Alright, all you nasty atheist fundamentalists, tell me about your atheist extremism! I'm so extreme in my humanism that I support LGBT rights! Crazy, right?? Also, I misspoke at 5:02 and said "my interpretation" when I meant "my answer."

@dansattah

5 жыл бұрын

@@helenohenzo2778 You again? Didn't you follow TMM's videos for a while? Also, do you have anything, any kind of scientific study, to prove your assertion that homosexuals were in any way harmful for society?

@willscott1533

5 жыл бұрын

Ahhh yes, as a bisexual, can confirm 100% you can't have homosexuality and heterosexuality in a single society. /s obviously, I have them both in one MIND. WHO is seeking to purge heterosexuality? @HELENO HENZO , your argument makes no sense. We just want to be allowed to express ourselves like you can. If anything, the world is getting too many people, and could use more of us, but that's just it. We aren't even trying to make more gays, bis, and lesbians. We only want to allow people to learn who they are and express it.

@nicolasandre9886

5 жыл бұрын

@thatoneusernam e: but your freedom to express yourself impedes on the religious freedom to oppress the minorities god doesn't like!

@sophietherobot6343

5 жыл бұрын

Did I just see Peterson straw man science? Heleno, come out of the closet already. It's well known what a homophobe you are.

@pansepot1490

5 жыл бұрын

A nice combination of projection and strawmanning.

Jesus: "Let me in" Homeowner: "Why should I?" Jesus: "So I can save you." Homeowner: "Save me from what?" Jesus: "From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in." (A bit off topic, but I thought it'd be appreciated here)

@martinm6368

4 жыл бұрын

I kind of appreciate it. While it's ancient and whoever roams around here probably knows the joke already it still makes me smile every time. It's a good one.

@mandarinablue8438

4 жыл бұрын

It's good and old. Like wine should be.

@fionafiona1146

4 жыл бұрын

@@mandarinablue8438 The majority of wine is best between 15 and 50 months, the wine still good later might be brilliant but can't be guaranteed to be good.

@fionafiona1146

4 жыл бұрын

@Fighter For Christ Is any of that evidence "because the Bible says so"? Since the earlyst writing collaborating it is 3rd century and suspected to be dependent.

@BroNumsi

4 жыл бұрын

@Fighter For Christ I picked a couple randomly and I can assure everyone that it wasn't worth the effort. The first was just a collection of bible verses and the second was the usual gish gallop of already disproven misconceptions and "gotchas". Like how the giraffe couldn't have evolved from anything else since its circulatory system in the neck is specialized to be able to function being so long and all...

I do not play tennis. I don't own a racket, I don't go to the tennis court. And when I walk on the street the rules of tennis do not apply to me. I don't play soccer. I don't own a ball, I don't go to the soccer field. And when I walk on the street the rules of soccer don't apply to me. I don't play chess. I don't own a chess board, I don't go to the chess club. And when I walk on the street the rules of chess don't apply to me. I don't believe in a god. I don't have faith, I don't go to a house of worship. Then why the hell do christians - and sometimes muslims - try to apply their rules on me when I walk on the street? How does opposing that behaviour make me an extremist?

@davidbauler3159

5 жыл бұрын

Because you are secretly playing tennis and soccer and chess, but you may not be aware of it.

@DutchJoan

5 жыл бұрын

@@DaFeanor20 Still doesn't explain why I'm the extremist

@DutchJoan

5 жыл бұрын

@@davidbauler3159 How does that make me an extremist?

@davidbauler3159

5 жыл бұрын

Because you secretly play tennis or are angry at tennis or don't know that the sidewalk is owned by the same people that own tennis

@jilliansmith7123

5 жыл бұрын

CH2517Joan: that's one of the reasons why religion is so dangerous and why antitheists oppose it so very much. Their rules should NOT apply to you, and yet they insist that they must. Your post was really well-written and well-thought-out. Thanks!

i cant stand the whole"holy books aren't meant to be taken literally" so it is all metaphors and symbolism? god sends a rulebook and the rules are encrypted?

@RictusHolloweye

4 жыл бұрын

I take it to mean God is a metaphor. Kind of destroys any reason to worship him.

@epifloyd7357

4 жыл бұрын

If God is symbolism does he still exist?

@jamesu8033

4 жыл бұрын

I’ve always found that quite strange. Why did God choose scripture to give his message. Any form of literature can be interpreted in many ways. It is fundamentally flawed to send a message in such a way.

@MegaChickenfish

4 жыл бұрын

So well encrypted that no two humans on earth can agree on which ones are metaphors and which are literal. Which still apply or which don't.

@vanessawhite2084

4 жыл бұрын

Also, which parts are supposed to be literal and which parts are metaphorical? And how do they know? It's a cop-out.

Them: Dont take the bible literally! me: ok, Jesus and god are metaphors not literal existing entities them: No not like that!

@carreviewer6345

Жыл бұрын

😂 Good one

@gerritvalkering1068

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, you're supposed to kinda pick and choose which ones to take literally and which ones you shouldn't. Or, better yet, listen to the authority figure who'll tell you exactly what to believe

@prince_of_summer

11 ай бұрын

lol

@ThomQuinnHere

4 ай бұрын

I’ve had this argument in real life. 😂

"We can make our magic book mean whatever we want it to whenever we want"

@thomasmaughan4798

4 жыл бұрын

Of course. You can do that too. So what? Men are now women if they wish. It means whatever anyone wants it to mean. You don't even need to change the words.

@Faint366

4 жыл бұрын

Thomas Maughan then it has no real meaning. And therefor you have no reason to believe the god it presents is anything but a metaphor. That would be de facto atheism

@thomasmaughan4798

4 жыл бұрын

@@Faint366 "then it has no real meaning" Yes, you have taken a giant leap forward in understanding. "That would be de facto atheism" it would be exactly that for persons that simply have no religion and have not bothered to assign a definition to "god". But for nearly all youtube commenting atheists, it is not so; they have a very specific idea in mind what "God" means; the problem is that for any particular atheist, the meaning will differ from the next; and they aren't just atheist, they are anti-theist. That kind is a lot more fun to try to understand since generally speaking each of them also hasn't really thought about it much.

@Faint366

4 жыл бұрын

Thomas Maughan wow. Not even going to bother since everything you said is nothing but a straw man and an insult right at the end. “All my opponents think this way and none of them do much research so I win.” Let me know when you’re ready to be honest. You’ve responded to me in multiple threads using dishonest tactics in every single one. I’m honestly starting to wonder if you’re even capable of honest argumentation.

@jamesmccreery250

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, because our shared imaginary friend say so! Or a book about him says so, or a book made up by the romans to control the Jews told me so, but they actually stole most of their ideas from mithraism......Religion is the art of bullshitting ones way out of needing figuring things out.

apotterist /ˈeɪpɒtəɪst/ noun a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of Harry Potter. "he is a committed apotterist"

@bdf2718

5 жыл бұрын

My pharmacist doesn't believe in pothecarys.

@ghenulo

5 жыл бұрын

or /eɪ'pɑɾəɹəst/ here in the US.

@jilliansmith7123

5 жыл бұрын

ghenulo: what part of the US would pronounce it that way? Sounds drunk.

@davidbauler3159

5 жыл бұрын

i think that you mean, a fundamentalist apotterist

@jilliansmith7123

5 жыл бұрын

Skeptic Psychologist: good post!

Most atheists speak out about religion because most have come from a religious background and see the damage that they do.😉

@williamnewton3327

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much for pointing that out... I was raised Christian and I feel like I'm forcing myself to be an atheist due to societal norms. I'm frightened to confess what I really believe. I believe in science and aliens, and I don't really think the biblical god is real, but I honestly believe in a higher power of some sort.

@marianmeletlidiscrap

4 жыл бұрын

@@williamnewton3327 So, you're a deist of some sort?

@kathleen5237

4 жыл бұрын

@@williamnewton3327 Just be yourself and stay strong. We all meet opposition for some reason. People should be free to believe what they do so long as they hurt nobody else

@efandmk3382

4 жыл бұрын

I personally, don't know any Atheists who were NOT raised in a fundamentalist atmosphere. Interesting.

@efandmk3382

4 жыл бұрын

Kate..But religious fundamentalists, Muslim and Christian, to harm other people.

"We're not plugging our ears and running away when we hear these arguments. We're charging toward them unafraid to engage and demonstrate their flaws" Great quote Drew, I'm stealing that 🤝🏾😄

@thomasmaughan4798

3 жыл бұрын

""We're not plugging our ears..." There is no WE. Well, okay, there is; a herd of sheep all bleating the same bleats.

