In less than a year this guy managed to kill the nu-atheist movement that took people like hitchens, dawkins...

>His ideas are not original at all
no one said they were. not even he says they are. why do you have to be so autistic?

Modern atheism is Jewish in origin and thought.

...

>evolutionary psychology
Some of it is bad, and I know certain bigots and creeps appropriate it, or morph it, in ways that justifies their shitty worldviews
But thinking that you can have cognitive science without biology, which includes evolutionary biology, is foolish - nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution, whatever meatbags like that or not

The fact that people are moving away from atheism and going towards new-age spirituality, religion and other things is very troubling, to say the least.
I don't understand why people are celebrating this.
I'm not a new atheist myself; I'm an agnostic deist; however, I will take atheism any day over religion and spirituality.

>heavily borrows on freud
>tackles on political correctness and freedom of speech
>is in line with the alt-right
>gets a bunch of attention for being a contrarian and automatically called -ourguy-
yeh.
>atheism
>religion
????????????????????????????????
It's stable throughout the years. The growth is only due to a more lenient approach towards atheists.
I do doubt that atheism will surpass faith.
Are you okay? Has /pol/ rotted your brain that much?
They're not atheists, they have been always religious.

He's not selling an original or claiming that he is. He's an academic and is only lecturing about what he knows and his world views.

People like him because he's an excellent speaker, erudite, very good at synthesising his knowledge of philosophy, psychology and theology together to give interesting interpretations. People who don't buy into the degenerate nu-atheist movement like him for these reasons. He provides a high-brow argument against these people that was previously lacking.

oh how his neckbeard rustles as the redditor is angered, awakened from his slumber by the smell of scalps barren of fedora

>>atheism
>>religion
>????????????????????????????????
Atheism is more like a diseased corpse of the local religion, you are correct. However, atheism still needs to be represented on religion graphs and statistics. It is shrinking.

>very troubling, to say the least
Why? I'm atheist, and don't see that much of a trouble unless they intervene with science, or threaten democracy.
I don't think atheism is somehow a moral get outta the jail card, there are ideologies brewing that are just as bad as religious fundies.

Though I'll admit that I've grown some anti-liberal thought, in the sense of classical liberalism, which basically means that I happen to think that some freedoms we have are a mistakes in the long run.

he's great. he still falls to recognize that christianity is part of the problem, catholicism and orthodoxy are sort of salvageable as they still contain plenty of traditional pagan values and rituals, but Protestantism is pure concentrated cancer and progressivism is it's bardard son, it shall be all burned when people wake up

The majority of Petersons fans today were nu-atheists yesterday - contrarian pseuds who are malleable and easily lead by anyone with charisma.

They look for someone who holds the same views as them - opposing PC culture - and subscribe to their views as a result. There is no real adherence or understanding of the majority of what he says, only the knowledge his conclusions are the same as theirs justifying their obsession with him.

>"Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental."
I'm sorry but you are incorrect.

checked

>refutes the claim that atheism is growing
>agrees that atheism will never surpass faith
>some random animeposter pulls out the reddit card because i disagreed with him
you're just making a fool of yourself.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: atheism

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
----
sources to back that statistics you claim...aand....

It seems that you're hating on atheism because it threatens your beliefs... how sad.

Outside of your internet bubble nobody knows who he is.

this sums up this thread and Peterson, thank you.

this is literally me. im very susceptible to charismatic speakers. i wouldve been part of every cult. how do i fix this problet

nice quads, respect

see

QUTE VIRTUS SINGAL

Protestantism is cancer. It is Judaism of the goyim. Especially Calvinism.
>plenty of traditional pagan values and rituals
Now you need to recognize their flaws and how Christianity improved upon the pagan soul. Start by making a distinction between the religion and the people and the states of the time. You have masses who enjoy watching trained rape animals do their things to men and women on circus. You have Crassus taking over Rome with fire fighters (read it, it's an interesting story)...
Slavery is inefficient, but the stubborn nature of pride prevents the ancients from using their technology, insisting on human labor and an elite that need not do anything.
The tribal nature of central and northern Europe, the endless blood vengeances, feuds, viking raids on monasteries and destruction of important and costly papers...

Things have never been simple. The illusion is born out of limited knowledge.

Maybe we need a new religion then.

>The tribal nature of central and northern Europe, the endless blood vengeances, feuds, viking raids on monasteries and destruction of important and costly papers...
the christians genocided plenty and destroyed many traditions on the european crusades

he didn't destroy it he just took similar types of retarded cunts into nu-christianity which is also cancer and more so

>Maybe we need a new religion then.
I always imagine a post-religious world in the west were ideology simply takes over
There is little difference between ideology and religion if you reduce it to the mental facilities we have

And full rationalism isn't possible, our brains are just wired to seek patterns that aren't there, our memory is fussy, we are build-in with cognitive biases and so on
But religion will probably stick around

There are problems with the excerpt.
First of all, it assumes all atheists firmly believe that there's no god. That's a belief.
Agnostic Atheists (which is my case), do not hold believes of god's existence or unexistence. We just state that there's no evidence to prove god's existence. Which is far from different to stating: GOD DOESN'T EXIST MUHHH.

