My take is that Peterson is actually an atheist who is trying not to alienate his Christian audience.

@stormhawk3319

5 ай бұрын

I think he secretly is.

@niclastname

5 ай бұрын

Alex even did a video on this and showed JP saying that god is a fictional character and that the bible is basically metaphor.

@davidarbogast37

5 ай бұрын

That's my take on it as well. This is why he creates nebulous talking points in order to avoid asserting an affirmative or negative stance on the topic.

@Piercetheveilnow

5 ай бұрын

Sure, as he brings THOUSANDS of individuals, including his wife, back to the Church. Brilliant claim.

@animegtrailer5208

5 ай бұрын

​@@Piercetheveilnow You really think he is s Christian, dude hasn't heard him speak well 😂😂

This comment section is full of people who think they're very smart.

@jonpaul6948

5 ай бұрын

All the evangelical atheists are like that. They basically quote Hitchens, Dawkins, and Fry, then proceed to carry on like those ideas come from themselves. Complete lack of self awareness, they just became convinced that atheism was the more intellectual of 2 choices and went with it. I've never once heard something from an atheist that I couldn't trace back to one of their three prophets.

@wevsitekilo9072

5 ай бұрын

Lots of folks who think "I understand science! So I must be able to understand 100% of everything!" - your brain fits in a bucket. 😂

@user-vh7ks8px3s

5 ай бұрын

Isn’t it always?

@jameswalters3571

5 ай бұрын

Do you know you're one of them?

@Shutyourmouth20

5 ай бұрын

Ironically, you happen to be one of those people.

I actually think Jordan Peterson has a profound ability to explain things that I didn’t previously understand.

@PoliticallyIncorrectBronto

7 күн бұрын

I think so aswell. Except for religion.

@user-iu9vr2ce3p

6 күн бұрын

Could that be just one more thing you don't understand? ​@@PoliticallyIncorrectBronto

@skyeangelofdeath7363

5 күн бұрын

No, he doesn't.

@HanifCarroll

4 күн бұрын

@@skyeangelofdeath7363How can you be sure that Jordan Peterson isn’t able to explain things that this guy didn’t understand? How would you know better than him? 😂

@egoinjury

3 күн бұрын

Yes. That doesn't make him right about everything though

Using bullshit twice in a sentence might convince those who dont understand complex sentences.

@Pappaous

14 күн бұрын

No. He did not. He is absolutely correct. Jordan slipped into the deep monetizing effect of social media therefore he has passed on the humanity path.

@dannygolightly865

13 күн бұрын

but...is he wrong?

@Thorkell64

12 күн бұрын

… He has a wide and varied audience to communicate with .

@nathanc8478

12 күн бұрын

He never used bullshit in the same sentence twice. That was a bunch of cuts spliced together from a 5-minute reply where many sentences were said.

@Nuffsed81

10 күн бұрын

Have you heard of editing? Cutting? Splicing?

Appreciated the dunk on Deepak Chopra. That guy is the king of pseudoscientific word salads.

@MontyCantsin5

4 ай бұрын

He’s utterly dreadful.

@pn-oz8dh

4 ай бұрын

Word salads!!!

@Enzo012

4 ай бұрын

'The non-local domain as the source of all relative expressions is a realm of unlimited possibilities'

@MOSMASTERING

4 ай бұрын

He's a terrible liar as well. He was interviewed on a documentary about psychedelics and he said he took some acid and saw people trying to stab him, he was chased and there was blood everywhere. Dude has never done a trip in his life!

@iaindoherty2289

4 ай бұрын

Sorry to disagree, but I believe Micheal Eric dyson takes the throne on this one

It's more like Peterson doesn't entirely understand Christianity and you're watching him learn about it in real time as he's working through it and wrestling with it.

@dooflydetailguuy4349

5 ай бұрын

In my opinion we all get this journey eventually.

@manguy01

5 ай бұрын

@@dooflydetailguuy4349 And it's a journey that never really ends, to be honest.

@dooflydetailguuy4349

5 ай бұрын

@@manguy01 I heard that's what eternity is

@fearfulartist1236

5 ай бұрын

He taught a course on the Bible and Christianity for like over a decade. I think he understands. His take is that it's way more profound than wether or not God is "real" that the book is more true than that. It's true weather you think it's real or you don't. That the Bible is full of fundamentally true things even if not historically true.

@manguy01

5 ай бұрын

@@fearfulartist1236 There's a big difference between academic study and religious study. He gets a lot of basic things wrong. A lot less now than a year ago, though.

It was my understanding that Peterson’s support of Christianity was based on its ability to “help those in need” in a psychological sense, more as a guide for how not to screw up your life and less as a “this is real guys” but I could be mistaken

@joemiller7082

Ай бұрын

It’s much worse than that.

@JoeyLustForAshley.

26 күн бұрын

Richard Dawkins is basically accusing Jordan Peterson of being a con man which isn't a surprise because con men would probably believe everybody else is trying to con but they're just better at it. I think it's the case where is Richard Dawkins not Jordan Peterson who's relying on the stupidity of the people who agreed with what he's saying and I say this because I believe Richard Dawkins on the stands the first law of thermodynamics. So for him to come out and say that he believes everything came from nothingness, no are no space nothingness he knew he was lying. It says if he made a bet with somebody saying watch I can get all these atheists to call me a genius by saying the stupidest thing I can think of.. I mean talk about beliefs and magic, talk about denying science, everything from nothingness. Just to clarify I know a lot of atheists are confused, no we should believe in God don't believe that God zapped everything into existence. We understand that everything that exists always existed in one form or another and God like an artist used the materials around to create. Mass and energy are eternal in one form or another which makes Richard Dawkins claim that everything came from nothingness completely absurd.