@spiderworld384

3 жыл бұрын

Well I’m stealing that from you then 🤝

Just because your Christianity isn't fundamentalist doesn't mean it's any more correct. You can have as liberal of a theology as you want to, that doesn't mean there's a God or that Jesus rose from the dead.

@RevanorSzeged

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah, every time you claim to have an enlightened , modern, or broadly accepted view that differs from broadly accepted dogma from 300 years ago, you just admit that it’s all made up. At least fundamentalists have a simplistic honesty and loyalty to the bullshit they believe in.

@jansson007

5 жыл бұрын

@@RevanorSzeged lol, you know what they say; if you're not a fundamentalist, there's something wrong with your fundamentals!

@admiralbirdcrap661

5 жыл бұрын

András Agócs Some people think that all you must do is pray a simple prayer and, SHAZAM!... you are perfect now.... BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION it's really about controlling your imagination..

@ObjectivelyDan

5 жыл бұрын

@Bluemonsoon There's an emphasis in modern Christian culture to make sure that your interpretation is relevant to the context, while at the same time holding some fundamentals as true (i.e. jesus rose from the dead, jesus is God, etc.) There are many Christians that insist that if you just have the right interpretation, or if you just understood things in the right context, then suddenly Christianity will make sense and you can believe it as true. My comment was simply rejecting this assertion. Don't know of any nu-speak here.

@thisiscait

5 жыл бұрын

💯 - and those people are far less damaging to humanity in general than fundamentalists and extremists.

He's talking about "atheistic science" ? What science would that be? Biology? Geology? Astronomy? I wasn't aware that these sciences also come in a religious flavour? Theistic geology - is that a thing? Geologists who see signs of a global flood everywhere they dig? Do theistic biologists find that women are indeed made out of a man's rib?

@thomasmaughan4798

4 жыл бұрын

Science now comes in many flavors as a backlash to the Patriarchy. So does mathematics which was designed to oppress Africans.

@Faint366

4 жыл бұрын

Thomas Maughan do you just go around every comment section strawmanning the OPs and assigning them beliefs based on random unrelated SJW video clips from 5 years ago? No one here was part of that African video about black magic. No one here agrees with it. Why are you bringing it up? You strawman even worse than Peterson

@variedgaming5402

3 жыл бұрын

Mathematics was created to oppress Africans... please tell me how you believe that. Sounds like quite a stretch to me man.

@musiccer7446

3 жыл бұрын

@@thomasmaughan4798 I hope you are joking, because these days I can’t tell if you are or if you are not

@thomasmaughan4798

3 жыл бұрын

@@musiccer7446 My comment is in reply to "He's talking about atheistic science ? What science would that be? Biology? Geology? Astronomy?" and the significance apparently isn't obvious. These branches of science have nothing to say about God; introducing these branches of science in a conversation about God (or Not God) has already introduced religion into science. As most scientists have traditionally been pale skinned men, it obtains political aspects as well. SJW's, while trying to distance themselves from pale skins, tend to also distance themselves from science; although it is not necessary to do that.

Peterson has made me so suspicious and distrustful of "intellect." He's so dodgy, evasive and non-committing. Atheists do not say "never" - they say "show me the evidence."

@bamawebdev8640

4 жыл бұрын

The problem in your rationale is that atheists are not monolithic. If you've been on the internet discussing religion in the past 15 years, you have certainly seen hardline, dogmatic atheists. They do exist, and in rather large numbers. Some of us aren't agnostic.

@dominikwendel3560

4 жыл бұрын

Belief and personal ideals are not rarely detached from intellect. It is rather a matter of indoctrination and personal experiences. I know lots of people (professors and students alike) that are incredibly smart but believe in miracles or a hidden truth in their holy book by not reading it literally, missing the point that not all people see it that way and that this is the root problem of extremism.

@thomasmaughan4798

4 жыл бұрын

Many atheists do indeed say affirmatively there is no god of any kind any where. In fact, you can google it. "There is no God" with quotes so you get that exact phrase: About 8,340,000 results (1.13 seconds) "There is No God (And You Know It). Sam Harris, Contributor." "Stephen Hawking: 'There is no God,' says physicist"

@thomasmaughan4798

4 жыл бұрын

@Derogation "Saying there is no god is not dogma." It is not only dogma, it's stupid. What exactly do you mean by "god"? "It's saying there is no tooth fairy. No Santa Claus" Still stupid. In my house I am the tooth fairy and my children know it and expect me to arrive in a pink tutu. Santa Claus is a distant echo of Saint Nicholas, a German priest. So if you define "god" with sufficient precision so I know what you mean, I may well agree with you. But if you mean to implicate an entire Universe of possible life forms, and assert that absolutely nothing out there is Supreme, well, that's dogmatic and irrational; it cannot be known.

@dominikwendel3560

4 жыл бұрын

@@thomasmaughan4798 I know what you mean but don't you think it is a bit extreme to think that another life form somewhere in the universe could actually have created the universe in six days, made two humans and spread false clues about the earth being much older than a few thousand years old? It is ovious that Hawking and others refer to the god eg. in the bible and this god is easily debunked, especially if that god is supposedly good and benign.

"sky daddy" *Mr Atheist has left the chat*

@Julia99lol

4 жыл бұрын

Was looking for that comment xD

@AMikeStein

4 жыл бұрын

Cee Writes oh I laughed heartily at this one. That’s funny.

@GBfanatic15

4 жыл бұрын

my thoughts :P

@ccb36

4 жыл бұрын

We know that's who he was thinking of lol (but much love to both of them)

@bamawebdev8640

4 жыл бұрын

@Fighter For Christ Easily, huh? Let's hear it. Prove it to me.

"You're like us so you're bad" - Christian apologist logic.

@bdf2718

5 жыл бұрын

Yep. Next they'll be saying it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in gawd. Wait. I thought faith was supposed to be a *good* thing according to theists.

@davisiimdavisiim1295

5 жыл бұрын

The desperate false equivalence fallacy to bring down a concept into the mud because that their opposition is no better than them. Sad

@davisiimdavisiim1295

5 жыл бұрын

@@bdf2718 "It takes more faith to not believe than to believe." I hate that stupid remark so much when I hear it.

@Mikri90

5 жыл бұрын

To be fair, they are already saying that. By the millions.

@rarebeeph1783

5 жыл бұрын

They're trying to make their targets seem hypocritical. This fails, because in doing so they are both being hypocritical themselves and being wrong.

"You're a Wizard, Harry." YOU COULD MAKE A RELIGION OUT OF THIS!

@fionafiona1146

4 жыл бұрын

Australia has a new census soon.

@StormsandSaugeye

4 жыл бұрын

No wait don't

@JH-zs3bs

3 жыл бұрын

You have a lizard, Harry

@Yash-wm1nj

3 жыл бұрын

No wait Don't

@redreaper7417

3 жыл бұрын

it already is

This is just the latest tactic. Not that long ago, "they" tried to tell me that my atheism is just "belief in nothing" - sort of missing the point. You either have it or you don't, it's not faith in something vs nothing. You cannot have faith in nothing, but you can lack faith in something in particular. For a skeptic (an atheist is basically a religious skeptic) - you need to show them proof - it's literally at odds with faith, which is thinking something is true without any evidence (and, generally, not needing any). But now, we are extremists like religious fundamentalist. One more try at the false equivalency.

@RictusHolloweye

4 жыл бұрын

I suspect many theists honestly cannot comprehend not believing in something. They can understand converting to another religion, even if it's Satanism, but just not having any religion at all.... many don't seem to consider that to even be possible.

@int0x80

3 жыл бұрын

I think a religious skeptic is an agnostic, because just because you can’t prove something doesn’t mean that anyone has disproved anything. I would be surprised if anyone could definitively disprove or prove Deism.

@random-user9818

3 жыл бұрын

right? i've been told that atheism and science are just religions, which clearly indicates they understand neither religion or either of those. the kicker is the say it with disgust on the word religion, from religious folks. nope the exact opposite, and stop with the self hatred please folks. lol.

@smigboke9878

3 жыл бұрын

@OtherWorlds AllWorlds what do you mean by that comment?( this is the first time i knew about this religon)

@thomasmaughan4798

3 жыл бұрын

"You either have it or you don't" The fallacy of the false alternatives. Bad logic does seem to follow many atheists. Faith or belief comes in degrees. I have some faith that the extremely expensive Large Hadron Collider has demonstrated the existence of the Higgs Boson. But maybe it didn't.

