Jordan B Peterson on Atheists
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июл 2024
- Jordan B Peterson expresses his thoughts on atheists during his conversation with John Anderson. Interesting as ever!
Original full length video: • Australia's John Ander...
Thanks for watching. If you like it, comment or subscribe! Or both !
There is a difference between an atheist who struggled to find the reason of existence and an atheist who just joined the hype.
Why does it matter? Joined the hype lol how ironic
I mean, the same goes for christians.
Also an atheist who's not ill intent and is just not interested in the grand scheme of things.
I hope Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson have a discussion on Religion one day
Dawkins would DESTROY Peterson, turning him into a mass of quivering gelatin spread on the floor of the stage.
Jorden vs Hitchens would have been good as well
@@cockroachman27 I've heard folks call CosmicSkeptic the "new Hitchens". I would really love for Connor to wreck Peterson.
This needs to happen
@@caramel7050 thanks I'll check him out, I've never heard of him
As an atheist, born to atheist parents in a largely atheist country (Norway), I would like to weigh in that I barely think about any gods or other supernatural phenomena. I would also like to point out that the Scandinavian societies, which are among the most secular in the world, are also globally considered quite moral societies. Believing that there is no objective truth does not mean that one cannot hold ones subjective values very highly.
All of the above should be blatantly obvious to an honest thinker.
Conservatives all around the world use faith and religion as camouflage but they are devoid of conscience, compassion and empathy the most important attributes that set humans apart from the rest of the animals
I think he is talking about active ones or the majority of them or high minority.
Lawton, are _you_ practising empathy, when you basically call all conservatives monsters?
Every human being that ever lived was born 'atheist'. No-one has ever been born 'believing' in anything, least of all things that don't exist. Indoctrination into delusions, sadly, comes later for many.
@@ElCID40000 ok then become believers because of God who shows Himself as the bible says
Atheism doesn't address the belief system itself, it addresses a single question:
Do you believe in a god/gods?
No
Well said
Atheism used to mean the belief in evidence. However now it’s a belief in no god. However we cannot disprove or prove the existence of a god. Therefore we don’t know. However some atheists ignore this simple fact. Because “we don’t know” is an extremely terrifying thing to say.
Agnosticism is the new term for the belief of evidence. Which is lacking in both proving and disproving the existence of a god. Therefore the logical conclusion is we don’t know.
@@fellipedasilva99 very well said.
Jordan peterson got my respect by saying that atheists are very thoughtful even if he doesn't agree with them.
They don't lack depth. They just don't deepen all the way to Dios.
That is radically more credit than atheists give to the religious, they could not be more insulting and hate filled towards them. Some atheists are just angry guys that had bad experiences. I just saw a video with a ton of them in the comments and oh my god do they hate and look down on religious people. The leaders of that group have mostly been pretty arrogant as well, they always seem obsessed with religious people and trying to prove that they’re better.
@@ComeAlongKay yes, I always disliked it whenever any representative of any belief, not just religion based, treat people with different beliefs like they are worse then them. In reality, all this discourse and anger between opposing views is hindering our ability to change the world for the better
@@ComeAlongKay It's funny that Atheist and Christian hate each other for a similar reason.
Though it's amoral for the atheists and ironic for the Christians.
@@ComeAlongKay They would try to kill people of faith if they could.
Must be easy to tell everyone they’re not what they think they are when you have a different definition of atheist than everyone else
I was thinking the same thing. I like a lot of Peterson's ideas but when he gets into this territory he seems to stop making sense altogether. Maybe because the issue is so emotionally charged? In someways I understand what he means but in other ways I think he is really just splitting hairs over semantics. OK so if you value christian ideals and you think that the christian lifestyle/practices/morality is beneficial, then Great!! that doesn't mean that you necessarily say that that person is a theist or a christian. Now some people love Christian tradition and practice christian tradition but are (based on the technical definition) atheist. Some of those people call themselves christian in fact. Robert Price has called himself a christian atheist. I see nothing wrong with this as long as we don't get dogmatic about the labels. I also think that debates that revolve around definitions of words and semantics are ultimately not very productive.
@@redshiftexperiment "if you value christian ideals and you think that the christian lifestyle/practices/morality is beneficial, " Do you believe that the lifestyle/practices/morality are more important than faith?
@@JR-nh7fc generally speaking; I don't believe that "faith" is always a virtue. If we take faith to mean the "evidence of things not seen" or the word we use when we believe things we have no evidence or logical reason for believing are true or reasonable. I will admit there might be feelings of well being and peace of mind that comes from "having faith" however, whether what we are having faith in is true or good for us in the long run is another question altogether. Generally when we CAN .. We should try to avoid "taking things on faith" and rather try to make decisions based on reason and good judgement. This seems most reasonable to me. However i understand that there may be times when taking a "leap of faith" is unavoidable or possibly beneficial.
And what do you think the standard definition of atheism is?
Redshiftexperiment, I was questioning about faith in the Christian god. It seems that you are not a devote believer, and if that is the case what sense does it make to look at the morals and lifestyle of the bible?
I really wish this guy would have asked JP if he believes Jesus literally rose from the dead.
That's my point, John Anderson and many other Christians think JP is championing their faith. When in fact I would call JP an atheist. I think its ironic as hell.
@@jacoblee5796 He's not an atheist because he never said he is. There is a talk or interview (don't remember) when he said "I'm afraid of the idea that there is God." . Atheism is a complete denial of existence of any god.
I would call JP a functioning christian, which imo is the best kind. I know that when asked whether he believed in God, he answered something like "I believe that it's best to live your life as if you believe in God."
I never understood the run-of-the-mill christian's obsession with Jesus literally rising from the dead and his other miracles. Everytime I asked anyone with authority on the subject, their explanation always had a cognitive dissonance to it, or it would feel like they were trying to sell me something. JP is the first person I've ever heard give good goddamn reasons for his faith, so as far as I'm concerned, he's got it figured out and all the other christians are just parrots in nice clothes.
@Saved by Grace JP doesn't believe in a transcendent real god. He doesn't believe Jesus literally rose from the dead. JP talks between the lines a lot. Look closer at that quote and be honest.....You think JP is saying he believes in god in that quote?
@@jacoblee5796 I find it very interesting that you indicated "Jesus" in the subject without me giving any specifics about him being subjective about the existence of "God". I mean, we have a lot of religion thus making them "theist" but we only have 3 major religion who believed in Jesus existence (Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim) and ONLY 2 out of three believed that he rose from the dead. So why did you indicate Christianity here?
Again. I will say it one more time. He never deny nor approve God's existence. Atheism is DENYING god. So He is not.
Anyways, he never said he is an atheist.
Jordan is so Canadian, he bleeds maple syrup
Is he that sweet?
John Anderson has a great voice.
Hambone3773 but he is kind of a douche u know, just the general vibe
This all kinda reminds me of that quote from rum diaries “human beings are the only creatures that claim a god and live like they haven’t got one”
Are there any other creatures besides humans capable of “claiming a god”?
Jason Roberts all the things in the universe, the stars sun moon plants animals etc submit to the will of the creator. They do as they were intended to do. They don’t astray like humans cause they have no free will. The sun doesn’t rise up from the west one day because it wants to. In Arabic, someone who submits to the creator is called a Muslim.
@@albak6552 iv heard them called a few other things as well.
@@albak6552 . Anyone who submits to the god of Abraham is demented !
@@albak6552 i dont think humans have free will
"You have to treat yourself like you matter, because if you don't, then you don't take care of yourself."
Exactly. You DON'T matter, but if you have any sense, you'll treat yourself AS IF you do. You already didn't exist for eternity, and pretty soon you're going to not exist for the rest of it, so you drink in the awe while you can. Helping things to run smoothly for yourself and others during your brief existence hardly needs divine inspiration. Failing to do so is clearly stupid (though, popular, I grant you.)
Those are very wise words dude.
Well said
Aye aye sir
Damn exactly
@Vatnik why would the universe implode?
Procrustes was a stickler for equality, stretching the short and chopping the tall.
"Absence of evidence is very good evidence of absence."
It's cloudy outside and I can't see the Sun... must not exist then!
:rolls-eyes
Oh NO! Nobody's seen him for over 2000 years! Actually, NOBODY's ever seen him(!!!), just burning bushes and things like that!! Why?! Because he's a pigment of the demagicnation.
@@michaelwill7811 Damn you are one lucky individual!
Among the many 1000s of years, among the many 1000s of religions or sects/version of a religion you are born at the right time and place to be raised in the only correct religion :)
Recent estimates places that the total number of homo sapiens to ever walk the earth at 110 ish billions. I weep for 90% of those souls that are now being tortued in hell, sent to purgatory or simply is denied heaven because they werent lucky enough to imagine up the right religion. i hope you are praying for them...
:rolls-eyes
That's wrong. An absence of evidence can mean you don't have the proper means to obtain evidence, or even that you simply aren't looking for evidence. And at the very least, one must ask the question of whether or not they expect to see any evidence for the phenomenon in question.
Let's say you're under the sea and your sonar picks up nothing unusual. Is that grounds to say there's nothing out there? Who's to say there isn't a US Virginia class submarine lurking about? Only if you were equipped with radioactive particle sensors would you realize if there is indeed a nuclear sub in the area.