@joemiller7082

26 күн бұрын

@@JoeyLustForAshley. I’ve never met an atheist that believes everything just “popped” into existence from nothingness. I’ve never seen Dawkins make that claim either. That seems like kind of a long rant with nothing in it. Some of it grammatically confusing.

@JoeyLustForAshley.

26 күн бұрын

@@joemiller7082 Admittedly I use the mic and I don't proofread before sending. And unfortunately I have to use run-on sentences on purpose because atheists like to quote out of context. And they deny quoting you out of context, so it makes them harder to quote me out of context if I request they at least quote the entire sentence. If you have any problems comprehending anything let me know and I will gladly clarify. Richard Dawkins did said he believes everything came from nothingness. No air ,no space, nothingness.Matter of fact you can go on KZread and put in Richard Dawkins something from nothing.. you're going to get a lot of choices look for the ones where he's talking to a priest and another guy. It's pretty long so you might be there for a while. But if you like the content it shouldn't be a problem. Of course atheism of course atheism is simply a disbelief it's an unwillingness or inability to accept God. Most atheists at least that I talked to believe everything came from a singularity , unlike Richard Dawkins who said he believes everything came from nothing and he also said maybe a singularity, and of course the singularity is described as being infinitely small. In fact so small if a hundred of them existed and you put them together they would be the size of the head of a pin. But please tell me what you believe regarding this. I'll make sure that I proofread the following before I send, this way you have no problem comprehending, and you should have no problem answering. My question to you is do you believe the origins of Life came into existence without creation , without God and if so why do you believe it. Also if you don't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God , just respond and say and tell me how we found commonality that you don't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God.. if that's your position you should have no problem saying that ,unless you have a bias.

@LengCPP

23 күн бұрын

Your take is accurate

The thing about Dawkins is that he seems to have spent most of his "adult" life telling other people they're idiots for what they believe, based on what he believes himself.

@stevedavis7905

12 күн бұрын

No, his mind doesn’t work within a “ belief system “ but rather an “empirically “ driven mindset, this is where most faith driven people get it wrong.

@debrapaulino918

10 күн бұрын

​​@@stevedavis7905his empirical belief system is that we do not exist after death. Thus, the paranormal is empirically logically deduced and reduced to projections of one's mind. That is his belief extrapolated from what he deems science.

@debrapaulino918

10 күн бұрын

​@@stevedavis7905his mind works within his belief system. Unbeknownst to him it is illogical. There are types who dodge and parley with intellectual banter to keep it on you to prove something.

@debrapaulino918

10 күн бұрын

​@@stevedavis7905He only respects those who agree with his belief system of no God. They like himself are intellectually superior. I don't bother with them because I am intellectually astute and not in need of their approval rating.

@stevedavis7905

10 күн бұрын

@@debrapaulino918 his position is not held within a belief system, that is, belief is not required when their is no evidence for any god.

Jordan was saying that the double helix has a strange recurrence in artistic symbolism throughout history that he cannot explain. He wasn't saying that they literally were able to observe things at the microscopic level.

@nathanieln.1732

3 ай бұрын

Thank you! Someone who actually listens to Peterson closer than Dawkins apparently does

@pantsbro7424

3 ай бұрын

Yeah Dawkins is an expert at misrepresenting and twisting words or just flat out not understanding something.

@jamesmatson9131

3 ай бұрын

Actually, that is what Jordan was saying. He might have done his usual 'couch this in so many caveats that you can take whatever you like from it' but it's pretty clear that he was - at the very least inferring - that ancient people were able to see their own DNA. Which is - of course - absurd.

@XXXmolseyXXX

3 ай бұрын

That's actually not what Peterson was saying. You're completely misrepresenting Jordan Peterson. You don't sound well-read on Jung.

@TomFarrow-oo5wm

3 ай бұрын

Nope, go listen to his conversation with Dawkins where he says that he literally thinks some people under extreme cognitive circumstances (in this context taking psychoactive drugs) can see down to the micro level, including DNA.

To be fair, Dawkins is a reddit-tier atheist

@sroth2021

5 ай бұрын

You're probably the kind of Christian that has never read the Bible and probably couldn't tell you what Ecclesiastes is about off the top of his head.

@vuchaser99

5 ай бұрын

He is equally full of sh!t. Everyone is full of sh!t . The narcissist Era.

@deadhardy

5 ай бұрын

you probably can't even define what you mean by that

@mikesmnell414

5 ай бұрын

@@deadhardyReddit Tier meaning you can find the same opinions on the top posts of r/atheism

@kristiansandsmark2048

5 ай бұрын

He paved the way for more modern critiques. however i like it. He calls it for what it is. @@mikesmnell414

Dawkins turns into a cynical 15 yr old when he talks about religion. His ignorance and stupidity is astounding.

@margokupelian344

Ай бұрын

I wish I could do more likes. I would do one hundred of them.

@nottinghamboy9409

Ай бұрын

And your comment sounds like you're 15...

@breadfan7433

Ай бұрын

Aww, did the bad man hurt your feelings by accurately describing God as a delusion?

@captaincurd2681

Ай бұрын

True.

@user-wy3dl2em7p

29 күн бұрын

Actually,you are pretty stupid.

This guy doesn't understand two things: 1. Man and his Symbols 2. Buttons and their holes

@henrychinaski8686

4 күн бұрын

Underrated

@augustycizauzo6372

4 күн бұрын

@@henrychinaski8686 Nice name! I'm a big Buk fan.

@henrychinaski8686

4 күн бұрын

@@augustycizauzo6372 Thanks

@ibrahimnsangou2573

3 күн бұрын

😂😂

No human has ever used more words to say less than Jordan Peterson.

@taliesinmcgregor-sims1879

4 ай бұрын

Think ben Shapiro is pretty close

@ahall9839

4 ай бұрын

You're pretty young, then.