All religions textbooks were written to be taken literally. According to those mythologies, moderation is a deadly sin

@thomasmaughan4798

4 жыл бұрын

And when the scripture says a thing is a parable, THAT is to be taken literally. It is literally a parable!

@geoffstemen3652

4 жыл бұрын

Peter Almeida - profound, profound misunderstanding

@peteralmeida3612

4 жыл бұрын

@@geoffstemen3652 are you trying to tell me that when the Torah/Pentateuch commands to 'murder the gay' it was joking? Really? Hahaha, you lost that argument before you got the Religion Syndrome, man!

@geoffstemen3652

4 жыл бұрын

Peter Almeida - we’re not arguing. you made something up & i called you out for making it up

@thomasmaughan4798

4 жыл бұрын

@@geoffstemen3652 Here on youtube comments I have a doubt that "calling someone out" is effective. There is no "out".

People tend to not understand that atheism is based on a lack of belief in gods. It's not a system of belief but not believing in what others believe.

@DrumWild

5 жыл бұрын

This is why I am not so certain that "Atheism" exists, for there is no holy text, anointed leader, or other artifacts that are required to fill an ISM. For me, it started when someone asked me if I believed in their god. I said that I did not, later looked into it, found no reason to believe, and moved on. No ISM required, at all.

@Hirnlego999

5 жыл бұрын

It exists. A theist has a certain meaning, the a- in front of it changes it all. Compare with sexual and asexual.

@amadeusdebussy6736

5 жыл бұрын

I would agree with DrumWild, atheists exist, but atheism really doesn't.

@davisiimdavisiim1295

5 жыл бұрын

@@DrumWild as in the condition of atheism is the default, rather than the other way around lil religion would have you Believe.

@xCorvus7x

5 жыл бұрын

@@Hirnlego999 Atheists exist. Whether Atheism (note the capital "a") exists, depends on what an -ism is supposed to be. If it is a system of believes, then no. If it simply denotes the state of mind of an atheist, then yes. (Which, of course, includes but is not limited to any belief system that is based on not believing in any god.)

Hearing so many religious people speaking of "Atheism" and "what it says," I tend to suspect that *_Atheism does not exist._* As a life-long non-believer who will use the term "Atheist" in a political context, I have yet to see an Atheist belief, dogma, holy text, anointed leader, or other artifacts that are essential to fill an ISM. This comes to mind every time I hear, *_"Atheism says..."_* because Atheism never "said" anything to me. Ever. Indeed, there are individual Atheists everywhere. I don't know any who subscribe to a system known as "Atheism."

@brisca1668

5 жыл бұрын

Atheism says "i dont believe in god" and thats literally it.

@brookefoxie9610

5 жыл бұрын

Atheism is a reaction. We react to people calling themselves, and wanting to call us, theists, so we call ourselves atheist. We don't go after minority Christian beliefs, usually, because we react to the majority/loudest/most harmful beliefs. Atheism will die out when theist stop existing because we will have nothing to "react" to. Everyone would still be an atheist, but if everyone is an atheist, then there's no purpose to calling yourself one. This isn't a common view on Atheism, but I find it accurate. Some react more than others, but we all react. I'm not sure if there is a major flaw to this idea as I've only been growing it for a week or so. I may have unintentionally borrowed it from someone else and forgotten it.

@davidbauler3159

5 жыл бұрын

Hitchens

@rhondah1587

5 жыл бұрын

DrumWild Totally agree with your comment. A-theist = Not a theist A-theism = Not accepting theism, without theism Atheism is the opposite, the negation of theism. There are no fundamentals associated with it, no dogma, no holy books, no rituals, etc.

@Twentydragon

5 жыл бұрын

Atheism is basically like writing "N/A" for religion. It's a placeholder for something that that some people look for, and informs them that nothing goes here. Atheism is just the empty space where religion thinks it belongs.

In the Potterist-analogy you forgot one major group - the ones who pick-and-choose and claim that some parts are literal and have to be believed and obeyed by the letter, and some parts are metaphors, open to interpretation (their, of course). And which parts are which change over time. Those Potterists are the most infuriating ones. - X is literally true because the bible says so! - But doesn't it also say that Y? - No, that's a metaphor. Why do you have to take that literally, you fundamentalist!

@thomasmaughan4798

4 жыл бұрын

"open to interpretation (their, of course)" Well of course it is my interpretation; why would it be yours?

@RictusHolloweye

4 жыл бұрын

That's a point I like to raise when it comes to some parts of scripture being metaphor. Surely that raises the possibility (likelihood) that the character of God is a metaphor, perhaps representing the universe or biological life or energy or... whatever.

@aymericst-louis-gabriel8314

3 жыл бұрын

Like, waw, different genres of literature exist, I promise.

@Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

3 жыл бұрын

Well there is magic and it is real, and you just don't know about it because you're a muggle, but the ministry of magic is just a metaphor.

@johaquila

3 жыл бұрын

This is only really problematic if people pick and choose based on stupid criteria, which is of course often the case. But it's not really stupid to interpret Mosaic law and the Ten Commandments as meant literally and Song of Songs as poetry that isn't meant literally.

I was raised Catholic in the UK and didn’t realise that there were people that took the Bible as literal truth until I was about twenty.

@gerritvalkering1068

Жыл бұрын

Must have been a shock

Terrific points. On his point about being an evolutionary biologist and not writing about Darwin, you don’t really need to write about Darwin anymore. He’s really only interesting in a historical context. You’ll see very very little about Darwin in a modern college biology textbook. He’s just not needed.

@donniejefferson9554

5 жыл бұрын

In any college classes I've taken that discussed evolution there was nothing said about Darwin beyond a quick reference to his name. The subject has gone a long way since Darwin and it's not helpful to anyone or anything to act like every idea about evolution came directly from him

@jimlovesgina

5 жыл бұрын

It is good to give credit to those who started us on the path of discovery.

@jilliansmith7123

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, giving credit is good. But it's not the whole topic by a landslide. And Darwin wasn't even the first...he just got the most physical evidence and wrote the best book first. His grandfather had the same ideas, as did others before Charles Darwin. And HE was the one to come up with "natural selection" which was a wonderful explanation for why it all worked the way it does. Then you move on to modern evolutionary work, DNA and the rest.

@Ugly_German_Truths

5 жыл бұрын

I agree Jackson, but that is the problem... you are taking Peterson serious. He's just using naive images and simplistic language to muddle the waters of "what makes up good morals"... his argument why Atheism "is bad" is a fucking BOOK character FFS! Cause HE cannot see anybody not become a Raskolnykov... See the problem? His most famous "argument" is one from personal incredulity. And it's not the only one where he simply showcases lack of understanding of differing positions and strawmans the heck out of his targets. JP is the intellectual's Potato amongst the low hanging fruits.

@theultimatereductionist7592

5 жыл бұрын

Excellent points, Jillian Smith & Jackson Wheat & Alex Reinke.

I watched the Peterson vs Dillahunty debate and I don't know what Peterson was talking about half the time... He goes off on so many tangents because he's not willing to argue finite and definable points with Matt.

@sablemae8853

5 жыл бұрын

He did a lot of tap-dancing and said a lot but on what he believes he gives non-committal answers. His taking mushrooms and quitting smoking was absolutely dishonest. He made it sound like it was fact when it was a small 15 person study. But he sat up there and acted like it was some important study when it wasn't

@kaycarol8867

5 жыл бұрын

sable mae one of my best friends who’s an atheist has done mushrooms and Psychedelics but he still has not quit smoking.

@Zanzopan

4 жыл бұрын

@@kaycarol8867 There has been several case studies now with it and it looks like if you are serious about not smoking and include psychological counseling and prep work it can cure many addictions. The best analogy I saw was it rebooted the PC in Safemode and with psychological therapy, it can allow a kinda editing/rewiring. It seems to do similar things to PTSD and depression people. BUT this is in collaboration with more orthodox treatment methods. Just taking shrooms won't cure anything. It is still in testing but it seems to help more than just orthodox treatment alone in a high percentage of people. But with many things Peterson, he linked it to theology and simplified beyond being helpful to where it is near fabrication.

@granta3044

4 жыл бұрын

Peterson developed battling college students, not intellectuals, hes a bully.

@Nobodynewduh

4 жыл бұрын

It's because he's a hack.