If nothing else, your phrase simply urges people to give up too early in their search for evidence. I think a better rule to live by is "absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence."
greg77389 I’ll give you a better example , why don’t you go clean my house and my car and I’ll pay you two years later ( maybe ) cause I don’t have money now , is that enough absence of evidence for you to do the job ? ??? The bible is a fairytale ...
The video starts with the interviewer saying “atheists don’t behave as if they don’t believe in God”. It’s actually an observation Peterson has made in lectures. That’s usually the headline on the RUclips video, but what makes the headline less frequently is that he says the same thing in the inverse. In the same way, and to the same extent, theists don’t behave as if they believe in God.
Nobody’s real beliefs are as certain or simple as they state or even think. We don’t really have the capacity to fully and truly explain our own beliefs even to ourselves. The Christian doctrine is that your behavior can't save you, you can't save yourself at all, but if you believe in God, *he* will save you. But maybe what you say you believe or even think you believe isn't actually a remotely reliable measure of what you truly believe. Maybe your behavior is a better indicator of what you believe than even what *you think* you believe.
Yeah that's a good thought experiment
as a born again christian i dont see any problem with being an atheist or being friend with them. religion is personal.
I have nothing but the very greatest respect for J Peterson, have learned an enormous amount and gained great clarity from listening to his ideas. But I don't understand how he characterizes Atheists this way. As an Atheist myself, I simply assert that there is nothing supernatural, period. From this follows the natural and predictable criticisms of certain specific claims of most religions. But this does not immediately imply I am a moral relativist.
I completely agree with his assertions that the morality of humanity has evolved due to the natural selection of "best practices" over the millenia and that many of these "best practices" can be recognized in the archetypes of the Judeo-Christian stories and other books around the world. I'm quite happy that the evolution of the West over the last couple of thousand years has largely filtered out the weaker, non-universal bronze-age errors of the holy books and we are left with a more distilled morality that seems to be working (for the most part) better and better. I'm happy to credit the archetypal, reasonably complete codification of a large number (but not all) of moral precepts in the West (where I live) predominantly to the Judeo-Christian stories. But to conflate Atheism with moral relativism seems to misunderstand the "modern" atheist movement.
Perhaps he is trying to point out that Sam Harris's approach (the Moral Landscape) is flawed in that it ignores the progress we've made with (among others) the Judeo-Christian archetypes by dismissing the Bible etc in its entirety and instead seeks to basically start again. It's a shame - there are many useful truths between Harris and Peterson - it's a pity they haven't sorted through their differences yet.
Understanding the behavior of the world around us is what science does well. But our current morals are an emergent property of an evolved humanity - too messy to derive from first principles but better captured with observation based guidelines and conveyed in story (eg. acted out examples). Our morals have evolved like the rest of us, by natural selection - we don't need to start from scratch and the Judeo-Christian Archetypes many seem like as good a start as any. (I'm sure there are equivalents and more to learn elsewhere as well. eg. Buddhism, Greek Mythology, etc.) And in my corner of the world, they shape my thoughts, no question. But don't expect me to thank a supernatural anything for that - I thank our ancestors all the way back to the primordial soup for their thoughtfulness, ingenuity, sacrifice, courage and perseverance.
Jeff ross- I dont know, does the twentieth century being the most bloodiest century in the history of humanity really follow your ideal of natural selection of "best practices"? Sure, we live within a more advanced society with complex scientific endeavors, but all in all, human beings are still raping, murdering and destroying that's on par with any devious achievements throughout history.
@@First1it1Giveth And often with sectarian motivation, First!
J R I don’t understand this argument. How can evolution tell us what’s good and what’s bad? You said morality is getting better, the guy above me says it’s not, how can you prove it either way in a way that’s not relativist?
@@qazattack4 If I may attempt to address your question to J R, I think you've made an assumption about the origin of morality for which you would be hard pressed to provide support. Ironically, the evolution of morality is most apparent in the way the religious treat the books they believe are the basis of morality.
Christians often talk about Biblical Commandments being the foundation for their moral compass but then ignore the Biblical laws that don't fit with present day society. For example, we no longer kill people for breaking the Sabbath, we don't punish homosexuals, adulterers and disobedient children by stoning them to death. We don't group women into the same category as cattle and we don't condone slavery. All of these things are supported by the Bible.
Why do modern Christians ignore these commandments? I suggest it's because they intuitively understand the very thing J R is talking about; moral value is created and defined by the needs of a society. We decide what is "good", or beneficial to the society we live in and what is "bad", or destructive to the good of the whole and we change those ideas as our situation changes. This was happening long before the Bible or Qur'an was ever written and continues to this day.
The fact is, you live in a relativistic world already and it's just fine. The claim that the 20th century was "the bloodiest in the history of humanity" is statistically incorrect. Here is a link to evidence of exactly the opposite: slides.ourworldindata.org/war-and-violence/#/title-slide
It may feel like the world is worse off but that is probably because our inter-connectivity via the web has made us aware of violence we wouldn't have known about 25 years ago.
@@nolanbalzer1796 It's not just modern Christians that ignore those commandments. The apostles told people not to follow them in the 1st century. I assume they had some theological justification. The one I hear often is that it was right for that specific people at that time in history, which sounds very relativistic to me. So I guess Christians would have to say that morality used to relative but now it's universal because of a new, universal covenant. That's not the point I was trying to make but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
You're saying that morality is relative for both atheists and Christians. J R seems to be saying that atheists can have a morality that's not relativistic. That's the point that I was questioning. Your position seems more consistent to me.
Jordan mentioned the Atheists “ struggling ways” The only thing I struggle with as an Atheist is how people, especially people who tout their education are delusional enough to believe.
The fact that a functional and healthy society arises from its members acknowledging each other's and their own value is not evidence for a "spark of divinity"; it is the result of natural processes such as mutual societal contracts each person makes with the world around them, and usually promises are made with himself or herself--both for the success of each person's life. If those around someone have good relations with them, life is better for everyone. The natural progression model just makes so much more sense than anything divine.
Do you think our morality is better than that of a wolf? if so on which standard do you measure that?
the morality of wolfs lead to higher variety of animals in the yellowstone park because they killed dears. What is more worth? the live of the dear or other animals? Who gave you the right to judge that at all? If it is just "nature" why isnt it just "nature" if some like hitler and nazis kills everyone. Maybe less population of humans on earth leads to higher variety of animals around the globe.
If there is no higher standard or judge, morality is getting subjectiv. and a subjecitv morality is nothing more than "just the way of nature".
I think the question being proposed, Nyck, is why do something that is right and where does the value right versus wrong come from? Is right versus wrong something that is natural? If so, is it a value encompassed in all of nature? For example, when a parent demands a child say "Please," and "Thank you" as a form of learning politeness as a value, where does such attitude about right versus wrong behavior come from? If it is a contract between a parent and child, as you suggest, and if the parent has a contract with other parents and other non parent adults in society to teach the child this behavior, where does societal values "progress from?" Progression, all progression, has a starting point and an end point. Some would say evil is on one end, good on the other. Call it hot versus cold, does not matter, just two value ends of a spectrum. Sooner or later, you have to ask, "Where does such value originate?
If you are a believer in god, you say all value begins and ends with god. If you are not a believer in god, and you claim god is not real and such ideas are fairy tales, WHAT is the source of the value that creates morality? My value comes from natural hierarchy and respect for nature inside, nature outside because our nature and the rest of the natural world is the only tangible reality from which to derive evidence of value. Take for example, all primates besides humans, or all mammals besides humans, or take all flora and all fauna known to the world of nature. Is there any living organism that does not have a self-moderating sense of proportion to what it can consume? I say this: observing the natural world and we see that animals consume only what they can handle, and a little more. I lion kills a zebra and feasts. It never kills ten zebras and stores them away. The same is true for most of what I can see from the natural world.
A second value from the world of nature is that each part of the whole of any given ecosystem seems to feed back, or give back, or serve the greater good of the whole.
Here, we have two values which are derived from nature: take only a little more than enough and give back something to the whole.
All religious values follow nature, or they cannot exist. Religion follows nature, not the other way around. Ultimately, one has to ask, where does creation come from? How was the natural world created? How die the natural world bring order from chaos? How did it all start? How did it all begin? No matter what your answer to this creation, having awe and respect for the entire order of creation is a religious principle. It is at the root of all spiritual and philosophical and ethical thought.
@@thejoesilverbackshow a lion kills cubs of others because a lioness wont mate as long as she has cups. thats nature. i dont think you will kill other kids but why not? if you arent the judge but nature is, it should be right to do so.
a lion does that so his genes get carried on. humans dont do that because thier value is based on loving yourself and others but who says our way is better than that of a lion. nature clearly doesnt.
religion doesnt follow nature. religion says you shouldnt act like a lion (i cant speak for every religion but i can speak for christianity) and the lion is part of nature.
@@mrhintz9680 religion says that you shouldn't act like a lion? Right, religion used to say that everyone who followed science or atheism shall be killed for the purpose of religion survival, or the religion genes if you will. A smart woman would be considered a witch and would burn for her sins, religiom got scared for their genes not passing on huh? It seems to be the exact same thing as the lion killing to breed and pass on his genes. A lion, however won't preach about every man being equal, when slavery started from christianity on the grounds that not every man is equal. Moral grounds doesn't seem to be very consistent with religion. And nowadays religion preaches moral grounds to keep up with society evolving, reading from a book filled with death and crack stories. I'm sorry, you are absolutely right it isn't the same, religion is worse, it was and it is a fucking cancer.
