok with them cutting each other's heads off.

sure. but it's unfair to peterson to put harris on his level.

Believing in something without prof is for weak minded people. Still doesn't change the fact that I think that JP is actualy a atheist Christian, not an actual Christian

Jesus you're retarded. Do you actually think that if we got rid of religion all the worlds problems would go away? You're clearly underage so let me just offer some advice. Stop going on r/atheism and preaching about it like you're some kind of new age genius because you don't believe in God. Get off Veeky Forums. Read some books.

>Believing in something without prof is for weak minded people.
Cool belief. Do you have proof to support it?

>implying i'm not religious
>insinuating that my point is to convince some argumentative faggot on Veeky Forums that god doesn't exist

you're wasting your time. all i was doing was responding to someone who didn't seem to understand the underlying reasons that drive an atheist. they think religion is bad, son. they don't like badness. they see religious acts at worst as atrocities in the name of something that doesn't exist, and at best, silliness that comes at the cost of these atrocities as a whole. whether or not you can deal with atheistic views is of no consequence to me, but to pretend as though atheism, when viewed from the aspect of saving people from say, being blown up in the name of Allah, for example, or having their genitals mutilated in the name of the covenant, is not somehow at least noble in its love for the fellow man, is fucking idiotic and stubborn at best.

Exactly the opposite. Like, exactly

shit on lmao

>retarded Veeky Forums neet thinks he's smarter than college professor

Not sure how it is exclusive of each other, but that was just a guess based on what I know of these two without having seen the video. While Peterson is a christian, I'm not sure he believes in a personified God or redemption in the sense that you soul is saved and live eternally. In one of his video where he talks about christian redemption he doesn't seem to believe in God but seems to force his Jungian interpretation unto the new testament... so I think you're right about him being an atheist christian.

>tear ducks

>opinions are the same as belief regarding what is factual

I may be horribly wrong but what I get from passively listening to a few of his lectures is that he has this idea that certain universal truths are embeddened in our unconscious and expressed in the bible and other world religions and stories and that these truths come from God

>>Believing in something without prof is for weak minded people.
Pic related is you

Do you have proof you aren't dreaming right now?

I think he thinks the truths come from a Darwinian drive to survive and propagate.

Peterson want to resurrect the Father, dumb dumb

Perhaps the Darwinian drive comes from God

>how the fck does that lead to the existence of God being true
That is not his objective. He does not believe in a personal god or anything of that nature. He views religion as an importance to that contains universal truths about humanity. He likes Christianity due to its cultural contributions to the West. In one video, he states that he is not an atheist anymore but he does not like at the world with a materialist point of view. He has meta-belief, he embodies Christianity as if it were true but does not believe it is real in the materialist sense.

This belief probably comes from Joseph Campbell's writings on belief and religion. Honestly he should read post modern theology and have a more defined system for his belief in Christianity.

so he actualy is an "Atheist Christian"

>(well, except I always do win because mine works and doesn't lead to personal dissolution).

lmao.

it's always both parties telling themselves the exact same thing at the end. don't you get this?

>Believing in something without prof is for weak minded people.

Young declarative Veeky Forums posters are the worst.

this meme has gone so far that I think everyone here is an atheist pretending to be an edgy christian

>he can't tell when the zeitgeist is changing

Depends on how you define God. JP defines God in a way where he believes it.

This is the reason for the roadblock. Harris attacks the traditional notions of God but JP does not adhere to them. He does not consider himself to be an atheist. Harris, due to his belief that religion is evil, wants to tear apart his belief in God but can only do so with the orthodox notions of God. Therefore, he refuses to entertain JP's metaphysical axioms but JP can only explain his beliefs as he believes them. In the end, the two podcast will be shit because they have very different ideas of God and when Harris attacks a notion of God, JP probably will deny that notion of God and down the rabbit hole the debate goes.

tee-he~

So JP wins because Harris refuses to accept new ideas? Or Harris wins because JP is "not even wrong"?

Like blaming guns

As bad as Harris is, his attack on god is on the socially accepted notion of god, not Peterson's personal one. As bad as it is to say this, Harris wins because someone is more of an autist than he is.

This is not what I wanted lads, where did it all go so wrong?

Peterson neves talks about God in the sense of an actual entity, while that view of God is certainly what most atheists criticize. Peterson's refusal to dicuss this supertitious point of view is one of his flaws imo.

Autism is the next stage in human evolution. Peterson is quite literally the Übermensch.

he means he believes blindly in God and no intelligent discussion could therefore be had

"proof" is based on faith in axioms

What does Harris have to say about God?
All of the other New Atheists are laughably bad from what I've seen them say. They literally got memed out of relevancy.