"Atheist Fundamentalism" kind of sounds like an oxymoron, no?

@aarush3603

3 жыл бұрын

It IS an oxymoron. How the heck can an atheist be a fundamentalist?

@MikaelLewisify

3 жыл бұрын

An oxymoron thrust upon us by morons.

@spiderworld384

3 жыл бұрын

@@MikaelLewisify yes

@claytonreeves150

3 жыл бұрын

When they use that term, the people using it don't even understand that the term they mean to be using is "anti-theist." Anti-theists can definitely be fundamentalists, but atheists - by definition - cannot.

@collan580

3 жыл бұрын

@@aarush3603 I think he simply means that someone treats science as a religion. And there are people like that who just blindly follows it just because one paper said X thing. When in reality science is not an organised thing and quality between research papers exist and biases can affect results especially when it comes to sociology.

I guess my complete lack of interest in sports makes me an extremist when it comes to sports. I guess my great appreciation for science fiction makes me an extremist when it comes to science fiction. 🤦‍♂️

@garethbaus5471

3 жыл бұрын

A strong appreciation of science fiction as a genre is a more extreme position than that taken by much of the population.

@carreviewer6345

Жыл бұрын

I'm really into cars that makes me a car fundamentalist

I've always had a problem with the whole "scripture is not literal" thing. To me it seems like any given holy book is either (A): Meant to be taken literally, from cover to cover. (B): All allegory and metaphor. (C): A mix of the previous two, with some passages being one and others the other. To me, the first book (A) would be useful if it were correct. It would contain actual facts and knowing those things could be of benefit. The second book (B) is not entirely useless, but not really worthy of devotion. It might be thought provoking but it doesn't provide anything real that wasn't already within you. The third book (C) is what I think a lot of people (theists and atheists alike) see the holy books as. The problem is that it's really no different from the second one in practice. If some of it is not literal and we admit this, then the entire thing is open to personal interpretation because you have to determine which parts are actually literal. In my experience the "don't take it literally" thing has been used mostly as a crutch by theists to excuse the more ridiculous parts of their holy texts. To me, the very first time you find yourself correcting a holy book in this way it has lost any claim of divine origin. At that point, it's no more worthy of basing your life on than Stephen King's The Dark Tower (and probably quite a bit less, due to King's vastly superior morals as compared to most gods).

@WingedEspeon

4 жыл бұрын

Honestly most holy books are really supposed to be case (B)

@tobyswiss7909

4 жыл бұрын

The Bible is a collection of 66 different texts, dubbed books. Whether we take them literally is based on the genre of a given book. Since Genesis is written as a history, it ought to be interpreted as a history. Since Psalms is written as poetry, it ought to be interpreted as poetry. Since Jeremiah is written as prophecy, it ought to be interpreted as prophecy. And so on...

@jordank.5589

4 жыл бұрын

This is a good observation. You are right that the holy text of the bible falls into category C. There are literal historical accounts and there are metaphors, illustrations, parables etc. For people who don't understand that the bible is a compilation of different books from a variety of authors including prophets, kings, priests, historians etc it's easy to see how they might get confused or critical. For instance in the book of "Kings" when it describes King David having 19 different wives and how he got them and what the names of all their children were, are we to understand this is simply a weird metaphor? No it's clear that it's supposed to be a historical account. And when Jesus says "I am the good sheperd and you are the sheep" he's clearly not saying they are literal sheep, but rather that they are his followers. Or when a prophet says "i had a vision of a beast with ten heads" we understand that it is a metaphor, and later the prophet explains that it represents 10 leaders of a future kingdom. So yes its a compilation of a variety of literature that reveals the nature of God and his interaction with and plans for the world.

@Faint366

4 жыл бұрын

Jordan K. Then what you’re left with is a collection of books where none of the supernatural parts or parts that have to do with god are meant to be taken literally. You might as well be saying that Harry Potter has some real bits, like London being a real place, and some fake bits, all of the magic. But then your conclusion is that Harry Potter is real even tho the magic is only metaphor. How does that follow? If the god bits are only metaphor then fine, I agree. It’s a work of fiction that we can get meaning from. But why would you believe god is real in that case?

@tobyswiss7909

4 жыл бұрын

@@Faint366 Because God is also very active in the history books (i.e., So God created man in his own image). Usually, the format of text (say, whether it's written in paragraphs or stanzas) or clear indications within the text ("This is the word of Prophet Joe, to whom the word of the Lord came...") give you an idea what kind of writing you're reading.

I didn't see the whole debate, but when Peterson was asked what are the real issues, all he did was rattle off authors. He didn't point out a particular issue.

@danielessex2162

5 жыл бұрын

He wants others to believe he is well read and is ready to address the issues he never talks about

@olaf3140

5 жыл бұрын

You can find videos of him talking about these authors and their ideas in more depth. But even then, how many religious people base their ideas of religion on interpretations of the texts of Dostoevsky, Jung, etc. ? He's probably one out of like 5 people.

@foodiebeauty6738

5 жыл бұрын

That's Peterson though. He never answers a question clearly, just waffles on with a word salad trying to sound deep and hoping you forgot the question by the time he finishes.

@djixi98

5 жыл бұрын

Nonquack Oh, you should've heard him when the moderator asked him if there are any passages in bible so outrageous that they cannot be excused.. Oh what a salad that was! It was in the first debate with Sam Harris in Vancouver, if anyone is interested.

@johntran2252

5 жыл бұрын

i love how he always uses the main character from crime and punishment as an example of what would happen if someone was a "true atheist". Yes let's use the example of a fictional character. JP is a quack and essentially the same as the televangelists back in the 80's and 90's but repackaged judeo-christian beliefs so that his manipulation is more subtle.

"Sky daddy, which I usually I find ridiculous and irritating" - Jab at Mr. Athiest? lol

"Fundamentalism" noun a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture. "there was religious pluralism there at a time when the rest of Europe was torn by fundamentalism" strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline. Easy to see how ridiculous this argument is when you actually look up the definition of fundamentalism

In my view, theists always claim to believe in some specific god, but as soon as an atheist starts questioning the specifics, the theist gets defensive and starts backing off saying, "Oh you're just being too literal". The theist would rather not defend solid ground, but keep their position so fluid and diluted it becomes impossible to challenge. Notice how every "Does God Exist" debate devolves into arguments for Deism from Christians or Muslims. They never want to defend what they actually believe, because the defense simply doesn't exist. My religious mother always accuses me of being close-minded, even though I've told her repeatedly that I am open to evidence that meets good standards, which she never provides. But she never addresses any points that I make, she just stops listening partway through, shrugs, and says I'm trying to make myself into God. Although I'm sure some would, I've never heard an atheist say 'nothing would ever change my mind', while religious people say that all the time, and proudly.

@CausalityLoop

5 жыл бұрын

@BTIsaac Sure, and to avoid strawmanning them I always ask people to tell me what they believe and do my best to respond to exactly that, and nothing more. My observations above are based on a majority of my discussions with theists, though I will readily admit not every theist argues like this. I realize I said "always" in my comment, it's not always, so maybe I did exaggerate a little with that one word. Some will acknowledge they know their belief is irrational but they want to hold it anyway, and some (like presups) will tell you straight up they know God exists and everyone else does too.

@Bill_Bo

5 жыл бұрын

Stig, exactly! It is all a dodge. When you base your entire world view on a primitive overly edited book that claims never seen again magic happened for real you cannot have anyone questioning it. All praise Lazarus that is risen from the dead.

@CausalityLoop

5 жыл бұрын

@BTIsaac Sure I'm aware of cultural christianity. My position is that if a "christian" is irreligious, deistic, or atheistic, calling them a christian just muddies the waters. I'd be curious what you mean by "beliefs identified with Christianity" that don't mean you're actually a Christian. I also don't care if someone claims to be culturally christian, for the most part. I care whether or not beliefs are true. Christianity makes claims about truth. I dispute many of them. Hence my comment. How many versions of Christianity there are is irrelevant to me. Even if there was only one, it wouldn't make it any more or less valid. The claims stand or fall on their own merit. Claiming that Hitchens made a fatal error and "acknowledged the validity" of these is nonsense. There are many different alien abduction stories I could point out. Does that acknowledge their validity too? Or maybe... they're all mistaken. That seems far more likely to me. Dawkins being a Christian only makes sense if Christianity is so diluted as to not contain any of its doctrine, since Dawkins doesn't think God is real, doesn't think Genesis is true, doesn't think Jesus was the messiah, and so on. Also I'm just as biased toward Christianity over Islam too. Christianity has been considerably defanged in recent history, unlike Islam. Kind of like how I'd prefer to carpool with a serial molester over a serial killer if I had to pick one. (crude analogy I know, but it illustrates what I mean). Hope that clarifies what I wrote.