@Johnny Rocket my family has a high probability of cancer, almost 100% of them died of cancer. My job is a high risk career and puts lots of strain on my body, specially joints and lungs. I smoke a pack a day, and i also ride a motorcycle all year round, in all weather. I'm more likely to get killed on my way to work than by cancer, even given my family's statistics. I know what i'm made of, i know i'm going to die, i don't know how i'll die. What i do know is that if all those probabilities don't kill me, i'd kill myself before bowing to a cancer like religion.
I've grown increasingly isolated and cynical as a result. I'm not saying I'm faultless in that, nor that everyone else is entirely at fault. or just didn't care. I agree that each person matters, but it also requires each person to practice self-awareness and insight, otherwise you're not going to be much help to anyone else. I've reached the stage where I have to back out there and try to form a worthwhile friendship/relationship and to be blunt in my 50 years so far I have very, very little faith that is a viable goal. Just my experience. Maybe other people have had better fortune.
Just because we have evolved to see meaning and importance in the world and each other, doesn't mean I'm not really an atheist.
What are the evidences that we evolved to see meaning ?? Do you have one or it is just "evolution of the gaps"
@@drtak4512 All of our behaviors have evolved. Obviously there's evidence of evolution. And we evolved from previous animals that did not see meaning. Our sense of meaning had to evolve at some point. How else would it have developed? Unless you just dont accept evolution at all, in which case this isnt a conversation worth having.
Actions speak louder than words.
Thats why his words about Atheists being Christians are complete sophistry compared to the actions of Atheists proving they are not Christian.
@@heathkitchen4315 I think his message is that Judeo-Christian morality is acted out by many or most atheists. His psychological perspective is that the faith in any religion does not necessarily make one better or worse any more than disbelief necessarily makes one worse or better. I feel his comments are very reasonable; yes actions define the righteous, not words.
It may sound logical that because a certain way of living or acting makes for a better society or better functioning of an individual within it, it must be in some way true. Just that it's not true if you really think about it. It would be dumb not to live the way that grants you the more fulfilled life, not taking into account what you perceive to be true. Living like there is no further meaning to everything also is not what atheists generally want people to embrace, since most of them don't live that way either. What atheists are generally doing I feel like is trying to find the same reason and rationality that rules their way of thinking in others that they share their place to live with.
You are right in that it would be dumb not to live in a way that grants you a more fulfilled life but that doesn't make what he said illogical. What he said and what you said are both logical.
I am Christian. I get it right 5 minutes a year but I'm trying for 6. One of my several problems with sanstheism is where do you direct your gratitude? As an atheist seems to me you must truncate your thanks at persons and other plurals.
Are there any atheist soup kitchens, undertakers, or hospitals?
3:23-3:35 is remarkably Heideggerian
Good description of fundamentalists
@gherrrie - The existence of your god is not an issue which atheists grapple with.
It's very clear it does not exist at all in any form except the imagination of the delusional.
@@TheHittman47 They certainly knew more than you
@@dave474c Lol left wing and high IQ do not relate. Left wing indicates low iq. Left wing means you are too stupid to comprehend reality, economics and human nature.
@gherrrie It's abundantly clear that gods do not exist. It's just a stupid idea that people go along with.
By your logic, it's not clear to humans whether or not unicorns exist. You can believe that bollocks if you like, but the truth is obvious.
gherrrie ahhaha the bible this the bible that , talking snake a metaphor ? no you dumbass it does not say , you say that cus no 1 is fuckin dumb enough to still belive fairy tales. and every argument that a close minded religious slave like you uses its based on your book, so you cannot think for yourself , you have no intelligence or will to do that cus thats how you were tought, you were tought to be a fucking slave and only do what your ancient book says and teaches.
we don't need to make ourselves equal because we already are...we need to find what is already here
He's right, actually. The "Atheists" I've encountered obsess over God and the Bible (and other religious text) more than most Christians or Bhuddists or others. This is to the extent that they have a better grasp of (at least in quoting) scriptures and holy writings than those who claim to believe and follow it them.
Jordan is correct. It DOES require rationality to parse through these ideas. The first
truth is that in order to provide implementation of equality and diversity,
which means to ENFORCE them, you must suppress and eliminate freedom and
individuality. This is where Marx fell on his face. He failed to grasp that the
ONLY way his ideas could be implemented in a human culture, would be to first de-humanize that culture. Second, you then replace the humanity of individual decision
making with a totalitarian dictatorship that is the enforcement body of the
desired outcomes. This requires the genocide and imprisonment of those who
disagree, and third, you provide walls that are not a defense against people
from outside, but instead are needed to keep them in your area of influence,
just as we saw in East Germany.
@demigodzilla I feel sad for your stunning lack of intellect.
@demigodzilla Keep telling yourself that. It is psychotic at best.
Congratulations. That was word salad worthy of Peterson himself.
We need Christopher Hitchens!!!
And Carl Sagan !
I would love to see this guy get Hitch slapped.
@@jrmaximus Ew.
J.A. R. I don’t think it’s a personal failure to recognize that maybe you can’t be both as eloquent and as ferocious in the formulation of your argument as Hitchens was.
J.A. R. Fair enough, I can respect that position. However, I think there’s a value and a purpose to rhetoric, and we’re not simply robots dissecting statements based on their factual value, we’re human beings who are able to see the beauty in a well formulated argument.
With regards to the knowledge of the subject matter: Peterson subjects the audience with verbal diarrhea, and goes into internal arguments which might or might not take place outside of his head at all, but he pretends to know how others think, he pretends to be able to categorize and label people as if they’re one-dimensional representations of some sort of abstraction that he came up with, and then ends his rants with some sort of triumphant, self righteous condescension which is so extremely unattractive that I’ve forgotten what he’s said at the beginning when he comes to the end of his tirade.
There’s no arguing against the information overload he abuses, because you’d need to go over every single assertion he makes (and every sentence contains some sort of “Peterson’s certainty”), and that’s just not practical. So maybe to some he sounds impressive, but to me he’s just all over the place and never really says anything real. And his argumentative style makes him highly unlikeable.
But that’s just me.
By their exact definitions, I’m neither atheist or Christian.
An atheist does not believe an invisible, unknowable man with three separate but equal personalities, lives in his Kingdom in the Clouds above the Sinai Peninsula.
James Richard Wiley I think you need to go back and get your presumptions (and theology ) straight
Yes, and I , as a Christian, also don't believe in the God you don't believe in!
✨ this videos comments are a little more angry than a lot of his other lectures-- hmm it’s almost like he’s on to something
Lol you read my mind!
Or it’s an annoyingly common misconception on what atheism is and we are sick of religious people making an argument that’s invalid from the start
Atheists obsessed with god? Maybe the ones who was once in a church. Growing up in sweden, the only reason for me thinking about good is because you ran across it in every damn book from the past, and because people like jordan bring it up.
Hi...I think he means your values did not arise with you or even society...ppl WANT, right, and I heard no talks or agreements when society formed? Yes, Philosophers? Did they do it? Jordan thinks your background, way back, includes God. I think it likely, but unsure?
And yet here you are...
Now, Sweden has more than "people like Jordan" to bring up God. Sweden is already enduring it.
@@user-tq9uh8np1v I don't think that proves anything.
Yes, funny how people in religious countries, or who have been brought up in a religious atmosphere don’t understand that for a lot of people, religion just doesn’t form any part of their life, and one is only reminded of it at weddings, christenings, funerals and by terrorist atrocities. It really isn’t a big deal, and there is certainly no obsession.
what is the name of the interviewer?
I'm relatively young and we actually did study the Russian and Chinese revolution in high school. Whether that has changed in the last decade I'm not sure though.
The idea that everyone matters? Sure, I agree with that idea and I'm an atheist. I just don't think that I have to believe that you have some spark of divinity in you for that to be the case. I don't think I need to believe in magic to believe everyone matters.
Well, you cant view the world (and therefore the people in it) as cosmic accidents and moist machines, and then in your next breath talk about objective moral values and inherent value of human beings. Jordan Petersons philosophical views are in no way extreme - rather mainstream in the philosophical community, actually. Loads of atheists recognize this as well, like Richard Dawkins for example:
"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
To hold the view that everything is cause and effect and matter and yet clinge on to objective moral values and duties is illusory - killing a human being becomes no more right or wrong than kicking some dirt around, since all you are doing is shuffling atoms around.
Cheers!
@@ostkaaka I understand that you want morality to be objective. I just don't understand why you think morality is objective. It seems to me you're demanding that the universe contain objective morality. I'm sorry, but the universe doesn't seem to care what you want or demand it to do. Saying morality isn't objective, however, doesn't mean that one doesn't have morals. Nor does it mean that there aren't objective things we can say about those values. For instance, we can objectively say that if your values do not include valuing human life, your values will cause more human suffering.