@SCharlesDennicon

4 ай бұрын

Something tells me you're left-wing.

@ahall9839

4 ай бұрын

@@SCharlesDennicon Something tells me you are dumb.

@terraflow__bryanburdo4547

4 ай бұрын

I call him "Dr. Word Salad"

To be fair, Dawkins is the same man who argues against philosophical text that he hasn't ever read.

@ggalaxy9065

4 ай бұрын

Exactly right. In fact, neither of them has any idea what they're talking about re the Abrahamic religions & their origin. Two snakes coiled around each other? 'They' must've had some understanding of DNA? Ya think? Dawkins, not a clue. Peterson, the merest hint of one. Avail yourselves of the AAE, gentlemen, the Ancient Astronaut Evidence, & wise up already. About time, 150 years after we knew for certain. Start w/'The 12th Planet,' first installment in the most disinformationally maligned body of work in print, & go from there. Happy reading, 'intellectuals.' Let's see how you do with it.

@honeyrococo

4 ай бұрын

That Terry Eagleton essay is a classic.

@hishamzaman3814

3 ай бұрын

No need to read it to know its bullshit

@michael1345

3 ай бұрын

You know this for a fact? You KNOW his list of readings? Dawkins academic reputation relies totally upon his thorough preparation on any given topic That is why Petersen is critiqued so severely by the academic world. Petersen's language is totally familiar with academics and so they are not lost so easily in his word salad.

@andrewbradley3305

3 ай бұрын

@@michael1345get off his cock

Oh, I understand what Peterson is saying perfectly. He doesn't use language I don't understand - and that is classic projection, Richard.

@Carry842

24 күн бұрын

it's still bs. I also once understood the universe, then the drugs wore off.

@josephherbert8594

22 күн бұрын

Peterson is a 100% bullshit artist. If what he says "makes sense" to you, I think you should get your head examined.

@hybridmomentz

21 күн бұрын

Sure you do. If Dawkins asked you to explain Peterson’s thoughts on Christian doctrine you’d just repeat what he says without showing any actual understanding or comprehension of his points. I’d bet my life on it 😂

@jbc242424

21 күн бұрын

@@hybridmomentz Yikes. That doesn't bode too well for you. How about bringing substance to a conversation rather than betting "your life" on what someone you have no clue about would do in a pretend scenario. Eh?

@pudgeederek

21 күн бұрын

If you think Richard Dawkins would have a hard time understanding JP then you are severely underestimating the genius that is Dawkins. Petersons argument style is to say a couple things that are genuine truth and then ending with some bs that has no grounds in reality all while using the longest and abstract word possible to impress people like yourself. I ask you to tell me in plain simple English. What exactly is Jordan Peterson stance on religo ion, what does he himself believe ?

Finally, someone calling Jordan Peterson out on his religious crap.

@stevepest4143

3 күн бұрын

Lmao Dawkins is a fool.

@romystumpy1197

2 күн бұрын

Yes 😂

Well, I'm an atheist and a man of science. But truth be told, Jordan Peterson never said that. He was using the snakes and DNA as examples of a metaphysical concept when explaining an excerpt of one of Jung's books. But of course, nobody expects a mediocre biologist like Dawkins to understand that. By the way, Peterson doesn't even use complicated language, it's just Dawkins' vocabulary that's extremely poor because he's been living in his department's bubble since ever and knows nothing of the humanities, philosophy, literature, arts, or anything that's not plain materialism. All materialists, even the smart ones like Dawkins, are dumb, because they're missing part of the puzzle.

@captainbeastazoid7084

3 ай бұрын

100% spot on

@anthojones520

3 ай бұрын

Smashed it, dude. They also tend to get snarky down in that materialist bunker!

@RenghisKhan

3 ай бұрын

Complicated language, that's in the ear of the beholder, isn't it? The fact that you call yourself a man of science kind of indicates that your comprehensive skills might be above average. If you'd make a reference to Jung to a MAGA supporter the best you may hope for is that they think you are a German. Few would include the possibility you might just as well be Austrian or Swiss and the odd one out may realise you are refering to a philosopher. However the majority would suppose you were either complimenting or criticising DJ Trump or God. People with a feeble grasp on linguistic intricacies tend to interpret what was said within the confines of their own realities. "God: yes...difficult words....it must be very profound". And being an atheist myself, I just don't think the existence of a God would explain anything, it would just give rise to more questions about the fabric of reality, like: "then where does God come from and what is wrong with his Internet connection"? I don't think reality is 'knowable', we are one of the two snakes but we don't know which one. The mirror is there but it doesn't tell us on which side of it we exist and that doesn't matter, what matters is that we are aware of our reflection and that we try to appreciate it's existence and vicariously, our own existence. How's that for a word salad? Have a nice day! 😁

@santaffy4206

3 ай бұрын

Definitely a word salad. Said absolutely nothing at all using so many words. Good job! 👍

@RenghisKhan

3 ай бұрын

@@santaffy4206 Thanks mate. 😁👍

When I was a graduate student at UC San Diego in the late '90s, I used to eat at a Thai restaurant in La Jolla that was next door to the Chopra Center. One evening a friend and I were having dinner at the restaurant, and we spent most of the dinner listening to a pompous windbag engaging in a very loud and embarrassingly moronic monologue on all sorts of esoteric subjects while a much younger and apparently submissive and impressionable man listened quietly and intently. The windbag had his back to us, so we couldn't see his face, but we heard every word of his drivel. At one point my friend and I leaned toward one another across the table to agree quietly that the fellow doing all the talking was a narcissistic moron. At about that point, the two people stood up to leave, and the windbag turned around so we could see his face. It was Deepak Chopra.

@Atclav

3 ай бұрын

Critical thought is going extinct. You certainly got some else’s doze plus your own.