@CausalityLoop

5 жыл бұрын

@BTIsaac Fine. Then you're a Christian, I'm a Christian, Osama bin Laden was a Christian, and Santa Claus is a Christian. We're all Muslim, we're all Hindu, and we're also all Zoroastrian. We've all been abducted by aliens, we all believe in faries, and we've all seen Bigfoot. And we all think chocolate is the best ice cream. How do I know that's all true? Because I just defined all of those categories as applying to all humans. See the problem? When you strip away everything meaningful about a particular label that makes that label unique, you render it meaningless. 2nd example: I just defined "dogs" as "people commenting on KZread named BTIsaac". So you're a dog now. Make sense why we don't do that yet? I'll also spell this out, so you can't miss it: I. Don't. Care. About. True. Christianity. All I care about is whether your claims are true. Are you convinced God exists? That Jesus is the messiah? That aliens stuck a probe up your ass? That Claim X is true? If you are, please present your evidence or stop muddying the waters.

@CausalityLoop

5 жыл бұрын

@BTIsaac Okay this conversation has been pointless because now I'm pretty sure if we weren't hung up on semantics we actually agree on most things. I do take this issue seriously, I challenge all religious truth claims where they deserve to be challenged, and I'm still not entirely sure what your whole point even was. You have a good one.

Peterson says that celebrity atheists aren't contending with the real issues? What real issues? Russian novelists? Early psychiatric explorers? C'mon, man. Real issues would include suppressing human rights, woo peddling, science denial, and morals.

@roscoedash6673

5 жыл бұрын

"real issues" = whatever Jordan thinks is important. Jordan loves Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Jung, so those guys must be presenting the "real issues". Never mind that maybe 1% of the population has read any of their writings on religion, and less than 1% base their religious views on these writings, these are the "real issues" because Jordan deems them so.

@riverstyxarmory9782

5 жыл бұрын

The real issues, a fictional story about a guy who states a fact of "if there is no god, there are no afterlife consequences" but ignores the fact that societal consequences exist in society. Yeah, real issues. Sure.

@tiglathpilesariii

5 жыл бұрын

He presents these thinkers as real issues because in their writings they address human rights and morals in a way few others have done. In studying and contending with their ideas, we gain a greater understanding of the problems that plague our society. They give us a stronger basis from which to launch our battle against current societal ills as well as insight to prevent us from making the mistakes that those who came before us made.

@VeriVeronika

5 жыл бұрын

@Bluemonsoon citations please? From personal experience I've seen the exact opposite.

@YourIdeologyIsDelusional

5 жыл бұрын

Suppressing human rights: Celeb atheists are bad at having serious, in depth discussions on this topic. They by large and far suffer from what I like to call Hugo and Jake syndrome, which is to go "BAD THING IS BAD, C'MON GUYS" and say absolutely nothing of useful substance outside of said virtue signal. Woo peddling: Very rarely is this of any real concern. We live in a world where we have well known KZread atheists that deflect for Islam while people in the same movement concern themselves with shit like spirit science, showing that we have a serious problem with prioritization... Or more likely, less than pure intentions or principles. This isn't even to speak of the absolute blindness to what Peterson is actually accomplishing for us, regardless of what his goals personally are. Science Denial: Yeah, I'll give you this one. So far that's one point for celeb atheism without a caveat. Very often does celeb atheism manage to not only address this problem head on, but do so with detailed and informative breakdowns. I wish there was just a little more push for solutions. Morals: I wouldn't trust the current atheist movement to know good morals from its ass. Look, atheism+ is a black mark on the face of our entire movement, and nobody had a fucking clue what sort of awful shit we were creating while it was happening. Internet atheism gave the world Steve Shives, and proved that people in this movement can just trade one religion for another without realizing it. Peterson has points and you guys are butthurt that he has points. That's what this is. That's what's happening here. As much as his "clean your room" shit annoys me, this is one of the examples where it really, really makes sense in a real world manner. We birthed Atheism+. There is no denying that we have not just religious thinking in dark corners of the atheist community, but a very real analog to fundamentalism.

I'm pretty sure the people who claim we aren't addressing the "real" god are the same ones who claim we can't comprehend the real god.

@KonradZielinski

4 жыл бұрын

Sophisticated theologens always refuse to define god. That way whatever an atheist says they can reply with "I don't believe in that god either." Its intelectually dishonest in my view. If you believe in a god and have spent ten or tweny years studdying the matter, you should be able to articulate what it is that you do believe in.

@jeffc5974

4 жыл бұрын

@@KonradZielinski I've never heard a definition of god that isn't either incoherent or self referencing.

"Do you think the bible, taken literally, is true?" "Yes/no." "You had to take the bible literally to answer! So you're a biblical literalist and a fundamentalist!" Do they not see the issue with their definition of atheists as fundamentalists?

@sorryifoldcomment8596

3 жыл бұрын

Atheism has nothing to do with the Bible, this is so stupid. Evidence of god is separate. I don't care what the stupid book says and religious people are trying to force us too again! Once they have evidence for god, they can come bother me lol.

@fluffynator6222

3 жыл бұрын

*Yesn't

Funny thing is Jordan Peterson doesn't believe in god, he believes in belief. Those aren't the same thing. He's just an atheist. Any religious person that actually believed in god would recognize he's just one more atheist academic trying to be a priest.

@someoneelse1904

5 жыл бұрын

IRL Server “Well that depends on what you mean by god.”

@Peasham

5 жыл бұрын

Now if you could just explain what that means without being incredibly vague, that'd be great.

@Faint366

4 жыл бұрын

Right. He says Romeo and Juliet is true. Not because it’s actually true, but because the story speaks to the human condition. He says religion is true in the same way. And then he says holy books are all metaphors. If you take that approach then you’d have no reason to believe in an actual god, only a metaphorical god. Aka, atheism.

@miguelpereira9859

4 жыл бұрын

@@Faint366 Exactly. He is an atheist. He interprets religious texts in the same way he interprets fiction like Tolstoy

Whenever Jordan Peterson speaks about religion it's intellectual dishonesty at it's finest.

@transsylvanian9100

5 жыл бұрын

Whenever he speaks about anything it's intellectual dishonesty. He's just as wrong about pretty much everything else. What he says about marxism and "postmodernism" for example is pure bullshit.

@tyler_da_wiz

5 жыл бұрын

@@transsylvanian9100 True, but from what I noticed personally he seems to be most intellectually dishonest when talking on religion. Just some of the points he makes are so damn wrong and just sounds like a charlatan.

@tyler_da_wiz

5 жыл бұрын

@@transsylvanian9100 I do agree he is mostly full of shit. Hopefully he gets less and less appeal as he gets called out for it, but some part of me says that's probably not going to happen.

@transsylvanian9100

5 жыл бұрын

@@tyler_da_wiz He's even worse in my opinion when it comes to his political views. Whenever he talks about leftism it's pure bullshit reactionary propaganda. He completely misrepresents it.

@sulljoh1

5 жыл бұрын

It gets finer

I greatly appreciate Drew’s intellectual approach to his rhetoric. Even when disproving or countering the opposition, he still remains calm and respectful. I wish we could all conduct ourselves in such a manner.

I always love it when the religious attempt to use comparisons to religion as reasons to not be an atheist. They are, without any sense of irony, roasting themselves.

@thomasmaughan4798

3 жыл бұрын

"as reasons to not be an atheist." It is impossible to BE an atheist. It is not a thing. It is a not-thing; but what else you are is unspecified.

I suppose you could say that all atheism is fundamentalist, since it has, by definition, only one principle and thus every atheist must believe in ALL fundamental principles of atheism. But I suppose that's quite the stretch since it's really what we DON'T believe that makes us atheist. It's like that old analogy, where not collecting stamps is a hobby. Everyone who doesn't collect stamps does so on a fundamental basis.

@DrumWild

5 жыл бұрын

This is why I tend to suspect that "Atheism" does not exist, for it has no beliefs, holy texts, anointed leaders, or other attributes required to fill an ISM. So if it makes others feel better, I can just be the guy who isn't buying anyone's claims about their god, regardless of whether or not it's commercially-available for purchase. *_There are no fundamental principles of Atheism._* There is no ISM.