@@TrakeM118 Well consider this. You hold in your hand ten US dollars with which you want to purchase some food. But the man you try and buy your dinner from doesn't take US cash, he only accepts Monopoly money as payment. It seems ridiculous, the stuff comes with a board game, it isn't accepted payment anywhere. Still, his choice has been to only see value in Monopoly money. Since neither of you sees any value in the other's prefered currency,(and you probably don't carry monopoly money around) you have to go find someone who shares your values.
So you go down the street and find a man who accepts US cash. However, he only sees value in 5 dollar bills. Not 1s, not 10s or 20s, just the five dollar bill. You try and convince him your ten dollar bill is worth two 5s, but he won't accept it. He can agree to the value of a five dollar note, he's open to the idea of one dollar bills, but not tens. And he doesn't see why you think he needs to accept those other values to accept the values he already sees.
To someone who has already completely accepted a certain value system, a person holding an entirely opposing one can be hard to deal with, there are too many fundamental disagreements. A person accepting some parts of one but not the whole package will just seem confusing or illogical. They see every part of their values as connected, it seems strange to even suggest that an aspect of the ideology could be held without agreeing on the other fundamental aspects.
It's not a perfect analogy, but it was the first way I thought of illustrating it. That's why people will find it odd that you can say every person's life has inherent value without a clear, objective source for that value, such as God.
@@gideonjones5712 There are things we have to agree on to work together, but I don't see why belief in your god would be one of them. Even if it were, you're no less /more at fault for there being a difference in our values than I am. You changing your values to mine would be just as much a solution as me changing mine to yours.
I really wish people who bring "objective morality" into a conversation would explain what they mean by that phrase -- without tautology. It would save a lot of time.
Everything aside that’s a fantastic hair transplant
I don't think that is a hair transplant.
Your having a laugh?? Check out his first lectures on here when hes blowing out his arse with a recession like the tide going out!
He’s not grown that back with grass fed beef
And your point?
Teresa Burton err.. that he has a fantastic hair transplant.
People have to remember that all the horrible things that were done in the name of God or religion were done in the name of the wrong God, the wrong religion and a miss interpretation of the Bible.
If one objectively studies the Scriptures they’ll realize it’s the highest standard in morals and it’s impossible that 40 human beings wrote the Bible over a 1600 year period of time and just so happened to accidentally develop a perfectly harmonious moral code.
When a person talks about God or the Bible and uses terms like “a guy with a white beard and fairytales,” there’s no way on earth they actually study the Scriptures, they’re just repeating someone else’s words who also hasn’t studied.
And saying “I don’t believe in God because I think for myself“ is also a ridiculous statement because everybody thinks for themselves, everybody follows something or someone, nobody originated any thoughts.
Whether you believe in God or not, if you do it angrily or with arrogance, or you’re a miserable person, that should tell you something.
Bottom line, without the Bible, there would be complete chaos in the world.
And if you’re claiming to be an atheist but you’re living a moral life, you’re doing exactly what Jesus taught, there’s no getting away from it.
Thank you. This is lovely comment.
For those who offended by Jordan's remarks, please note that he isn't criticizing atheism. Contrarily, he gives atheistic thinkers more intellectual respect than docile fundamentalists (People who believe a deity & refuse to entertain any notions that deviate from their conceptions of God). But more importantly, Peterson seems to be suggesting that the position of atheism can lead to nihilism, which can then lead to more suffering for humanity. Of course, this danger is also possible with thoughts influenced by religiosity. The difference here is that Atheism is a denial in the belief of a deity or any deities, but the actions of athiests infer a belief in something. This belief becomes your god. Respect to all people out there.
Although I like Jordan I don't think he knows what being an atheist means or in some ways what religion is, either that or he goes by his own definitions that nobody has come to an agreement on. Other than his thoughts on religion and his occasional word spaghetti I think he's awesome.
I think no one truly knows what being religious or atheist means.
the individual have a value isn't that idea longer than the Abrahamic religions ?
Not really... at least not in Europe. Greeks and Romans had such a concept, but only for their citizens. Slaves for example were not even considered humans.
I'd say that idea, at least on a large scale, is only a few hundred years old.
W.H.Auden: “We must love each other or die”
Only reason I clicked on this video is because of the handsome face in the thumbnail.
As an atheist I'm not struggling with "god" or leprechauns or any "supernatural" fantasy. I'm struggling with the stupidity of religious fundamentalists and bad "philosophers".
Peterson thinks atheists struggle with god daily. Has he ever talked to one?! The amount of intellectual dishonesty is just mind-boggling 🤣
Just so everyone does know what the word Isaac means, it means "He who laughs".
joker irl
Once Jordan Peterson defined atheist as psychotic murderers, he disqualified himself from the discussion. His opinion on the issue is completely worthless.
Entirely correct. It convinced me beyond doubt that he's a fraud and a charlatan.
Someone please tell me what this man is talking about.
Maybe if you listen, you'll know
Life, the universe and everything...
Duh.
lights473 I did listen and he made nonsense. Is he religious?
@@Kings_New_Clothese If you listened, you would know that we are all religious, you included. Disbelieving in others beliefs is still a belief in itself. If you don't act out by Judeo Christian ethics in the west, you are probably in jail.
@@Kings_New_Clothese he's not really religious. He's very philosophical.
charity and compassion cannot be forced by political mandate. taking from one to give to another does not result in a net gain for society. encouraging one to give freely to another, does. you cant force people to care, nurture or love. if we follow the example & teachings of Jesus, the world would be a better, safer, more peaceful place. governments cant fix the world, but God can. pray. 🔥
The god of Abraham DOES NOT EXIST !
I think God has had enough time, don't you? Maybe it's time we figure things our for ourselves. Maybe that's what he's waiting for.
God put us here, so of course we have a huge responsibility to act for the greater good. Sometimes the hard part is discerning exactly what that is, because demons often masquerade as friends.
@@essequamvideri how do you know he put us here?
@@sublimebroadcaster6594 - taking a gamble that you actually want a reasonable answer so here goes-
God is Logos. Logos is Order from Chaos- the Creator, as some say.
We, as humans, are both Created and Creator. We are "image and likeness" of God, so to speak.
We are biologically, a unique & specific set of Ordered Cells made from a unique arrangement of Ordered DNA, out of an extremely high number of possible random combinations, so we physically ARE Order from Chaos.
We can also create Order, or at least the perception of order, from Chaos by implementing thoughts, ideas and creating a tangible result. So being the result of Order from Chaos, our natural inclination should be to seek & create Order from Chaos. I think humans thrive on order & it seems safe to say that ordered systems have produced most, if not all major "advancements" in civilization as we know it.
So we are both Created and Creator. We are the result of Order from Chaos, and we can contribute to the creation of more Order from Chaos. I think that's what "image & likeness" means...
So God = Logos = Order from Chaos -> Us.
Without Order from Chaos, we wouldn't be here. So it seems reasonable, to me, to say God put us here.
Jordan B Peterson (atheist) on Atheists
We can be moral without thinking we are here for a special reason,to give us meaning & that we have to believe there is a god to be moral.Evolution has given us traits we don't understand and to feel comfort with the thought of 'someone watching over us' should not be a surprise.Flights of feeling does not make fact & it takes distance to see things properly.We don't know a world without religion unfortunately,so we cannot know what non-belief would have brought us---yet.
Jordie boy got it all backwards. We are moral in spite of the bible not because of it. The Bible is allegedly the word of god. The word of god tells you that it's ok to own slaves and even beat them as long as they don't die within 2 days. Jesus' best advice to slave was that they obey the masters. Newsflah: it's not ok to enslave. That position is not based on divinity but rather on an intrinsic empathy towards other. For the past two thousand years Christians have been repurposing the Bible to fit in those normal moral instincts. So no, morality is not the special province of Christianity. the Bible sanctions infanticides rape slavery genocide. These are its real doctrinal judeo Christian values not what we decide to do with them once we realize that they offend against common sense and basic moral principles.
Thank you!
God, if it were to exist, gives a foundation which allows us to sustain moral axioms, if this foundation doesn't exist then there is no defintive foundation and the good and the wrong lose meaning, someone who is truly an atheist may do good because of that empathy you talk about but recognizes that (since there is no foundational meaning and everything is contingent, temporal and irrelevant) it doesn't matter, and doing bad also doesn't ultimately matter. "since god doesn't exist, everything is allowed" That's why JP says that he acts out as if God exist (meaning that he acts out as if there's is purpose to his actions). Believing God exists is to believe that there are definitive foundations which give meaning to good and bad actions. You are missing the point, it's not that religion makes us moral, it's that it gives meaning to any moral posture. That's the stance. The bravery of the atheist is that, even if they recognize no ultimate meaning they still live and try to do "what's right" you're being reductionist, JP is not
Specifically where does the Bible say that?
Nathan Brown That's the question Christians typically asks though I wont assume you're one. Too many passages to quote. Try www.evilbible.com/ and the Sceptic Annotated Bible.
@@romovega1748 The idea that we need a skydaddy - imaginary or not - to make morality objective is pure nonsense. Importantly, the skydaddy solution would achieve nothing. It would either mean that morality is objective to us but subjective to god (so force us to accept that killing babies could in theory be moral if god changed its mind tomorrow) or it would mean that morality exists independently of god (where killing babies is wrong and not just because god says so) in which case god provides no foundation and we don't need him.