This is the problem with all of these New Atheists. Literally the only religion they have a problem with is Semitic religion so that's all they attack is the Semitic God but when they talk to people who believe in metaphysics that don't come from a Jewish book then they have no argument

If JP offers a coherent, well defined metaphysical system for his belief in his own definition of God, I believe Harris will look like a stubborn fedora and JP will "win" the debate. However, the new atheists will probably sperg out and say that there was JP's version of God isn't really God and thus, no point for the debate. Also they will probably say that he is just clinging onto religion which is evil in their opinion. If JP is unable to make a coherent system, he will look very confused and just beating around the bush.

The debate does not make sense to me. Harris wants to attack JP's "superstitious" beliefs but they are not, at least like in the way he presents himself. A good debate between them would be about the role of religion for an individual and for society as opposed to atheism.
I think it is because he prefers a society with the traditional beliefs of Christianity over one with Atheism. He does not want to become part of the new atheist movement as well. However, I think deep down he is an agnostic on the "superstitious" part of Christianity, maybe hoping it is all really true.

What I'm saying is that what many atheists criticize religion for is demagogues exploiting the ignorant masses (which is a fair point) and Peterson never discussed that aspect of religion afaik.

Still, I agree with a society with traditional christian beliefs being preferable to an atheist society. I was already a christian sympathizer (if there is such a thing) before I discovered Peterson and he only strengthened my respect for religious wisdom.

>a society with traditional christian beliefs being preferable to an atheist society

lol what?

*tips fedora*

>What I'm saying is that what many atheists criticize religion for is demagogues exploiting the ignorant masses
I see, thank for the calification. I agree too.

No interest in checking this out.

You know that it's quickly going to become a conversation that's indistinguishable from two schizophrenics arguing with each other.

I fucking love this post.

*clarification

L M A O
M
A
O

Can you give an example of a good society with traditional Christian values? Because traditional Christian values include killing Jews and heretics.

Meant for

NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW

NEW Jordan Peterson podcast with my boy Duncan Trussell. enjoy!

podbay.fm/show/350580455/e/1484363040?autostart=1

>Duncan Trussell
More like Duncan Truffle

dude shrooms lmao

I mean, if you go making new definitions of God, can you really say that you are a Christian. If you don't believe in a personal God, like the bible tells you,then you are closer to a pantheist than a theist.

He means they fucked

This

I do not. So?

WAKE UP

>if you go making new definitions of God, can you really say that you are a Christian
Well, there are Christian atheists. You don't have be a believer in the orthodox way to consider/label yourself Christian. He wants to embody the message, virtues and teachings of Christianity while not literally believing in the mythological aspects. JP is, if anything, a weak pantheist with Christian attachment.

only possible explanation.

...

So what's stopping me from setting up a similar wheel that goes like this:

>Assume religion is true
>Study religion under previous assumption
>Sounds true to me lol

>atheist society
Yeah sure because all atheists want a society that "enforces atheism", you little tear duck.

A SECULAR society isn't the same as an ATHEIST society, and I sincerely hope you don't have a problem with the former.

>funniest post in a long time
>not sure if bait or actually dumb

>Can you give an example of a good society with traditional Atheist values?
FTFY
By the way, doesn't exist.
>inb4 current western society
Literally built on Christian values (what you would perhaps consider liberal values).

subtle kek

I want to add some pedantic clarifications:

Peterson takes 'being' as constitutive of experience, which is the only 'access' we have to reality. It is the particular constitution of human being that determines the horizons of our possible understanding. This is thr starting point of scientific inquiry. It is fundamentally phenomenological and pragmatic.

Harris is a vulgar materialist that takes the 'world' as a given object that stands in opposition to the subject. It is simply there to be analyzed, that we stand against rather, than something we come into and interpret. This is positivistic and radically empiricist.

This is the road block.

...

>20 videos from now
>Peterson reveals himself as a Schuonian perennialist
>transforms into his werefrog form on camera
>smashes down his apartment wall and hops off into the night to contemplate the Jungo-Platonic forms of pure Being

In one of his videos, Peterson states that the God Dawkins criticizes is the God that any smart 13 year old has problems with.
I think that he doesn't discuss this because he wants to get beyond it.

To add: Peterson sees our evolutionary baggage as part of our existential make-up. We engage with the world as evolved organisms, not as pure subjects.

This debate is literally the Jouissance or rather, Zeitgeist of the modern era.

The Biological Determinist Atheist verses the Archetypal Phenomenological Christian.

This is going to be so shit and good, god, I literally can't wait! This podcast shall be the defining moment of our era, not to say either side is right, rather, that both sides exemplify our time more than anything.

I cannot wait.

This is literally the turning point. The summation of 20th century scientific development comes to this, RIGHT NOW, in an age of the EM-Drive which shall soon rebalance our Scientific Structures and form a new Revolution.

GOD! The young male intensity of battling between science and culture, axioms vs belief. What comes first? Consciousness or matter? ETC. ETC.

THIS IS GOING TO BE GREAT! I CANNOT WAIT!

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooh, can't wait to see!

>axioms vs belief
Axioms are based off belief though.

axioms are the foundation of belief