@Nerobyrne

5 жыл бұрын

+DrumWild It exists only in so far as that it is a term to describe people who reject a widely held belief. So basically it exists the same way any other answer exists. I suppose that's something everyone has to decide as it is more semantic than anything else.

@DrumWild

5 жыл бұрын

A term to describe a person who does not believe is "Atheist." A term to describe people, or a group, is "Atheists." It's a useless term that gets abused.

@Hirnlego999

5 жыл бұрын

Which fundamental principles? You can be a Buddhist and an atheist.

@Hirnlego999

5 жыл бұрын

Which fundamental principles? You can be a Buddhist and an atheist. It's a non-belief and that's all it is.

One reason to target Creationists (as an Atheist) is that Creationists are doing the most harm to society.

Ahh.. the classic "no, you are".. Gets atheists everytime

Azlan is one of the most disingenuous "intellectual" thinkers of ANY field in the modern day. He is constantly engaging in what I call the "double strawman" argument. First, he claims that Atheists follow Sam Harris to the point where he has a "zealous following" without proving that A. Some sizable number of Atheists are basing their beliefs of Harris's ideas and B. that said Atheists have demonstrated any sort of zealous behavior. Then he proceeds to actually straw man Harris's beliefs by claiming that Harris is utterly certain of his beliefs and that Harris only debates literalistic interpretations of scripture. This type of discourse is so dishonest that I'd PREFER to debate a fundamentalist like Hovind or Ken Ham than I would Aslan. At least the fundamentalists have some sort of code that they claim to live by. "Spiritual" people like Aslan are just bullshitters that want to get along with everyone. That's why they can't stand "New Atheists", AKA Atheists that aren't pussies and will actually speak out about what they think is right.

@rkernell

4 жыл бұрын

@Fortunado999 Fortunado, Fortunado, Fortunado, A little wound up, huh Buddy? Give an example of Sam Harris lying, not an assertion but a verifiable example. I am an atheist, I'm not sure if I am "new" or not but I have no desire to be "edgy" only to be precise and accurate, something of which, by your post, you have no concept. Please attempt to try to clarify the latter portion of the second sentence. It is worded so poorly that it is on par with your closing sentence, "neckbeard"? WTF????

@thomasmaughan4798

4 жыл бұрын

The Four Horsement (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and I don't remember the fourth) are zealous believers in their rightness and duty to preach their gospel.

@rkernell

4 жыл бұрын

@@thomasmaughan4798 Assuming that you are any where near correct, how is this different than christian evangelicals? I would like for you to find a program that is run by atheists on any broadcast network proselytizing about atheism. I can give examples of many christian ones, so support your assertion that they "are zealous believers in their rightness and duty to preach their gospel". The main difference between atheists and christians is that atheists can show evidence for their assertions, christians can't.

@thomasmaughan4798

4 жыл бұрын

@Platypus So which is it? You argue against the existence of zealous followers of Sam Harris, then you assert "Atheists that aren't pussies and will actually speak out about what they think is right."

@thomasmaughan4798

4 жыл бұрын

@@rkernell "so support your assertion that they "are zealous believers in their rightness and duty to preach their gospel"." I believe AronRa would count as a preacher of Atheism. That he chooses a different *medium* for his message is irrelevant to me.

"and don't call me a Muggle" *Bust out laughing*

@paxmule

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah, that was a good quip !

I've talked to so many people who claim to be very religious and want to convince me but when questioned have very little knowledge their own beliefs. They go to church, and trust that someone more learned in the subject knows all the answers but cannot argue anything themselves and think you are very rude to even doubt them for their lack of knowledge of their own beliefs.

Is it just me, or is Jordan Peterson persistently "operating at the edge of his understanding"?

I got a headache watching the clips. They are so illogical simple questions would destroy their arguments.

I'm a tad ashamed to admit that I would use the whole "atheists are just as bad!" spiel when I was a Christian apologist myself some 9 years back. Not only does it essentially boil down to an unabashedly deflective "NO U" argument which utterly fails to actually address the criticisms against religious fundamentalism, but as pointed out here, the _reasons_ for why atheists are just as bad utterly fall flat. The one that really gets me is how some of the apologists shown in these clips can honestly hold up religious scientists as a shining example of what atheists are "failing to address". We _have_ addressed this point, people - numerous times, in fact. This is nothing but a hollow appeal to authority. The simple fact of the matter is that the religious musings of scientists like Karl Jung, Sir Isaac Newton _et al._ are lent no credence whatsoever by mere virtue of being believed in by men who made great contributions to science. If Lawrence Krauss came out as a Potterist tomorrow, his beliefs in Potterism would have *precisely dick-all* to do with his contributions to cosmology. All it would prove is what's already been known for quite some time: That even smart people aren't above chasing moonbeams from time to time.

@marianmeletlidiscrap

4 жыл бұрын

@Rawlings What's your deal?

@heckingbamboozled8097

4 жыл бұрын

@Mary-Anne Meletlidis Rawlings is a pretty well known fundamentalist in the GMS comment section, notorious for their constant ad hominems and lackluster arguments. Go look at his subscriptions, for example.

As an agnostic atheist I absolutely encourage and welcome challenges to what I think I understand. What a great opportunity to grow and learn!

@Tenchi707

Жыл бұрын

Yeah but ego is a problem for a lot of a people, people just can't give up their ridiculous beliefs

"...and stop calling me a MUGGLE!" XD I lost my shit at that point

There's definitely a lot more that needs to be addressed on this topic. This video's a good start. Thank you!

If you don't interpret religious scriptures literally, then it is all interpretation. And the problem with interpretation is that it is highly subjective. Just look at the wide amount of interpretations that are available for any work of literature. Some of them completely disagree with each other. Peterson should be aware of this since he likes literature but he seems to completely ignore this fact. Just like he does with many other things.

@elainelouve

5 жыл бұрын

And the interpretations have been a cause to many wars and conflicts. It never seizes to amaze me how terribly important those seemingly minor issues have been to people. Catholics vs. protestants, etc. Just a side note.;)

@Majormindandsoul

5 жыл бұрын

Interpretation isn't necessarily subjective. We interpret languages objectively dont we? So, what if the scriptures are written metaphorically, & are meant to be interpreted in a specific way, like a language?

@joeytribbiani34

5 жыл бұрын

MAJOR MINDS That's your interpretation. Some people will agree with that notion, others will not. These differences in opinions might give birth to heated conflicts and then we are back to square one.

@Majormindandsoul

5 жыл бұрын

Joey Tribbiani but sir I did not present an interpretation for anyone to agree or disagree with, I merely ask you to consider what IF there is a specific way to interpret or translate the Bible that many are not aware of?

@joeytribbiani34

5 жыл бұрын

MAJOR MINDS And I am sure that many people believe that their subjective interpretation really is objective. So, how can we even know if we have found a way to objectively interpret the bible?

Your metaphor with 'Potters' Apotters' is excellent.

Perfectly constructed. Thank you. One serious issue that has always troubled me however is as follows; As a person who has always rejected the inadequate and plainly flawed ways that religion addresses the most fundamental existential questions posed by the intuitively curious, and logical human mind I have always struggled with the various ways that God is defined by humanity on all sides of the issue. For this reason I have never been comfortable identifying as an Atheist as opposed to Agnostic unless I am clear on which definitions of the word God are fixed in the minds of the participants in the conversation. Many people I know who identify as Atheists defined by the statement "I do not believe God exists" leave me with the same two basic questions that religious people I know do when they say, "I do believe God exists." 1) How are you defining the word God? and 2) What empirical evidence do you have to support that statement? Of course many times the answer may be plainly anticipated but I still think its important to always ask this question even if everyone else in the conversation thinks I'm daft for asking it. Here's why I think it's important for me to keep those questions front and center in my mind however; First, for me to identify as an Atheist I have to be clear on the definition of the God I don't believe exists. That's usually easy as long as the conversation is about any of the world's established religions. I can provide plenty of sound reasoning behind a logical argument, and lots of evidence of factual errors and logical inconsistencies in the texts of those religions that debunks the credible existence of the God of their belief. However the philosophical concept of the Ultimate Reality is something that I can not easily dispense with as evidenced through scientific discoveries in Physics and Quantum Mechanics. As to what exactly the ultimate reality is of course we may never know. Never the less, in that context there exists the possibility of the existence of some complete and ultimate source of reality that could meet many of the criteria of the God concept, and we certainly can not dismiss the possibility that there is intelligence in this theoretically possible source. If that broader philosophical concept of Ultimate Reality is the standard by which everyone agreed to construct boundaries for the discussion about whether or not God exists then I most certainly am Agnostic. In that context, to assert as fact that God does not exist would require proof that the source of all reality and the laws that govern it are in fact something else.