To insist on a foundation for morality beyond our natural disposition and tendency to care for each other is to fundamentally misunderstand how our language of morality functions. It’s like asking ‘And what colour is hunger then?'. If there is such a foundation it does not go beyond the words ‘because it is wrong, can’t you see?’ and no, there is nothing impoverished in that claim.
We are social creatures whose deep-seated empathy towards others enables us to create conventions about how we should treat one another. We feel so strong we treat such conventions as truths. Participation in this moral discourse necessarily presupposes such empathy. People who show no such empathy towards the suffering of others are called psychopaths, not ‘someone with a very unusual view on suffering’. So no, we don’t merely think rape is wrong we say it’s wrong and give reasons for our views - reasons based empathic observations like ‘imagine if this happened to your sister’ etc..
Of course, not all moral claims are born equal. Some moral claims like those related to rightness or wrongness of euthanasia, abortion, or vegetarianism are more challenging and invite us to refine our moral language. History tells us this moral revision is slow or even non-existent in some parts of the world (esp where religion has a strong foothold) but is always helped by a better understanding of subject matter, education and debate and again presupposes first and foremost a disposition to care for well being of others. That prerequisite is really morality’s only bedrock. It needs no further justification and is a pre condition to engage in our moral chessboard meaningfully. If an alien killed a child for no reason and we came to understand that in their worldview this was not an immoral action we may hesitate to apply our moral language to their behaviour (in the same way we do when we see lions kill their cubs), but that would not cause us to conclude that ‘Hmmm, may be killing children is ok then’.
The idiocy of the divine command theory on morality as found in religion is that it is static and impedes the exploration of our moral views. It infantilizes our moral talk to the point it becomes useless. So the claim ‘Killing is wrong’ has no use in our judicial system where the wrongness of an action depends on the circumstance.
Religion’s greatest triumph is its ability to re-engineer those basic moral dispositions to serve iron-age thinking. If there are good bits in the Bible it is no indication of a divine provenance but a reflection that fundamental truths about the desirability to be good were understood even back then. Well, whoopidoo. No need to make a fairy tale Broadway show out of it especially if, in the process, you induce world wide psychosis about eternal damnation through idiotic stories about talking snakes, Palestinian zombie’s blood sacrifice and promises of rolling in the grass in paradise with vegetarian lions.
The more I listen to him, the less interesting he becomes to me.
should stick to psychology
@@TheGabrielPT That's exactly right. Within his own narrow purview, he's completely fine.
Atheism’s not the problem, rather indifference. Jesus spoke of out time saying, “you are lukewarm. I would the you were hot or cold, but because you are lukewarm I will vomit you out of My mouth.”
oh boi, how i wish to see peterson - dawkins debate .-.
@Janusz Reguła Peterson just sounds as a Pastor
If you haven't met an atheist who lives like an atheist then you haven't met a genuine atheist
Nothing
@Quinn Ganahl You and I think exactly alike. Don't need religion. My life is better without it
As always, JP talked alot and managed to say nothing. I defy anyone to actually explain what this fool said.
Have you ever suddenly thought of someone and then later receive a message from them or run into them? Have you ever had a dream and it turned out to be true? Have you ever intended to do or achieve something and then the avenues of achieving it appears right in front of you? There is a higher intelligence
We don’t all attribute every coincidence in our lives to the actions of some all powerful deity.
Have you ever suddenly thought of someone and then NOT receive a message from them or NOT run into them? Have you ever had a dream and it DIDN'T turn out to be true? Have you ever intended to do or achieve something and then the avenues of achieving it disappearing right in front of you?
I bet you have and probably more often than you would think. It's called pattern recognition. A neuroscience, where we keep counting the hits and not the misses. If you have 10 million tries to hit the lottery, eventually you will hit it and the outcome may have the appearance of divine intervention .
Positive also.. HGENERIC JORDEN AND a matter of opinion and perspective☝️😉
This is how Shakespeare had the atheist describe his view of life:
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth Act 5, scene 5
His wife had just jumped out of a tower give Maccy B a break
Yes, but his was not that of a man of faith, it betrayed the senselessness of a life without a continuing purpose after death. That's why I thought this was a poetic interpretation of the meaninglessness of the materialistic/atheistic life by the genius of Shakespeare.
@@888karminaburana It's incorrect to describe Macbeth as an atheist. He believes in God but has simply severed all ties with God following his murder of King Duncan. "Wherefore could not I say amen," is his traumatised response to what would have been considered a treason against God at the time. The King would have been seen as Divinely anointed. Macbeth wasn't an atheist he just went against his God's will.
That's not an atheist's view, that's nihilism and pessimism. Atheism simply asserts there is no god or gods, nothing more. Even if you meant naturalism your assertion is still wrong: the notion that life ends at death does not imply life is by definition meaningless. It's good you paid attention in English class but you might want to look up the definition of terms before perverting their meaning and abusing Shakespeare to support your faulty ideas.
AS YOU LIKE IT :)
With all respect to Peterson, I don't get why the hell he keeps making up his own definition of things (religion, atheism) which are so far from how the public thinks of them
Are they? How so?
Peterson....i am going to walk around this circle and see if i come back to my spot of origin.....ummmm ok.
He argument is always that the middle ground the rational side is the preferred side.
I thought Jordan Peterson was a smart person until I found out he was religious.
I didn't think he was smart before I found that out. Now, I'm convinced that Peterson is a fraud and a charlatan.
@@michaeloconnor6280 You can see the bullshit brewing in his eyes before he speaks.
The "picking up your cross" and struggling sure sounds like Camus' writings on Sisyphus.
It's probably because Jordan Peterson never came to read Camus, and he really should because he sounds quite similar to him in his refusal to settle either for pure rational atheism or blind religious beliefs. He struggles in the in between and faces the chaos (or the absurd). Really the Sisyphus myth and the cross are really linked together.
There are two major differences here. Sisyphus was condemned by a god as a punishment. While in Hades, his most human response was to be relentless, and in opposition to such injustice, to utilize shear gile as a means to overcome the absurdity of his fateful task, His identification with the task at hand means to perform the act of pushing without regard for victory or defeat.
Carrying one's cross is not about punishment in the least. The immediacy of dealing with the weight and repercussions of living one's personal life are duly noted and carried to the best of one's ability. Which means, to persevere beyond any and all notions that would undermine or curtail the necessary strength and resolve. Whereas Sisyphus might shake a fist at the gods; the spiritual man or woman retains a similar willful tenacity, yet with an ontological difference. All thought may ring one's mind like the symbolic crown of thorns, while the Oneness of an attentive mind allows for the Silence to immanate and pervade the Quality of Being.
,. "The Father and I are One" ; ":I make all things new." Which can be read to mean the nuances of an attentive mind fully engaged as a spontaneously wise rapport with life. Unlike poor Sisyphus, here, the heart, mind and will are Balanced amid a recognizable Harmony. There is no victim involved but to maintain what matters most: to deal authentically and affectively with things as they are.
@@kgod23 We don't have a fucking clue what's going on; let's leave it at that and get on with trying to sort out our fucked-up reality. If there's a god, he's a fucking psychopath. The cross is a morbid symbol used by that cannibalistic death-cult called Christianity.
@@normanleach9587 I took a couple of Philosophy courses at university, the same one Peterson attended. Let's get over all this bullshit; it leads nowhere.
mel obrien I get the idea you’ve been through a lot
Religious people don't understand that our moral values don't come from religion, they evolved during our social evolution. Christianity and the bible were not responsible for the abolition of slavery, and in fact the bible discusses how to treat your slaves. It was our social evolution, independent of religion (which resists moral evolution and change in favor of dogma), that caused us to see slavery as wrong. The more we discuss morality outside of the confines of religious dogma and rules, the faster and better we can continue to evolve socially and morally as a species.
Uuh......History demonstrates clearly that not everyone "has a spark of divinity".
Interviewer loves to hear himself talk
yeah lmao
In the wonderful words of John Lennon:
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace,
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world,
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one
@Johnny Rocket yeah and the beatles had anton lavey a known satanist on their sgt peppers cover.
@Johnny Rocket "And no religion, too" . Remember that! No religion = none of the superstitious nonsense that so many millions if not billions have died "defending." To die to ""defend" the imaginary, the fairy tale, the total nonsense seems to me the height of the tragic. It seems so to Lennon as well.
@Johnny Rocket Ah, come on Johnny. That's all bull shit and you know it.
I see that the word satanist is frequently being used.
I hope that u know that there is a huge difference between a satanist and a devil worshipler .
@Johnny RocketGlobalists, probably, satanists, nope. Church of Satan doesn't care about borders and politics.
It's atheists who don't want any religion. Borders and countries exist because civilizations and cultures are not equal and will continue to exist that way. If it wasn't for borders savages would roam the Earth as they try nowadays with the migration crisis in Europe. John Lennon was not a satanist, just a naive tool.
Peterson begins well. Many of us are not atheists as some choice. We have sought truth in religion and just encountered too many lies and BS. I cannot believe. To think I need such belief in God or Christ to care about others or to wish to be loved or liked is just nonsense.
Soviet crimes and mass murders were "everything the Nazi's did on a larger scale." The same Nazis who negotiated primacy for the Catholic Church to abolish the center Catholic Party?
Peterson's arrogance really stands out here.