@clintoruss153

2 ай бұрын

Imagine how big his ego is, if u disagreed with him he would probably go insane

@gregshirley-jeffersonboule6258

2 ай бұрын

@@Atclav Um, what?

@waynedonoghue4071

2 ай бұрын

Interesting. It reminds of this time me and my girlfriend were eating in this fancy restaurant while on holiday. A few tables up from us this man was talking to his friend. On the table behind him were two middle aged ladies. They were listening to him and giving him these snobby looks behind his back. Basically judging and looking down on him for whatever he was saying. Me and my girlfriend noticed their looks and how snobby and nosy they were. And how they were better off minding their own business and enjoying their food. You remind me of those two ladies.

@TheVeraciety

2 ай бұрын

@@waynedonoghue4071🔥

Sam Harris has absolutely no problem understanding Peterson's gibberish on religion.

@czgibson3086

23 күн бұрын

Sam Harris said that after listening to Peterson talk about religion for a long time he still had no idea what JP actually believes.

@craigdamage

23 күн бұрын

@@czgibson3086 ...I think I meant to say: "understanding that it is GIBBERISH"

@danielfcastro

8 күн бұрын

​@@czgibson3086 Sam asked, and not even JP knew what he thought on the matter. 😂😂

Petersons point is that you can live like a christian without necessarily buying into the mythology

@thearmanig98

Ай бұрын

The irony is that this is now Dawkins’ stance as well. I disagree with both of them. I think viewing Christianity simply as a tool for better living is still stuck in a materialist worldview that I disagree with. (And many smarter, more articulate Christians than me) The ability to even judge what better living looks like in our society, comes from values built upon belief in the first place.

@browsedrops

Ай бұрын

​@@thearmanig98what's good and bad is simply subjective, at least in an atheist worldview.

@MrAnders9000

Ай бұрын

@@thearmanig98Nah we are capable of creating much better laws, then those who are written in religious holy books. ( which was also made by humans)

@defectoamarsins3539

Ай бұрын

@@MrAnders9000but before some of them were religious books, they were Laws. Someone wether with involvement from a god or not wrote them down with consideration.

@theduckytaco7602

29 күн бұрын

Theology*

I grew up with no respect towards Christianity and faith In general and despised anyone who tried to tell me otherwise. I was never curious about religion, especially Christianity, until I stumbled upon Dr Peterson's content. I listened to his maps of meaning and his theories on the psychological underpinnings of the biblical stories through his discussions on genesis and exodus. I must admit that it opened a door within myself that I thought was locked forever or never existed. He has brought me closer to the idea of faith than ever. I want to improve the quality of my relationships with others. I am constantly trying to improve myself rather than spending my time criticising others for their life path. Sure, there are things I don't understand in this world, but rather than getting worked up over it, I'm trying to understand it from a different perspective and always tell myself, "Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't make it bad". I want to do more for others than for myself. I want to be a better friend, partner, person. There are periods of my life when I look back and I'm disgusted by who i was. I know i can't change the past, but I can try to reshape the future. I have let go of so much hate and anger, and I have forgiven not only myself but also others because we are all human and we all make mistakes. Dr Peterson has done more for me than any other male on this earth, apart from my father, who played his part by contributing his genetic components to give me life. But yeah, to me, Jordan Peterson is the man and i can never repay him. Yeah, he might be a little nuts, but who isn't? I know for sure that I am. Anyways, thanks for those that got through my dribble; look after yourself, and I hope life treats you well,

@champagne.future5248

3 ай бұрын

Thank you for sharing. There are many such testimonies of Peterson’s influence on people. I’m quite sure he has had a much more positive influence on the world than Dawkins, although to be fair he has had a more positive influence on the world than most people, period.

@michael1345

3 ай бұрын

Your "dribble" a classic Petersen and that style obviously appeals and gets through to you in a positive way. However, don't mix Petersen's understanding of the bible and Christianity based on symbology and archetypes as the same as the evangelists and that is why Dawkins isn't sure if Petersen is an atheist or not. He has to however keep his audience who are predominately Right wing and that is something to consider. Just read the negative comments here. Couched in lies, hypocrisies, the embracing of hate speech etc. That is the type of people his business model relies upon. There are better, more pure sources to help you to be a better person if that is your goal.

@jplowman

2 ай бұрын

In a very real way, Peterson is the last hope in spreading the Gospel in a world of churches that don't know how.

@michael1345

2 ай бұрын

@@jplowman Maybe but listening to him carefully because he interprets the bible as a metaphor NOT the word of God but the inspired Word of God.

@jplowman

2 ай бұрын

@@michael1345 exactly!

Absolutely spot on. It's _exactly_ like Depak Chopra. I've _literally_ had a JP fan in my family even admit "Man he's so smart. A lot of what he says even just goes right over my head". That's the point. People think his points are smart and profound and making good points because they don't understand what he's saying.

@HeIljumper

5 ай бұрын

Just because you and Richard Dawkins find something incomprehensible doesn't mean others do

@TheCaptain610

5 ай бұрын

What he's saying isn't that complicated. It's basically just that religion has a utilitarian function in society and it's true in a metaphorical sense for that reason, in the same way a good novel reveals truths about the human condition even if it didn't literally happen. He also seems to hope this means there is some form of literal God but isn't fully committed because he acknowledges you can't really get to that conclusion based on nothing but reason.

@TeamGxxS

5 ай бұрын

@@HeIljumper "comprehending" (deliberately) meaningless word salads is an accomplishment?

@niclastname

5 ай бұрын

@@HeIljumper I didn't say that I find it incomprehensible. I said that a lot of his fans do. I understand the things he says, which is why I say that it's nonsense. Dawkins similarly didn't say "I can't comprehend the words he's using". He was saying that people who can't understand it think that he's making a profound point because it sounds smart to them. Just because you can't read or listen, doesn't mean I wrote what you made up.