You have to take scripture literally if you believe it's the word of a perfect God. If you disagree with any claim in the scripture, there's no reason to believe any of it. Also one of my teachers is Mr. Potter and he has a God complex so potterism has me shook

@Anonim-os7rp

5 жыл бұрын

Like if God couldn't use metaphors...

@thomasmaughan4798

3 жыл бұрын

"If you disagree with any claim in the scripture, there's no reason to believe any of it." Your lack of reason is not my lack of reason. Genesis 6 verse 6 claims that God repented of making man (at least in the King James Version it is written that way). That seems unlikely and it is also one of the oldest writings most translated and based on oral tradition a thousand or two years removed from its origin. On the other hand, the bible speaks of Jerusalem, and it seems to me there really is a Jerusalem, and Romans. So, I believe the bible when it claims Jerusalem exists, and I do not believe the bible when it claims God repented of making man.

Jordan Peterson sounds just like Kermit the Frog😂😂

@dathanlo

5 жыл бұрын

I think you're misrepresenting him a bit here. He might sound somewhat like Kermit, but we have to assume that he knows something we don't as a professor with over 9000 citations. The metaphysical embodiment of our culture isn't something you just understand overnight. Have you even watched all of his lectures?

@DrumWild

5 жыл бұрын

He's got orange fake spray tan coagulating in the back of his throat like adipocere.

@admiralbirdcrap661

5 жыл бұрын

dathanlo Haha, you are sooo right.. I had many teachers in college that talked funny, but I learned a wealth of knowledge from them.. Poking fun will never get you an A on the finals!

@bdf2718

5 жыл бұрын

It seems to me that he sounds more and more kermit-like as his ideas get more fucktarded. Back before he spouted so much utter shite his voice was normal. I suspect the cognitive dissonance is causing it. It might even be a symptom of a mental breakdown - those long pauses followed by an explosively loud outburst indicate there's a screw or two loose.

@bdf2718

5 жыл бұрын

+dathanio I'd guess that 8,999 of those citations are along the lines of "Peterson is talking crap again." dressed up as "The conclusions in [87] are not supported by the evidence."

I think the great misconception about atheism vs theism is the notion that it’s about science vs faith. I don’t care what Peterson’s heavy hitters, or Lennox’s great thinkers had to say about it. It doesn’t matter to me, though fascinating and wonderful, that evolution and cosmology can explain pretty much every step from the Big Bang to now. None of that changes the fact that the fundamental proposition of religion, an entity creating everything from nothing, is both nonsensical, in that cause/effect requires something“affected”, has an obvious problem of infinite regress only solved through special pleading and has no real explanatory power beyond what is essentially magic. Great thinkers can argue about from here to eternity. Religion, the idea of God, is dead in the water and always has been.

"Don't call me a muggle" -🤣🤣🤣

I’m a fundamentalist and so are you, all I have to do is change what the word fundamentalist means ;)

@nesddyx7634

3 жыл бұрын

what

Wait! Harry Potter is not real? OMFG

@admiralbirdcrap661

5 жыл бұрын

Darko Leskovšek Yes, Harry Potter is real. He cums over at my house on occasion and we make pottery together... 😇

@hexa1905

5 жыл бұрын

I can't prove you'r wrong therefor you'r right !

@UlshaRS

5 жыл бұрын

Don't worry though Spider-Man is still real and he's here to save your day. Well unless you believe like though hell bound heathens that leave out the hypen in our savior's name.

@admiralbirdcrap661

5 жыл бұрын

UlshaRS 🎼🎺🎷 Spider Man, Spider Man. Does whatever a spider can. Spins a web any size, catches thieves just like flies.LOOKOUT! There goes Spiderman!

@diobrando6716

5 жыл бұрын

Blasphemy!!

Been binge watching you and didn't even realize I wasn't subscribed

A very well presented rebuttal to charges of fundamentalism. Thanks!

Gotta love the notion that religious “holy books” aren’t meant to be taken literally - except in all of the cases where they are. Usually, whenever it happens to conveniently suit the believer’s purpose to do so.

Religious moderates: wow its so weird atheists don't come after us and just misrepresent god like fundamentalists do. Atheists: we literally don't have an issue with you and agree with you on fundamentalism. Stop trying to pick fights with us.

@davidbauler3159

5 жыл бұрын

atheist: I am going to bitch about Ten Commandment monuments on public land, while drinking my overpriced, trendy coffee.

@doofy3111

5 жыл бұрын

David Bauler Christians: im going to stop buying trendy overpriced coffee not for obvious reasons but because it didn’t say merry Christmas on the cup

@ListlessLion

5 жыл бұрын

@@doofy3111 - idk why he had to bring coffee into this, but you burned him real good for it 10/10

@92brunod

5 жыл бұрын

atheist: I'm going to reject religious nonsense to be taken as instructions applicable to humans as if it were laws that made any sense like the supposed "ten commandments" being placed where human law is applied. If we judged people by those laws all religious people would be in jail for constantly breaking the second one by making monuments of god (Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image) and none would be for raping little kids or owning slaves. P.S.: Search what the real 10 commandments say. Yeah, the ones that forbid to boil a young goat in its mother's milk

@davidbauler3159

5 жыл бұрын

darn tooting ;0)

Man, Jordan Peterson has such a hard-on for Dostoevsky. I've heard him use his work in arguments so many times. The problem is that such arguments fail for the same reason that arguments based on morality and so many others fail. The problem is that, at best, they show that it would be better for humankind that a god exist than for no god to exist. I don't believe that they even manage that but that's the best they can do and, as such, they actually reveal that theists are at least prepared to engage in wishful thinking. Obviously I can't know what's in his head but it seems to me that Peterson's religious position is just wishful thinking or else purely pragmatic. It seems that he has a picture of what he wants the world to be like and he thinks that the best way to achieve that is through Christianity. It's not that he thinks that we should behave a certain way because that's what a god wants but, rather, that he thinks that we should behave a certain way and having people believe that a god wants that is the best way to have them do it. It seems rather ironic that he's so dead against the government forcing people to speak or behave a certain way but he's OK with effectively conning them into speaking or behaving the way he wants by fear of a god that even he doesn't seem to believe actually exists, other than as a concept.

I've been meaning to ask this for a while now, I'm interested to know why you have essential oils on display in the background? And also what oils are you using? And why?

1:00 I literally thought I had a left a tab open with a Kermit video or something.

Atheism is not "new"; It existed before any religion.

@anonymaus8191

5 жыл бұрын

That's not true. The Australian aboriginals believe in a creator-god. Also animal (and human) sacrifice (to the gods) are well documented in ancient civilizations all across the world. And eapecially in the middle east. Instead of reading the Bible as a sequence of logical assertions (which is never how it was supposed to be read). You can read it as an esoteric guide for how to correctly perform animal sacrifice. A law book (similar to sharia) and a history of the rise and fall of two kingdoms. Judea and Israel.

@munstrumridcully

3 жыл бұрын

@@anonymaus8191 all evidence we have points to hunter gatherer humans, predating all civilizations, had no gods and the first religion was animism(specifically the belief that inanimate objects have souls and an afterlife for their own souls), not theism. Theism came later and started as polytheism, which predates monotheism, then henotheism(believing in more than one god, like those of other religions, but worshipping one god, their own, as above others) then monotheism. So that would make not believing in gods(atheism) older than belief in gods(theism). Link to animism as first religion below www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4958132/%23:~:text%3DResults%2520indicate%2520that%2520the%2520oldest,by%2520shamanism%2520and%2520ancestor%2520worship.&ved=2ahUKEwil-c6m1pvrAhXRZTUKHe4gAL0QFjABegQIEhAG&usg=AOvVaw3YRUeBEviotRZG-rGHt4ML

Your videos are epic bro. Keep at it. Don't decline.

I agree. When I began to really dig into my beliefs I had just finished watching zeitgeist. Before that I was too scared to question my beliefs. Even so, I dont proclaim to know for a fact anything. I only claim to agree with the best conclusion from where the evidence takes me.

Great vid Drew!

I keep seeing common tactics among certain groups; mischaracterize, create a strawman around that, attack the strawman to make yourself look right/good/smart.