4:20 He's saying Sam Harris is Judeo-Christian to the core because his moral values are western (+ come out of the enlightenment). While most moral values come straight out of Game Theory where you have multiple agents trying to survive as a long as possible as a group within in a harsh environment. Evolution just guided the agents to the most optimal set of values where you cooporate enough but also have a sense of self-preservation.
Calling Sam Harris out for having these moral values while being an Atheist and that it's irrational is not correct imo. Moral values come from evolution and culture, not from a God or a fear of God. Being brought up in a culture that in its long chain of history had Judeo-Christian values in there does not make you a believer in God, nor is it evidence for the existence of a God. That's like saying there is never a cutoff point and Islam is a Judeo-Christian religion to the core.
You’re making unbacked presumptions, for example there is no proof that morals come from evolution, you can say we evolved to be moral but that doesn’t mean they came from the process itself, nor does it mean that morality didn’t come from God or a fear of God.
Jorden’s claim is very valid, even Richard Dawkins admitted to being very vaguely Christian influenced and admitted that Christianity is apart of England’s history. The point is that western societies are by definition inflicted by Christian ethics and values if you are born and raised in such societies on some level so are you.
Islam is literally a copy cat of Christianity and Judaism started by a demon possessed pedophilic from Arabia. That’s not my claim, it’s the claim of Islam, though they say it differently.
I feel this is over complicated way to often. When some one asks me why I don’t believe in God, I simply say “lack of evidence.” As the universe presents itself, it is neither good nor evil, only indifferent to our existence, and this indifference is much greater evidence of our ethics determined by us, rather than a divine being.
Then how do you justify the very ethics you talk about?If you truly,deep down in your heart,know that we are just atoms clustered together in such a manner that allows us to exist as living organisms in a universe that is going to cease existing,what makes you think that ethics exist?Why don’t just use every means possible to make it easier for yourself?Lying,killing,stealing and everything like that?Another person will stop existing eventually,why is it so bad to kill him?And I am talking about the perfect crime,where nobody would ever catch you.But do you know who would eventually destroy you?Your own thoughts and the remorse you would feel.A remorse that you cannot justify in your logic.
@@user-vn3fc7iv6s we are getting more into nihilism territory then strictly atheist, but anyways there’s no point in killing, raping, stealing etc just as there’s no inherit point of the universe
@@user-vn3fc7iv6s you make a tacit assumption that the reason we feel remorse and guilt about these immoral actions is because something divine has placed those emotional responses there. Where is your evidence for this?
@@user-vn3fc7iv6s remorse and guilt can also be rationalized. We simply evolved to feel this way. We're social creatures and if we felt no remorse when we killed each other, we'd do it a lot more which would have driven us to extinction, therefore the "nicer" people tended to survive much more frequently than those with no empathy. It's natural selection and it has much more to do with evolutionary biology and empathy for other human beings and nothing to do with divinity. There is no contradiction between being a "real atheist" and being a good person. After all, even if we are just atoms clustered together, we still experience feelings that are subjectively real. If your only reason for not going around killing people is because you're scared of some deity, it's your morals that are questionable, not the atheists.
"Pick up your dam cross & struggle uphill, the practical consequences of that idea is an excellent start." That is an excellent start to the main message of the bible? So the true identity & nature of the creator, orchestrator, evolver, sustainer & supreme ruler of the cosmos God makes little or no difference, just get Jordan Peterson or another bible advocate to get rid of the bad parts of the bible and believe in the good parts according to them?
@Shreyas Misra Yea, with Jordan Peterson pragmatism is over scientifically sound truth. Beyond a reasonable doubt, the true all natural creator, evolver, sustainer & supreme ruler of the cosmos God is composed of what scientists call the fundamental & emergent laws of nature & forces of physics not the father, son & holy ghost of the bible.
Peterson's only shortcoming is he underestimates the evil of humanity. Someone very well could walk down the street, see someone in distress and not give two shits. This is his bias 7.49
If it's true that humans are a creation and created in the image of that creator, by image it is to be understood we share godly qualities such as love, capacity to create, hate, etc, then by virtue of this creator, an Atheists who choses, for whatever reason not to believe, can act moraly because he or she are simply demonstrating those qualities they were created with.
I don't have to acredit my morality to a creator, but never the less my creator is responsible for that moral behaviour because Im the image of that creator.
We may carry on in a judeo-christian context, but you can't claim that a person who does so can't be an atheist. Culture, meaning and behaviour is exactly what it is, regardless of a deity's existence and so I disagree with JP on this one.
Philip Berthiaume He doesn’t even believe that God exists metaphysically, as far as I tell. He’s in the same boat that you are.
He won’t say he’s theist and he won’t say he’s atheist. I don’t think he’s saying that you’re a metaphysical theist, but I think he’s saying that you’re not truly a metaphysical atheist either.
@UClj68ate4syC2E--WgXiKXA Kingdom Oracles thanks for your reply, i disagree with you thoroughly. You are going to have to provide studies and references for me to accept any of your claims.
Philip Berthiaume hes right man.. and your original comment doesnt go against what jp was saying.
Jordan isn't saying you cant literally be an atheist. He is essentially saying you can't claim to be a purist/atheist free from the influence of Judeo-Christian based society that is woven through our current culture in so many ways you can't prove that you are free from it's influence. Here's an example: Say we lived on a different planet that was atheist and had always been so. All of the sudden a fringe movement crops up that is religious and believes in a God. They claim their belief system isn't influenced or based on the atheist principles of their planet. They would be unable to separate the influence that atheism had on them because it is so finely interwoven into the very fabric of their culture/society.
@@qazattack4 You just stumbled upon Jordan Peterson in a nutshell. Most of the time hes not really saying much of anything at all. Deliberate ambiguity. Hes a bad speaker by design.
I'm an atheist. I just don't believe in a supernatural entity. Why does Jordan who isn't an atheist have to criticize atheists? I could do the same to all who doesn't believe in Poseidon. There's no difference whatsoever
Right to free speech... it seems like an answer to your question.
Jordan lies constantly. For example: he says that he's a "scientist." He is no such thing. He also obfuscates constantly, refusing to answer simple direct questions. If you'd ask him "What's your favorite color?" He'd answer: well it depends on what you mean by color and what you mean by favorite." He constantly interrupts in conversations and constantly puts up straw dogs, deliberately misinterpreting the interviewer or debate partner.
He's made a lot of money. Why? Because so many people out there (by far the majority being males) are hungry for someone to tell them the "meaning of life" rather than figuring it out for themselves. It's sad.
@NRM It's not "another level" of thinking, NRM. It's NOT thinking. It's obfuscation. It's avoidance of the topic. It's diversion. It means that he's a charlatan, a hoax, a fraud and it means that along with others, he's sadly fooled you too.
And no wonder you're fooled. You obviously haven't a clue about scientific naturalism, science, or scientific naturalism as a means of inquiry. Peterson, the charlatan and liar, doesn't employ scientific naturalism. His singular goal is to tell young men that they are superior to women and ought to be paid more. That makes them feel good and they worship him.
@NRM He has said that men should be paid more than women doing the same task. He does obfuscate. Listen! Learn! Engage in critical thinking. Don't swallow this charlatan and fake hook, line, and sinker. My goodness.
@NRM He changed it because like much of what he spouts, it's utterly unreasonable and unsupported by verifiable evidence. He's a charlatan, a fake, a money-grubber, reminding me of the thousands of "ministers" and "priests" and politicians who share his narcissistic tendencies. He's also a passing fad, who will make his money now, before silly people turn to the next guru, looking for answers which they could easily obtain for themselves by simple introspection and a bit of hard work. Younger men love him. Older men, like myself, and women see right through his paper thin facade.
Life comes from life
Nope, silly twit Yadasampati. Life can come from chemicals in a test tube.
Michael O'Connor To be fair, that hasn’t he demonstrated yet. Abiogenesis is still a mystery, although nothing leads us to believe that a god was I voiced either. A natural origin of life is the most probable (and is supported by some evidence) whilst the creation of life has no evidence.
@@lespaul5734 Yes, Loik, in the strictest sense, we haven't demonstrated abiogenesis. And we can't demonstrate abiogenesis in the way that it actually happened on earth 4 billion years ago because we can't replicate those conditions and we don't have 500 million years to study it. But I didn't claim that we've duplicated the original process of abiogenesis on this planet.
We certainly have created novel life forms in the test tube. These novel organisms were created from chemicals, using the model that we already have for life. These organisms have never existed before. They are new. In that regard, we have certainly created novel life from chemicals.
Because the Cosmos behaves and exists precisely, completely, reliably, exactly, and predictably as we would expect ABSENT anything supernatural, if something supernatural exists, it is utterly inconsequential and therefore irrelevant to anything at all. And we certainly do not require anything supernatural to envision several different sequences of events that would give rise to life as we know it. Darwin clearly showed that meaning and purpose can arise from the material and that complexity inexorably arises from simplicity.
The idea that treating yourself and others as if they matter leads to a functional society being true, seems a reasonable position. Claiming a quasi-religious patent for this idea as Peterson does is hyperbole.
If I were the prince of darkness, I would want to engulf the whole world in darkness.I’d have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree - thee.
So, I would set about however necessary to take over the United States.
I’d subvert the churches first, and I would begin with a campaign of whispers.
With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.”