@niclastname

5 ай бұрын

@@TheCaptain610 I agree that what he says isn't that complicated. I didn't say that I don't understand the things he says.

Then Richard Dawkins goes on to say that he is a cultural Christian. He enjoys the fruits that a Christian society brings, but he also is happy if the number of Christians goes down. That was stupid on his part. You can’t have the fruits of a Christian society without having the faith.

@pola_behr

Ай бұрын

yes you can. i don't believe in god but i go to church with my friends to eat the food they cook for everyone on sundays

@HunterDavies2

Ай бұрын

are u stupid or just kiddin

@alisterrebelo9013

Ай бұрын

​@@pola_behr And what happens when people stop sending their sons to seminary? What Church continues to function without the Liturgy? Not ones capable of building and maintenance of the Christian architecture, music etc. that you are so happy to partake in. You depend on the true believers giving birth to surplus sons, while at the same time insulting them indirectly. As David Wood brilliantly observed, Dawkins is an apple lover who chopped down all the apple trees and crying at the lack of apples.

@kingconstantinusthesadisti133

29 күн бұрын

​@@alisterrebelo9013 religion bring peace, and then... They have to face their own sin.. so they become grey.

@a6hiji7

28 күн бұрын

Christian society of the middle ages did a lot of killings in Europe.

Dawkins thinks he's answered every question and he's insufferably smug. He and Neil DeGrasse Tyson should get a room.

@boronhexan4565

3 күн бұрын

He never claimed that, but dumb God believing morons claim that plenty tho

Turns out ancient peoples were really into snake porn.

@JayJay-ye7ic

4 ай бұрын

Respect

@Guztenify

4 ай бұрын

Yup

@HandbrakeBiscuit

4 ай бұрын

Aaaand this week on "The World's Craziest Accidental Scientific Discoveries"... ;)

@sylviaowega3839

4 ай бұрын

The snake symbol represents medicine, or some divine inspiration, was incipiently brought to the light by Carl G. Jung, and Prof. Peterson was deeply influenced him.

@Guztenify

4 ай бұрын

@@sylviaowega3839 in scandinavian and baltic tradition the snake represents medicine and fertility.

Anyone who paid attention in highschool can digest Peterson just fine.

@adamcosper3308

5 ай бұрын

Yeah. Your average high school student should be able to realize that he's full of it.

@EyeLean5280

5 ай бұрын

Agreed. Reading Peterson is not nearly as complicated as reading many other philosophers, which is why it's so tragic to see so many people buying what he's selling. The popularity of Jordan Peterson condemns the taste of our age.

@adamcosper3308

5 ай бұрын

@@EyeLean5280 Do we have to call him a philosopher?

@beishtkione24

5 ай бұрын

​@adamcosper3308 no, but you can call him the Loberster Daddy, leftist B

@Tomather66

5 ай бұрын

I couldn't understand why smart educated person and professor like JP could think that the Bible is a valuable book! He can be agnostic like many scientists but a Christian? Christianity makes no sense from scientific pov

What is sheer horseshit is this video Not Jordan Peterson’s outlook

I am a deeply devoted Catholic and I hear JBP getting right at the heart of Christianity as taught by the Church.

@pertinentissues

6 күн бұрын

Exactly 💯, I rather think it is this speaker that is actually ignorant. He doesn't understand Christianity or thinks Peterson's perspective is too profound to understand.

@alanalycan3986

3 күн бұрын

Same here ❤

"I can't understand it, therefore it must be bullshit that nobody understands"

@Bloink

3 ай бұрын

That's not what he said, but nice coping.

@TheBlackfall234

3 ай бұрын

@@Bloinkhe kinda did. He literally said "bullshit" without any reasoning, any explanation and people pretend that this guy just "showd peterson, while he didnt. He talks like a child here. A child saying "no youre wrong" and then simply leaving the room without any explanation of why the other one is wrong. He doesnt explain it, because he couldnt. The only reason he thinks its bullshit is because he doesnt want ancient people to be smart, wich says alot about this guy. A typical Person who wants to be seen as smart, who thinks he acts smart... but ultimately has nothing to say.

@Lotrick

3 ай бұрын

@@TheBlackfall234 Sometimes bullshit is just bullshit. Blue faster ran train gain of bigger. Refute that. "Snakes' coils = DNA" is bullshit, too.

@zendakk

3 ай бұрын

"I don't understand it either but I have to pretend that I do because I'm a sycophant of my Big Hero who's being called out for his bs." -You

@straightline76

2 ай бұрын

@@Bloink That's basically exactly the point he's trying to make. Nice bias.

“My cat’s breath smells like cat food.” Ralph Wiggum

@vladpadowicz5946

3 ай бұрын

Epic and well placed randomness in this thread 😁👌 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@hauntedbytheliving1175

3 ай бұрын

I could be wrong but don’t think it’s random at all… it illustrates a point.

@scottcates

2 ай бұрын

My dog's breath smells like cat shizzle.

@user-ee8lv5jq8m

2 ай бұрын

The dragon in my garage tells me this is all BS.

@user-ut7hh3zb2f

Ай бұрын

@@user-ee8lv5jq8m Only my dragon is the one true dragon, you heretic. :D

Dawkins was my introduction to atheism and helped me understand the physical world around me. Peterson was the one that made me look deeper into my soul and helped me find a meaning to my life. They've both expressed opinions at one point that I strongly disagree with, but overall I ❤ them both.

"It's bullshit." What a rebuttle! So well thought out and thoughtfully constructed. Just brillant.

@jelcoleys8087

Ай бұрын

If I told you I saw an elephant fly today? Would you address that in any other way?