@thomasmaughan4798

4 жыл бұрын

Yes. One of the most common is ridiculing "Sky Daddy".

i keep looking at that map behind you , and it really looks like New Zealand is on fire, lol poor Kiwis

"Stop calling me a muggle!"

A very common fallacy that Peterson makes is the argument from adverse consequences (and those adverse consequences are usually dubious at best). Ie: you have to have religion because without religion there is no reason for morality; free will exists because those who don't believe in free will don't want to accept responsibility for their actions.

@0x777

5 жыл бұрын

Actually, WITH religion there is no reason for morality. If you believe that there is a supernatural CCTV that punishes you eternally if you don't behave, you needn't be moral. You only need to be fearful and willing to hedge your bets. It takes a moral person to not think that there is that supernatural CCTV and still behave decently.

Saying atheism is the same as fundamentalism is just an attempt to smear atheism by making an equivocation fallacy. "Fundamentalism is bad, but you are just as bad as fundamentalists are. And isn't it telling that even these people think there is something wrong with fundamentalism, even though their own world-view massively overlaps with the world-view of a fundamentalist? If you try to smear people who are trying to follow religious doctrine in the strictest way possible, the same religious doctrine you ascribe to in a more diluted fashion, what does that tell you about the actual fundamentals? The most important factor that makes a difference between moderates and fundamentalists is that the moderates tend to discard the ugly bits, because their moral compass steers them away from some very disturbing practices of bronze age Middle East, which means they've been fairly critical of their religious doctrine. Saying that it's not meant to be literal is just an excuse to keep holding to whatever is left of it. I have about the same moral standards as an average western Christian, I have the same needs, same desires, mostly the same lifestyle. So of what use is such a belief system, especially given how most of people professing belief in God (the Abrahamic one that is) is not even obeying the teachings loosely, let alone strictly. So of what value are those beliefs, since they are useless in the modern day, but still carry a lot of unnecessary baggage? I'd be the first to point out how absurd and inhumane the teachings of Islam are (caveat: not all the time of course, so don't start with that), but at least those folks have lifestyles that are mostly consistent with their worldviews. Christians on the other hand profess their belief and then go on to do the same stuff non-believer does, be it good or bad. It serves no purpose and it's irrelevant to the way they conduct their life. If it's not meant to literal, let's ask the real question here: where does one draw the line between taking biblical claims at face value and interpreting them, and how does one "interpret" it? And can religious moderates agree on any standard definition of what it means to be a Christian?

@Ergeniz

5 жыл бұрын

The only consistent definition I can seem to apply to Christians is that a) they believe in middle eastern god of death and destruction derived from the torah and Judaism and b)they see the bible as an book of an authority, either written directly or indirectly by god. More precisely, I classify anyone who describes themselves as Christians as such. So, I don't allow any so-called moderates to invoke the No true Scottsman fallacy when one of their brethren does or says something indefensible.

@robertmiller9735

5 жыл бұрын

It seems to mean "anyone who keeps arguing after they've been told to shut up and not make waves". My Unitarian sister called me fundamentalist for that reason.

@Scroteydada

5 жыл бұрын

Toasters kill more people than shatks therefore we should ban toasters

@thomasmaughan4798

4 жыл бұрын

Fundamentalism is neither bad nor good. It simply sticks to simple; the fundamentals. Fundamentalism in mathematics is the four basic operations. They must be mastered before going to algebra and calculus. For an atheist, a fundamentalist point of view is "there is no god". That's pretty simple and basic.

@Mikri90

4 жыл бұрын

@@thomasmaughan4798 of course, but people tend to use the term as if it's bad. I didn't mean to say fundamentalism is indeed bad, but rather that even religious people tend to see religious fundamentalism as a bad thing, not because fundamentalism is bad itself, but because the fundamentals under which those people operate are problematic.

Thankyou for wording this how I simply could not.

A simple counter to all these accusations against atheism would be to ask the accuser, "would you be willing to consider 100% of your religion to be fictional?" Very few, I would think, would answer in the affirmative, which not only shows that they DO take at least some of their religion literally AND refuse to change their mind.

When Reza Aslan talks I have to close my eyes lest they roll hard enough to achieve escape velocity.

The claim, that most philosophers during the last centuries were believers or at least related to some kind of religious mindset might be true, but, and it's a gigantic but, there are specific reasons for that fact. For way more than a millenium, people, who dared to even doubt, what preachers told them, were tortured to death in ways, even the most vicious religious concepts of demons wouldn't be able to surpass. But that's typically apologist: even if they tell the truth, it's always incomplete.

@Ergeniz

5 жыл бұрын

These religious people seem to forget how Galieo was excommunicated and almost killed for pointing out a simple fact. Yet so-called moderates laugh at fundamentalists who deny evolution.

@thephidias

3 жыл бұрын

......PLUS it is simply not true.

Well thanks...I am currently on the amber spyglasses in the series his dark materials... Didn't know there would be spoilers hahaha

Just like rest of your videos very objective and to the point. Thanks for alluding that atheism isn't without problems and those problems doesn't make atheism on whole as fundamentalism. I can see why a theist would say vocal atheists are fundamentalists. But I never herd Dawkins or alike preach against celebrating Christmas or not to visit temples or churches. But there are close minded atheists who vehemently hate idea of God. These are people who correct their children if they say 'oh my god' or 'jesus' in exclamation. Or say replacements like 'oh my gosh' etc and see all believers in same light. Some have ritualistic urges to frown or show disdain for mild unharmful religious practices like if some one unwittingly says 'bless you' or sings hymns.

I disagree that atheists referring to an invisible guy in the sky is simplistic or ridiculous. I grew up Christian and that essentially describes what we were told. And most Christians I know seem to basically believe just that. THAT is why many atheists use those terms.

His Dark Materials is sooo good! Some really good atheist literature.

My man is so sharp and so well-spoken. Well done. I know I get emotional and angry due to my own church experience and trauma, but even someone this calm and measured will still be attacked by religious people.

Kudos on the subliminal "Essential Oils"-debunking :-D

literally horeshoeists "Two insanely different extremes? I can't tell the difference!"

2:18 The cross on his neck is doing morse code! IT'S A SIGN AND A MESSAGE FROM GOD!!!

@iamElectro

5 жыл бұрын

Btw good job on Truth Wanted

@thomasmaughan4798

4 жыл бұрын

So what is the interpretation? Do you understand Morse code?

I was making a similar Harry Potter analogy in my head when the video started.... yours is much better..

Enjoyed the video, keep up the great work.

I personally loved the word skydaddy😂

Apologist: *scores last place* Atheist: "LOL dude you're last place" Apologist: "no I'm not! In fact, you're also tied in last place with me!" Atheist: "uh, no I'm no-" Apologist: "so if you're tied with me on last place that means _you_ are the loser!" Atheist: *facepalms into microcephaly*

See, this is why I don’t tend to affiliate myself with groups even if I share their beliefs. People love to generalize and misrepresent ideas they don’t understand.

8:45 I feel as though this is the disconnect, as I could easily see a theist feeling as though atheism rally's against their rights, restricts their religious views, and applies the fundamentals of a doctrine. Of course the perceived rallying and restricting is actually just attempting to uphold secularism, and the fundamentals of a doctrine is merely utilizing skepticism.

If an individual's views can be changed with the introduction of valid, testable evidence, then they are not fundamentalists.

The problem with hunting invisible beasts is knowing where to aim.

@CteCrassus

3 жыл бұрын

Imaginary beasts, on the other hand, are easy. No matter where the shot lands you can claim you scored a bullseye.

The literal text is the only baseline we have. Of course that needs to be the source of disagreement. WTF else would we use? Furthermore, the line of attack which creates 2 camps, literal and abstract is very effective. The abstract is easy to take apart and the literal looks insane on it's face.

With you map of the world behind you, it is moving into summer in the southern hemisphere, in fact it shows NZ to be roasting... ;-)

Why do Athiests argue about biblical depictions of god? Because theists make god political, simple as that.

I like how the first fundamentalist he had talk sounded like Kermit but after 20 years of smoking

@markhaunert5029

3 жыл бұрын

You must be talking about Peterson. Very annoying fellow.

@spiderworld384

3 жыл бұрын

Yet another one of the greatest actors ruined by drugs and alcohol

@eugenelubbock5478

3 жыл бұрын

its jordan peterson

Loved the potter analogy

The closed captions calls fundamentalism thunder mentalism 🤣