To the young, I would whisper that the Bible is a myth. I would convince the children that man created God instead of the other way around. I’d confide that what’s bad is good and what’s good is square.
And the old, I would teach to pray after me, “Our Father, which are in Washington …”
Then, I’d get organized, I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting.
I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.
If I were the devil, I’d soon have families at war with themselves, churches at war with themselves and nations at war with themselves until each, in its turn, was consumed.
And with promises of higher ratings, I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames.
If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellect but neglect to discipline emotions. I’d tell teachers to let those students run wil. And before you knew it, you’d have drug-sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.
With a decade, I’d have prisons overflowing and judges promoting pornography. Soon, I would evict God from the courthouse and the schoolhouse and them from the houses of Congress.
In his own churches, I would substitute psychology for religion and deify science. I’d lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls and church money.
If I were the devil, I’d take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.
What’ll you bet I couldn’t get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich?
I’d convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging is more fun and that what you see on television is the way to be.
And thus, I could undress you in public and lure you into bed with diseases for which there are no cures.
In other words, if I were the devil, I’d just keep right on doing what he’s doing.
Ryan Holmes This was Paul Harvey , yes ? I can’t remember. It’s been years since I heard it, but I think it was him. Regardless. It was very insightful at the time, and things have definitely gotten worse since I heard it as the first time. Thanks for bringing it to light again.
@demigodzilla Because we are given free will, reason, and the choice to love Him or not, in His image. We were created to love Him. But what good is a love forced by design? It's not real. So we were given free will, just as He has.
The devil is an angel that had chosen against God's will out of pride and arrogance, and therefore deprived himself of Him and seeks to lead as many souls away from Him as possible. But this is allowed because free will is deemed so incredibly important. And further, the love for Him is only true if it can be tested and it does not break. God loves us infinitely, but He is also just and wise and understands that it is in vain if it is not reciprocal.
God works in our lives, however most often very subtly. We are given many opportunities and graces, but it's up to us to accept them. And sometimes tragedy happens, but it's always for a reason and we may not always understand it. Everything is willed or permissively willed for a greater good. The greatest good is love and God himself.
@demigodzilla Not really. Demonic possession is the entrance of another spirit into the body and a clash between spiritual beings for the physical. The demonic spirit being more powerful is able to suppress the person's soul and take control of the physical being. Accounts of people having been possessed speak of still being present and thinking, but having no control over their bodies. They still have spiritual free will, but not physical and bodily control.
@demigodzilla Might I caveat that a demon can only take control if it is allowed by both you and God. You allow it to enter particularly by practicing evil crafts or being in a state of serious sin.
@demigodzilla I also ought to mention that the Church makes a point to psychologically test people before exorcisms, because in most cases it is psychological. But, there are times where psychology cannot explain what is going on and exorcisms inevitably end up solving the problem.
I have God on my mind eveyday.
He is everything. I love Him.
Oh, good, Romans.......superstitious nonsense!
Hello, I have gone from agnostic to Christian in the last year and a half. I came to faith through the spirit which guided me to study of the universe, moral code, test of scripture and philosophy of existence. Jesus Christ is LORD and I too study daily and love the one true living God with all of my mind, heart and soul. It is difficult for me to read the negative comments Atheist post on you tube sights as they blaspheme God out of emotion and not in intellect or truth. Atheism is the silliest thing to believe yet our society has placed it as the rational persons view point. It is not. It is the viewpoint of people who do not want something above them and want to live in their imperfections without being liable. I am a Christian. I am a sinner. I am in repentance of sin and I am not good at it. I need the LORD and god forgiveness. Every knee will bow, and every word recalled.
Michael O'Connor - please explain why Christianity is nonsense. Can’t wait to hear from you.
@@johncaruso4472 Easy! My goodness, you should have asked me something difficult, like the derivation of the equations for the general theory of relativity!
So, why is Christianity nonsense? The easiest argument is simple: The Cosmos exists and behaves precisely, completely, exactly, reliably, and predictably as we would expect ABSENT anything "supernatural" at all. Therefore, if any of the tens of thousands of gods ever invented and worshipped by humans exists, it is utterly inconsequential and therefore irrelevant to anything at all. It follows, then, that to believe in the tenets of christianity is to accept the inconsequential. And to think that those tenets are relevant in any way to the Cosmos is simply superstitious nonsense.
A recent example: Notre Dame is an important building representing a significant portion of the wealth of the Roman church. Yet it burned according to the laws of physics. No supernatural intervention at all.
And so it goes. You are welcome to accept superstitious nonsense if you choose. But don't expect thinking persons to join you in your superstition. Don't even expect people from other traditions of superstition to accept your particular superstitious nonsense. They reject yours, just as you reject their's.
@@johncaruso4472 Well, John, you've gone from the rational to superstitious nonsense for reasons that other people do as well. Perhaps psychotherapy would have been a far better than resorting to superstition, fairy tales, and other similar nonsense?
Atheists when converted make the best Christians.
Why didn't he simply say that he had no damn idea about atheism???
This guy obviously drinks too much coffee.
too*
Actually the only things he eats is beef, salt and water.
@@shauryajaiswal5272
But he might drink coffie
@@williamlindroos2250 No I'm sure he doesn't.
@@shauryajaiswal5272
You said only eats water and that's why I said that he might DRINK coffee.
^^
I agree with Mr. Peterson on many issues, but in this case I clearly disagree. Still no evidende of divinity nor god (previously I said "good" by mistake) of any kind. States nothing that can't be attributed to other possibilites as has been explained in the comments down below.
EDIT: Typo by OP, this post is no longer relevant. Simple mistakes happen!
If you actually believe that there is no evidence of good in people, then by definition you are an absurdly cynical person at best and a sociopath on average.
I understand not buying the divinity claim (although I feel that the two of you are using different definitions), but good is not a religious idea.
I sincerely hope that either you didn’t think that through very much or that we are using different definitions of the word “good”.
@@Flourish38 Sorry, I meant "god", not good.
We are either destined or designed or purposeless biochemical accidents. Dr Peterson was quite clear on why one appears to make more sense to our sensibilities than the other. Why this goes over the head of so many Atheists like yourself is beyond me.
@@skivvykiv I agree that one option makes more sense but this is no evidence of a "god" of any kind existing. It's just that we're evolved animals trying to make sense of our environment as we intuitively tend to believe, from the macro perspective of our experience, that something comes of something. Also it depends on what he means by god. His definition, as far as I can tell, is quite different from what most of religious people hold. This being said I don't think we have to limit ourselves to those three options, maybe there's a fourth option we should think of. Are we the inevitable consequence of the development of a universe kind of trying to make sense of itself before all energy is dissipated for the rest of time. Is life or intelligence just a side feature of stable energy for a very long period of time? And yes, maybe the Universe is only an accident as Heinlein suggests in one of his books.
Also there's a problem with the notion of design or purpose and "god" as, if we're designed by a god, where does this god come from. And if that "god" is infinite, why is it that universe can't be also infinite without a god. If a god just appeared, why would a universe just not suddently appear? And more questions arise... Does "god" interact with us somehow? Can god change things? If so, why that god doesn't change somethings and does change others? If willing to chage somethings but not others, why can't we conclued that is not omnipotent or simple careless to our destiny.
I did believe in God once, but the more I thought, the less sense I found. But if you remove a conscious omnipotent being from the equation things get simplier. It might be counter intuitive, but this is the way science and facts work. Once I understood that nothing really suggests there's a god and a life after the one we have, I realized, founded in my secular humanist ideas, that we have to try to do the best of our life to also improve the life of others while we spend this infinitesimal fraction of life on Earth.
There not taught such a thing as the force behind the history may believe in reincarnation? They would have say a couple of hundred million souls to deal with
For all those ignorant to Dr. Peterson's opinion. His is one that says, I don't necessarily believe in God, but I behave as God exists. There are moral constants,there are such things as universal morals, moral relativism is mostly facile. Christianity in its basic form has brought up the idea of the individual over the collective in terms of rights, thoughts,speech etc. Whether atheists like it or not. Atheist leaders have done the same, but steeped in western Christian principles by default without their awareness Lol
Lies don't help us.
His principle : "you don't throw the baby out with the bath water." Christian principles are some of what bill Maher lived by, he just hasn't studied etymology, anthropology, psychology and history just as most haven't. In Maher's case it would be very inconvenient to find the very reason he can talk about religion is because of culturally Christian principles. Peterson has simply done this for us,and sums it up in its simplistic form.
-Agnostic atheist
yup, still amazes me that jbp, one of the most important intellectuals of our time and a brilliant man, who's work has helped me greatly, simply does not understand atheism.
He does, he just doesnt agree with what you think it is
@@jonmacdonald2193 i respectfully disagree. he does, explicitely. Atheism is the lack of believe in a deity. Nothing more, nothing less. He then, however, assumes the additional quality that not believing in a deity automatically also makes you reject everything attributed to worshippers of that deity, like a certain moral code, which ofc is wrong. For example, the relevant essence of the ten commandments is "dont be shitty", which does not need a deity at all, but is simple biological imperative (which he, btw., also does not understand, but thats another story.)
@@hiddenwoodsben I hear ya man, thanks for responding in a way that promotes discussions.