@thebestshmave7401

Ай бұрын

Snakes coil around each other when reproducing so that’s more likely the origin

@De_Selby

Ай бұрын

Yes, mate. Not every assertion needs a fully thought-out rebuttal, especially not one that is theoretical to that extent and intuition based.

@TheRABIDdude

21 күн бұрын

It really is bullshit though. Jordan's claiming people can physically see things that are impossible to see with the naked eye. With absolutely no evidence or logical reasoning. It's either a lie or a delusion. His reasons for claiming it are: • tribal art of a simple curvy pattern happens to be a similar to DNA. It's not a complex pattern at all, so drawing this link is absurd. It's like the conspiracy theorists who say it's too coincidental that multiple separate cultures built pyramids, ignoring the fact that a pyramid is a very simple structure so naturally would arise more than once in history. • Jordan got high on psilocybin and hallucinated being able to see microscopical detail. Yes, this is genuinely the reason. Look up "Jordan snake DNA" to see him talking about it.

@boronhexan4565

3 күн бұрын

Well, he calls it like he sees it

Jordan doesn't understand himself, so we haven't got a chance!

@Mar-dk3mp

5 ай бұрын

Those godless alone weak people are so full of BS, they can just be obsessed with God and Religion, that why none can respect them and those godless ass kissers without dignity that have denied God (they are just liar as any Goddeniers) and something died on them when they stopped to believe in God, but are so pathetic to tell. We need to forget about those godless alone trash people and their empty stupid nosesnes worthless cult called atheism (indeed theyr are empty like it, and full of BS like it). We hope for a better generation. By the way God will judge once death just as anyone alse and your position as a godless rat is very much weak now and it will be weak then so think next time to be without ashamed, Dignity and God... The worst generation we never have had. So full of BS. No respect for them (if you still got some dignity do not reply to this and Go back to God before it is too late, you poor idiot)

@fnafboy0555

5 ай бұрын

I don't know if that's entirely accurate. I think he's intentionally being dishonest and obtuse because he sees the value of Christianity, especially in politics. However, this is just speculation.

@connorhart7597

5 ай бұрын

​@@fnafboy0555 damn good speculating, at that, i must say.

@madeincda

5 ай бұрын

I see a lot of talking, but no one willing to put their money where their mouth is. Love these videos because they create an astounding echo chamber for you people who talk but don't act.

@CatOnFire

5 ай бұрын

​@@madeincdaWhat action are you thinking that the people that you aimed this comment at should be taking?

Dawkins the sceptic, sceptical of everything except his scepticism.

@urmomma2688

5 ай бұрын

Average youtube commenter finds out about one of the most basic concepts in scepticism

@XxxULTIMATEZxxX

4 ай бұрын

He questions everything because that is the basis of science. It must be explainable through logic and scientific fact, if it is to be accepted as true. As Christopher Hitchens explained with his Hitchens’ Razor theory: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”.

@LD71685

4 ай бұрын

Truth!

@StephenMair

4 ай бұрын

GOD IS!

@jupitermoongauge4055

4 ай бұрын

the dumbest comment. Well I guess someone had to make it

As expected, Dr. Dawkins hits the nail on the head; Peterson is a pseudo-intellectual quack who uses a smokescreen of florid, pompous language and the ability to shed tears at will. Little more than a stage medium. It’s baffling to me that he has garnered such a large following.

@SuitedPup

5 күн бұрын

Florid and pompous language, eh? You wouldn’t know anything about that 😂 I’m sure you felt no pride for your well-written comment. You can disagree with a person without resorting to calling them a pseudo-intellectual quack. Agree or disagree, he’s not some charlatan in it for the fame. There are a ton of people who resonate with Peterson’s views and teachings - which are quite the opposite of shallow. His insights have been derived through decades of intense study, reflection, and revision, demonstrating a genuine commitment to understanding complex issues and offering valuable perspectives for those willing to engage with them openly.

@Flux_40

4 күн бұрын

@@SuitedPup watch the video "a brief look at jordan peterson" and learn what a charlatan he is.

@SuitedPup

4 күн бұрын

@@Flux_40 will add it to my watch later, thanks!

@boronhexan4565

3 күн бұрын

His tears were real though. Tears of a lost man grasping at anything to keep himself afloat.

Richard Dawkins is in no position to call BS when he is incapable of providing a model for morality that does not ultimately reduce to fallacious appeals to force or number. Until he or any other atheist can do so, atheism remains a fundamentally illogical proposition. Jordan Peterson is far more intellectual honest that Richard Dawkins as his recourse to profanity suggests. This is because it suggests an emotional response and not a considered one, as was the case in the vid' that shows RD being asked "What if you're wrong?" and he dodges the question.

@browsedrops

Ай бұрын

You're in no position to call BS in Richard Dawkins when you're incapable of telling me the 284725284937373th prime number.

@browsedrops

Ай бұрын

Atheists logical response to objective morale is there is no objective morale. Done.

@peterlombard2292

Ай бұрын

@@browsedrops "Atheists logical response to objective morale is there is no objective morale. Done" -The problem with that is that it isn't logical; it's just a statement - an opinion at best so no, it's far from "done". For any claim to be considered valid it must be able to withstand logical scrutiny. This applies not just to the central premise but to any corolaries that ensue from it.. Until atheism can provide a logical basis for moral and ethical claims without ultimately being reduced to fallacious appeals to force to number it remains a wholly illogical proposition. It is, quite literally, nonsense.

@breadfan7433

Ай бұрын

The answer to "what if you're wrong" was not a dodge, it was pointing out the absurdity of the question. It was Dawkins's way of answering "I don't care about things that have a near zero probability at best". Here's an analogy to help you understand this: You say to me that you saw in a dream that I'll be run over by a car, and you beg me to stay at home for the rest of my life. I say that I don't believe your dream is prophetic. Then you say "Yes, but, what if you're wrong?". This is a very good analogy, apart from the fact that me being run over by a car, albeit being very improbable, is much more probable that your god a) existing and b) sending me to hell for not believing in it. Look up "Treatise on morality" by Scott Clifton (channel name is Theoretical Bullshit) for a model of morality that's far superior to theistic models like divine command theory.