Second, wrong, theism makes a claim about nature which is the existence of god. Which means the burden of proof falls on them.

This is a fallacy called inversion of the burden of proof.
It's the same as multiplying (-1) to both sides of the equation.
Theism is incorrectly defined, also.
It is a prime statement, therefore it occupies the zusammen side, whereas atheism is the entgegen

Further, Ph.D does not makes you the king of reason. It just means you have a certain expertise.
Also, i can't find Susan Demoni's lattes, please link me in.

I think we should focus on 'the bringer of light', of new perspectives. We should value knowledge and shun ignorance. We should elevate our race above others. We should have a strict law that keeps us in the path, but it should be viewed through opportunistic lenses, for our God loves us and us alone or at the very least, more than the others. There should be a remarkable and influential ritual that makes sure that every one of us is in on it for life. That we know that we have sacrificed something important already, and that there is no going other ways. However, we should keep an appearance for others so that they don't learn to hate us like the last time. So we should learn the path of two truths, our truth and their truth.

Yeah, a new religion.

The image is a satire of your "theism makes a claim about nature which is the existence of god. Which means the burden of proof falls on them."

You make the claim "the burden of proof falls on the claim maker" yet you do not prove that claim.

I'm an agnostic deist. It is perfectly reasonable for me to maintain my position until a gnostic atheist provides me evidence of the affirmative lack of a deity.

>You make the claim "the burden of proof falls on the claim maker" yet you do not prove that claim.
Of course, i do not claim that god exists, duh.
If you use the same logic, i can safely say there are russell's teapots orbiting the sun, unicorns on valhalla, and flying spaghetti monsters on andromeda galaxy. Prove it.

>the christians genocided plenty and destroyed many traditions on the european crusades
The pagans genocided plenty and destroyed many traditions on the European wars.
One such example would be the fall of Rome, or the Roman expansion. They weren't the first ones. They weren't the last. Christianity kept all the cultures around. Industrialization has been eating them away.
I am a Finn. I go to sauna. Why is that part of our culture? Didn't the Swedes destroy it? They killed the literate elite, or converted them and changed their language. That much is true.
They didn't do it for God, they did it for power. You are a fool if you think otherwise.

>Of course, i do not claim that god exists, duh.
Alcoholics worship alcohol. It is their god, it gives to them, it takes from them, it paints their world and their world revolves around it.
What is your central thesis? What is your central position? Separate facts?

No current pop-philosopher's ideas are original. They are all contemporary applications on the ideas of previous philosophers.

No previous generation was bombarded with such an enormous amount of information to digest. They had to think for themselves. They couldn't just google endless articles about it on the language of their choosing.

>post-religious world

you're living in it bucko

He didn't invent the fedora meme.

You can start with spelling his name correctly.

I guess it is true that western Europe is the most post-religious place in existence

I am not saying that there are russell's teapots orbiting the sun. I'm saying the lack of empirical evidence of a russell teapot orbiting the sun does not prove that there is no russell teapot orbiting the sun

They are also problems of different magnitude. We can ignore Russel's teapot regardless of whether it actually is there or not. We can't ignore God whether God is real or not.

Some strains are. Europeans should reject Jewish slave morality in any form presented. It's not as if slave morality is a monolithic entity, it is a mind virus, an underlying was of seeing and being in the world that is alien and hostile to our health. Jung knew this, Peterson feels it, but is not conscious of it yet.

i don't understand the "evidence" meme when discussing religion. doubt has always been a catholic theme. of course there is no proof, it's a structural component of many religions that you can't directly know god.

i am not sure how believers are so retarded as to ignore this. if you KNOW that god exists, your faith means nothing and it's a simple calculation. Morality is only possible if knowledge is limited.

now i am not religious, but this is pretty obvious even from outside

Hitler rose to power by following Christian doctrine. He failed with the Jewish doctrine of revolting. Instead he sucked up his pride and marched through the disgusting system of democracy with success.
It's not easy, and that's why we don't do it.

Morality itself indicates that there is an ought; that there is a preferable state of being, and that there are proper ways to get them. Some simply do not work.
>Jewish slave mentality
Brought to your homes via Hollywood and public education. Hardly the antisemitic Christianity you hear so much bad things about. Similarly, you hear all those nasty things Hitler did.
Christians believed in flat Earth and Hitler made lampshades out of Jews.

If people had a proper grasp at history religion would die out in a week. That's all it is just know your fucking history, it puts everything into context

>kill the nu-atheist movement that took people like hitchens, dawkins, and harris a decade to build

to a cabal of neckbeards caught up in their own echochamber of self-pity and personal inadequacy. I don't rate him higher than the PUA movement

>jungian archetypes

pulease

>atheism grows.
Yeah, more edge ileterate underages prehomosexuals that screams "religionx suxks smoke DUDE jesus is a faggot xDDD" that repeat whatever the amazing atheist its saying

That's a bold claim Cotton

princiblez

Having those neckbeards cleaning their rooms is hardly a negative.

2011 called

In reality the fastest growing belief is apatheism.

Most people, including a lot of people who go to church, don't actually care if there is a God or not. They just don't think about it.