He clearly states multiple times that his view of `belief`isnt what you think you say about yourself, or declare. He thinks belief is something that is acted out.
Again whether you disagree or agree with what his definition of belief is isnt the point. The point is that is the definition he is using.
He also said nothing about not believing in a diety, those are words you are putting into his mouth. He has never commented on the existence of a deity or not
He thinks religion is a evolutionary phenomenon that uses the power of the "narrative" over long swaths of time push people in the direction of being successful in the world.
Yes he may think that you cant pick bits and pieces of the "moral structure" (the religion), and overtime that it might collapse.
Question, why couldnt I justify being a immoral person (from a christian perspective) if I didnt believe in those things?
If we are just creatures put on this earth, and we are probably going to die out when the sun explodes, why couldnt I just justify every terrible act I can possibly do?
Johnny Rocket I think you’ll find that the prison population, at least in the US, is as religious and probably more so, than the average American.
Well said.
Atheism is morally more rational and logical than theism
It's not those who called Him Lord that will enter the kingdom of God, but those who DO the Father's will
Peterson seems to think being Judeo Christian is synonymous with being of good moral character. What a facetious remark. Judeo Christians as early as the 1970's used to believe that segregation of class and race was the natural order of humanity. Hardly good moral teaching in the modern moral age. If a black girl and white man were to be married in the Judeo Christian moral age of the 1970's, they would be outcasts in Judeo Christian society. Mr Peterson should stick to his quack psychology.
So we all must be Christians because of the idea of empathy, human progress and potential? such a weak argument. One could say that in favor of many religions, but Peterson picks christianity because thats the one he believes in.
One could just a easily say that perhaps Harris really lives under the values of Greek mythology. He has a wife, and believes in romance and enjoys fine wine, clearly he can't be an atheist, he actually gets his ideology from Aphrodite and Dionysus! he just doesn't know it.
or maybe Harris is a Muslim! He loves his daughters, and although his PhD in neuroscience might make him think they are just molecules with no meaning or purpose, he would die for them if he had to-just like any true martyr would do for their faith in Allah! Therefore, he isn't a true atheist, he's Muslim! absolutely absurd.
Besides, if Peterson wanted to be more accurate with this spurious claim, Harris would be much more of a Buddhist than Christian-if you had to arrogantly put words in his mouth. Much of his views on the nature of consciousness and his approach to living a meaningful life is based on buddhist principles, and yet he doesn't believe in things like karma or in the wheel of samsara because he can speak for himself and says he's an atheist!
He doesn't demand anyone convert to Christianity and has said elsewhere that he doesn't necessarily believe in the Christian God. He's only describing the value of religion and how the underlying idea behind spiritual and religious beliefs is important.
Peterson is probably agnostic, but he’s using Christianity because it’s the most relevant to western society. I could also be because of the morals and values taught in Christianity. I have personally studied various mythologies and religions, and none are nearly as profound as some of the things in the Bible and Christian writings.
As one who's watched a lot of videos on JP, has sympathized with his positions and sees him as an overall positive force, I have just watched the one video where I think he's genuinely wrong on a number of points. Not that it changes my view on him, I just guess everyone has limits.
What do you think he is wrong about?
@@RS-tz2znAlthough it would be hard to answer point by point on what he sayd, I find it useful to answer the concept that underlies his entire viewpoint and gives it validity - and that is: the idea that anyone in western society that embraces those moral concepts which are basic for a morally decent society, with regards to the way we treat ourselves and all others, automatically is a christian whether or not they freed themselves from the metaphysical implications of said philosophy.
What I see as a fallacy is the idea that no functioning society in the world is based on moral rules which detach from what we can identify with the implications of treating ourselves and others as if they matter. While that is true, it is so because there's no existing counterargument... simply because those societies cannot exist as societies, as they failed because of their unsustainable moral baselines. This is important when you ask yourself whether morality is a product of religion or the opposite, as the main argument in favor of the former hypothesis is shaky at best. The fact that some aspects of Christian philosophy correspond to baseline moral rules for a functioning society doesn't mean Christian doctrine is entirely true nor moral, it only serves as enforcement of the obvious fact that all philosophies that would be unacceptable in a functional society have died out over the course of history because of that, and all that's left are those the rules of which Are acceptable and sustainable.
In short I think he isn't too fair in the way he basically dismisses atheists as wayward yet studious subjects who don't realize that they still stand by the moral principles they declare themselves freed of, yet the discussion should go far deeper than what we see portrayed since, again, they may not recognize those principles as belonging to christianity. Hence why calling those who label themselves as "Christian Atheists" is not so "remarkable" in my opinion (ok I guess I'm answering directly on something he says now).
On a sidenote, there's definitely atheists out there who are genuinely obsessed with god. I've no doubt about that. Others shouldn't be called as such just because they're argumentative by nature.
tl;dr: I find it a very lacking depiction of atheists. Still read it all or you're treating me like I don't matter! ;_;
@@randomgod9549 ..."the idea that anyone in western society that embraces those moral concepts which are basic for a morally decent society, with regards to the way we treat ourselves and all others, automatically is a christian whether or not they freed themselves from the metaphysical implications
of said philosophy."
Thank you for your answer! This very same idea comes up with Susan Blackmore. Have you watched this video? The basic question that Blackmore is unable to answer (in my opinion) is if life has no purpose/meaning, then why live pretending that it does?
ruclips.net/video/syP-OtdCIho/видео.html
@@RS-tz2zn It was a good watch. I think, however, that the question you're on about is way more complicated than one can reasonably hope to answer in a youtube comment. Sure one has to acknowledge that S. Blackmoore's answer was unsatisfyingly put; I'm not sure whether she simply underperformed or that's her usual way to address issues, I won't lie by saying I know much about her.
I would've liked her to talk more in detail on the primary reason why atheists (at least a portion of them) think religion is bad for society. To put it simply, religion per se wouldn't be bad nor good: it's a powerful force, and as such it is dangerous when in the hands of the ignorant. You see good use of religion in some of Peterson's lessons, and you see a bad use of it when informed of fundamentalist currents that plague a number of societies in the world. Just as much as he deems Dawkins's work "a shallow analysis" of the matter, I think it's just as superficial to give religions any by-default merits in discovering a highly valuable morality just because our society used to do so historically.
@@randomgod9549 ...Don't you think that religion (in general) leads to stronger societies, all other things being equal? They do offer a feeling of community and support for members (which is generally a good thing). In addition, the values they espouse are normally either good or neutral. For example, the Catholic belief in Transubstantiation (which I don't believe) isn't harmful. While, the values of prayer (meditation), forgiveness, service, and family are actually quite good things.
In fact, I am not aware of any values/beliefs that the Catholic Church instills in their followers that I would consider harmful. Are you aware of any?
On the other hand, without religion...where does one go to learn their values? They can learn them from how they observe others act in the general population. They can learn them from their parents. However, many of the values taught in society at large are quite harmful. For example, extramarital affairs, violence as a way to deal with others, and discouraging hard work.
Also, I would surmise that a person would see better examples of how to act in their church, than they would see in the general population at large. Based on the evidence I see, those that regularly attend church in the US are less likely to commit crimes than those who don't.
marripedia.org/effects_of_religious_practice_on_crime_rates
www.huffpost.com/entry/no-time-for-crime-study-f_b_4384046
"you see a bad use of it when informed of fundamentalist currents that plague a number of societies in the world"
What do you mean specifically here? The belief that the world is only 6,000 years old? I don't see any real harm in the average person believing that. It doesn't really hurt others. It doesn't cause them to treat someone else in a bad way?
In fact, the biggest problems with oppressive thought I have seen in the 20th century were political waves that had nothing to do with religion (i.e. communist russia/china/cambodia). Those really were harmful ideologies that taught people to be jealous of those that had more wealth and punish them and steal their wealth, and then kill them! Also, to punish and kill those that think differently from you.
Big Jordan Peterson fan, but I don’t get how he can be so about numbers and logic, but not be an atheist
linus eisele i mean the logic behind the big bang theory makes more sense than a “god” poofing everything into existence
linus eisele good point, but that also applies to god, it’s like what created him, and who created that? The reality of it is that we really won’t know until we die
@linus eisele Linus: It is WE who created tens of thousands of gods throughout history. How can you be so naive?
linus eisele why can’t we use that same logic for the Big Bang theory
@linus eisele Well, you started by assuming that something 'created' us all. That's fairly naive.
This video is improperly named, in my opinion. The core subject seems to be more oriented toward equality and the politics related to equality, not atheism.
Ethics predates modern religion.
You are such a thoughtful man, Jordan - yet... everytime you talk about religion you complete loose it. Sam Harris is an atheist, he just doesn't understand it?
First of all... what a ridiculously condesending and stupid remark. Jordan.. has it ever occured to you that it's actually the other way round. I.e. Religions are power structures, and they will accomodate any development in society necessary to survive/thrive, and in that process take credit for whatever is needed for that purpose. Exactly like politicians!
On the money.
maybe the propositions are based around the set morals??? im certain im atheist but i will say i agree with 90% of the Christian values... but i cant believe illogical deities living without some proof. although i do understand the importance for a complete society. i feel like a perfectly led set of morals for everyone would be value of individuals without the use of some god.
jains +buddhists dont obsess abt "god"...pl do address diff types of atheism