@peterlombard2292

Ай бұрын

@@breadfan7433 “The answer to "what if you're wrong" was not a dodge, it was pointing out the absurdity of the question.” -Richard Dawkins is big on self-righteous contempt but woefully poor on logic. He absolutely dodged the question because he simply failed to answer it and chose instead to respond with customary self-righteous arrogance which, if you weren’t aware, is not an argument. Everyone can adopt the same attitude as him and that is why it is decried in any serious debating circles. “It was Dawkins's way of answering "I don't care about things that have a near zero probability at best".” -A challenge was put to him in the form of a proposition and he was not able to respond intelligently. That says a lot about how he thinks. “This is a very good analogy,” -When in serious debate, the appropriate response would be to answer the hypothetical taking it on face value and maybe add a Parthian shot, suggesting that it would or could never happen. “…is much more probable that your god a) existing and b) sending me to hell for not believing in it.” -My god? Really? You assume that I have a theistic belief? On that basis I am guessing you’re the type of person who assumes that because someone advances the argument for vegetarianism they then must be vegetarian. As for being “far more probable”, how are you a establishing that exactly and b) carrying out a statistical comparative analysis? Or are you merely writing as an ideologue who wants their own view to be assumed to be correct? “Look up "Treatise on morality" by Scott Clifton (channel name is Theoretical Bullshit) for a model of morality that's far superior to theistic models like divine command theory.” -Here’s a better idea, if you have a model for morality that does not ultimately reduce to fallacious appeals to force or number then why not simply give it here? That is the dodge Richard Dawkins hides behind and until such a model is provided my challenge remains perfectly valid and atheism remains a fundamentally illogical proposition. Good luck. ‘No need to rush. ‘Take your time; I can wait.

I, too, respect Jordan Peterson for standing up in the name of free speech to a Canadian law that doesn’t violate free speech and that has not censored anyone’s free speech. I will now follow his lead by standing up to the tyrannical 1964 Civil Rights Act by REFUSING to allow random black people to enter my home without my permission and sleep in my bed and eat my food right out of my refrigerator, exactly as the law at no point compels me to do. Everyone stand up and applaud my bravery!

@BobDingus-bh3pd

5 ай бұрын

Would there be legal consequences for refusing to refer to a student by their preferred pronouns? Would there be legal consequences for using biological pronouns to refer to a self identified transgender? Yes or No?

@greendude27

5 ай бұрын

this right here!! bravo

@SpielkindFR

5 ай бұрын

@@BobDingus-bh3pdNon of which was part of bill c-16. Which you'd know if you had taken the 30 seconds or so it takes to actually read it.

@nathanielesposito3756

5 ай бұрын

@@BobDingus-bh3pd “biological pronouns” ah yes. The pronouns that scientists found in the dna strands pulled from your ass.

@BobDingus-bh3pd

5 ай бұрын

@@SpielkindFR answer the question. I have read it. It 100% says that tresngenderism is added to the classes of identity discrimination. So if it is universally accepted that not affirming gender is a form of discrimination against them, that would mean it’s now law. Anyone with a brain could put that 2 and 2 together. Stop trying to misdirect and cover the tracks. There were entire government hearings,lawsuits and global headlines made over it for that exact reason. Because there is no other form of discrimination that involves not participating in someone’s personal identity. I.e. compelled speech and adherence to preferred pronouns.

Even though I don't agree with everything Dawkins says I've always respected how blunt and straightforward he is.

@hellomate639

4 ай бұрын

I'm a Christian (formerly atheist, and that past significantly informs my faith) and Dawkins didn't say anything I particularly disagree with here........ lol. I still like Dawkins despite no longer being "on his side" of a particular debate. Most of his criticisms have some serious merit, and I believe he's playing an important part of a larger story. I particularly like his work on memetics, coining the word meme. I just think it's a mistake to try to reduce religion to nothing but memes in the selection sense of the word. That said, I think memes are a vitally important concept for parsing out the "wheat from the chaff." That is, getting out of the groupthink mentality of organized religion is vitally important. Look at how Christians these days trash their most important beliefs. "Love God with all your heart" and "love your neighbor as yourself," which Jesus, whom if you believe the Biblical narrative is indeed _God,_ said are the greatest commandments. Yet, conservatives just go around screaming about how we need the 10 commandments posted everywhere, and glorify that. Conservatives are honestly kind of autistic. They reduce this book that is full of symbol, human error (by design), meaning, nuance, and history to an instruction manual. "Assembly 10.4" "drill pocket holes before screwing in the lag bolt." "Leviticus 18:22 - gay bad" The majority of Reddit neckbeard types of atheists are just former Christian conservatives, and it shows. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, one of the oldest churches in the world, will not allow people to become ministers without first learning to improvise poetry for 2 years, because they understand that the text is symbolic and originated from an oral tradition where symbolism is used to memorize and map things. Reading the Bible like it's an instruction manual is like reading Shakespeare to learn how to install a refrigerator.

@user-sc6cp8qn1m

3 ай бұрын

I'm much more interested in what you disagree with.

@andrewbradley3305

3 ай бұрын

His lack of humility vid what you respect?

@hellomate639

3 ай бұрын

Ah look, my nuanced, thoughtful comments have been removed. I hate the internet, destroying discourse to turn people into rage monsters.

@calebroberts08

Ай бұрын

Yeah I appreciate when morons fess up openly

When asked if he believes in Jesus, peterson said something like : I act as if I believe in Jesus.”