False equavalence. The natural state of the brain is not to perceive teapots in space or any of that crap. But it IS to perceive agency in the environment and universe.

If you make a claim against this common sense (and meant purely in the technical terms, sensory interpretation that defaults to agency) then you must back it up.

Oh yeah, I'm SURE you know all about Jung's worldview and theories. You wouldn't just dismiss a whole bunch of work just offhand without attempting to understand it properly, would you?

All anyone had to do was actually read Nietzsche and you would have already seen how Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris are full of themselves.

Or think for a second about their double standards with evolutionary theory and dismissal of religion, one of the most ubiquitous phenomena in humankind.

which nietzsche book best illustrates this?

And NEETchee and peterson aren't full of themselves? Are you fucking retarded?

>in less than a year a coherent idea formed through the canon of western philosophy killed the nu-male post modernist ideology developed as a result of the western canon of philosophy being tossed away by post modern societies

Weird isnt it?

You find someone actually meriting a cult.

at spinoza like you should

I'm not that guy, but Nietzsche's clearest, most systematic, and comprehensive work is the Genealogy.

His work is a cohesive whole and I'd recommend all of it. But if you really wanted to narrow it down: The Gay Science, Beyond Good and Evil, and On the Genealogy of Morality.

Maybe Peterson is a little.

The natural state of the brain is to regulate your body needs. Homeostasis.
Everything else is a byproduct of survival instincts and abstraction.
Perception falls into abstraction category.

I'm not claiming god's existence or inexistence. I am just stating that there is no evidence for me to believe in god. If such evidence is fair enough, then sure, god exists. But until this very day, not a single shred of evidence has appeared.

You can't put god into a test tube, honestly.
It's faith. Faith is personal. If you consistently ask for evidence in god, it means you're a very weak believer. And your god would probably be angry at you.

>The natural state of the brain is to regulate your body needs. Homeostasis.
>Everything else is a byproduct of survival instincts and abstraction.
>Perception falls into abstraction category.
Our default state is to perceive certain kinds of things. Both hunger and spirituality fall here.
Arguing against God is like arguing against food.
Now, that doesn't really tell us what kind of food it is, or what kind of being God is.

Kek, but so does ISIS

>Arguing against God is like arguing against food
Not really.
In its absence, one can kill you and the other has no effect.

You don't need god or spirituality to survive, otherwise atheists would be dead.

I can agree by default our brain signals through ghrelin that we need more blood sugar. However, there's no such signal that we need more faith.
spirituality is exclusive to human beings. Abstraction too. I wonder why...

I'm surprised Veeky Forums hates on him so much because I'd say the majority of Veeky Forums loves Russian literature from which he borrows heavily.

>In its absence, one can kill you and the other has no effect.
>has no effect
Not eating food doesn't have an effect. Try it.

Got any stats to back this up? Even if you're right, though, it's hard to deny that "practical atheism" is on the rise. Increasingly people may still call themselves religious but not let any religious principles affect their ethics or routines.

Vocal minority, as with all agendas on this site.

>Atheism is a religion

You might find your brain better suited to non-intellectual boards

sure, now it's on those same brainlets to evolve and realize peterson is also spewing shit

What do you think of Plato?

Let me repeat that over for you:
>In its absence, one can kill you and the other has no effect.
>kill you
>starvation = death = collateral effect for not eating
Can you be more specific? Because there's much to discuss about his views.

We also now have hundreds of young men who think they know what postmodernism when they truly, definitively do not

...

Sure we can

Modern Christianity is Jewish in origin and thought too. Many ideologies would be less harmful if they were natural ideas born of the communication between honest individuals. But as long as our thinking is led by outsiders pretending to be insiders all ideologies will be perverted.

Atheism is wrong and dangerous. Being true matters little. Even if it did, the average atheist does not believe in less lies than the average deist. Just different ones. It matters more that society as a whole believes in a single unifying ideology, true or not.

Pseudointellectuals are worse than the dumbest normies.

>It matters more that society as a whole believes in a single unifying ideology, true or not.
You just went back to the dark ages of the medieval world.
Good job.

You've just said: Critical thinking is pointless. I'll gladly accept anything that my community says and do.

> It matters more that society as a whole believes in a single unifying ideology, true or not.

No, not really.

>You just went back to the dark ages of the medieval world.

Should... should we tell him?

I can't believe this bait got so many brainlets. Please die.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that dog shit is a flavour of ice cream. It isn't really, but that doesn't stop atheists from scraping it off the street, putting it in a cone, and licking it all up.

>(which is my case)
embarassing

But atheism posits a relationship between humanity and the supernatural: that between the existent and the non-existent. It also levels demands upon the practitioner: accept materialism to maintain your belief, or do not direct your thoughts toward this question. But those demands don't really matter. The fact that it posits an answer to the theological question offers sufficient justification for its inclusion among religions, especially for the purpose of sampling demographics.

What happens to your genetic lineage? What happens to your society?
Every civilization that lost its religion lost its way and itself.

>In its absence, one can kill you and the other has no effect.
>kill you
>starvation = death = collateral effect for not eating
Prove it. I can accept a stream.

who?