I want Dawkins voice saying “it’s sheer bullshit” as my ringtone

Bashing JP is clickbait that never fails to reel me in 😂🤣

@npc9207

5 ай бұрын

It's not even clickbait dawkins literally says it

@brainboosteredu.3928

5 ай бұрын

I know right.

@vinista256

5 ай бұрын

@@npc9207 true dat!

@robguyatt9602

5 ай бұрын

Me too. Cos JP is the word salad MasterChef of the world and deserves all the bullshitting he cops. It staggers me that he has such a following.

@enemystand2981

5 ай бұрын

@@npc9207 it’s so therapeutic to see people slam Peterson to be honest. Even in real life more and more of my pals have been buying into his bullshit, when all he says is a whole lot of smoke and mirrors with no real substance

That isn’t even remotely what JP said. The bullshit here is RD trying to twist what JP was saying.

@164procar4

5 ай бұрын

help us understand exactly what JP said pls

@gregogrady8027

5 ай бұрын

@@164procar4 JP was discussing symbolism within the framework of Jungian interpretation, an area in which he specializes. It is truly inconceivable for individuals like Richard Dawkins to claim ignorance of this context. I find it difficult to believe such self-admitted claims of stupidity, on the part of Dawkins, even when I find them like this on video recordings, repeatedly asserting such ignorance.

@artemislogic5252

5 ай бұрын

@@gregogrady8027 JP was discussing Jungian interpretations of what symbolism, another word salad, what is that meant to mean, in laymans terms that JP was discussing ideas of how symbols are processed by the unconscious mind? and that's why cave paintings of 2 snakes represent dna? well if consciousness can perceive things that small, why did it pick out the dna and not amino acids, or mitochondria, or anything else or maybe its just bullshit and the snakes were just 2 snakes and JP suffers from mild psychosis

@MrFlejon

5 ай бұрын

​@@artemislogic5252I think in context, it sounded something like this: "The DNA symbol, that drawing of the double helix can be found in a lot of cultures. Two snakes coiling around eachother. That concept, that shape, has always been associate with health, therefore, maybe we were onto something drawing those snakes." Peterson isn't like those guys that say the hieroglyphs in the pyramids depicts light bulbs and modern stuff. He's very imaginative and has a strange, arcane way of understanding what motivates people, and arts. I think, ironically, that example of the snakes and the DNA, Dawkins was not "sensible" enough to understand what Peterson was talking about. The analogy and idea behind the symbolism went way above his head. He's almost self admitting "I can't unestand what he's saying"

@jakeworldwide

5 ай бұрын

it's so annoying because they act like Jordan Peterson is coming up with crazy bullshit, but he's literally reciting Jung, who many of these critics would respect and talk highly about and not talk shit about. he uses the term archetypes constantly. He's not just making stuff up.

"He uses big words, and that confuses me.. He thinks ancient people weren't complete idiots, and that makes me fear for my own sense of value."

@SXNTX

Ай бұрын

Good joke man you're funny 🤣

@Carry842

24 күн бұрын

truth is, ancient people WERE absolutely dumb by any modern standards.no doubts about it

@boronhexan4565

3 күн бұрын

Ancient people were ignorant as hell tho, that's how you get religion and Gods.

Richard Dawkins is the perfect example of when Dr Thomas Sowell once said. That just because you're an expert in one thing doesn't mean you're an expert in all things

@annhilator55

5 ай бұрын

Thomas Sowell and Peterson ironically are exactly this ironically.

@bucksfan77

5 ай бұрын

​@annhilator55 what?

@Cyborg_Lenin

5 ай бұрын

Thomas is the perfect example. He is an economic expert who is absolutely horrible at economics.

@downeybill

5 ай бұрын

exactly, you can hear it in his condescending tone: we are all lucky to have this genius to enlighten us all.

@downeybill

5 ай бұрын

@@Cyborg_Lenin lol, world class academic specializing in the psychology of meaning doesn't understand what religion is, and one of the world's greatest economists (the greatest for my money) is "absolutely horrible at economics".

I find Richard's brutal honesty refreshing.

@janebaker966

4 ай бұрын

Yer what? He makes Joe Biden look acutely incisive.

@amirparsi4165

4 ай бұрын

Yeah it is

@sdwone

4 ай бұрын

Matt Dillahunty is another combative Atheist who takes no bullshit! And doesn't suffer fools gladly! These... Are my kind of people! Because I don't have time for BS either!

@The-Dirty-Straw

4 ай бұрын

He didn't say anything new lol

@therearenoshortcuts9868

4 ай бұрын

JP is a false hope peddler at this point False hope sells in 2024... world is going to shit, people need to cope

That's the difference between them both. Dawkins thinks people are stupid, and they dont understand. Leading them to hear Jordan's words like magic. Peterson speaks like an intelligent person is listening, in good faith that they are Bad faith for Dawkins to have that outlook, but im not surprised

@Ciph3rzer0

Ай бұрын

JP obfuscates simple concepts to sound smart. I don't like Dawkins, but he's more intellectually honest than JP

@bolloxmagee4409

27 күн бұрын

@Ciph3rzer0 I don't think so. I think jp just realises the depth that seemingly simple things imply. I think sometimes the harsh gets confused for the honest, because it's certainly more likely that you're hearing the truth if it hurts. But that's not an unintelligent mistake

@Nadia-bt5ls

13 күн бұрын

dawkins doesn't think people are stupid he thinks religious people are stupid which is fair

@bolloxmagee4409

13 күн бұрын

@@Nadia-bt5ls yeah you're right, Einstein was a total moron. That's fair. Same with Jung

Who are you going to believe, Jordan Peterson, or the guy that presided over the Red Wedding?

Jordan Peterson disguises his ignorance and stupidity with word salad.

@johnnyegerhardt1109

5 ай бұрын

@@MikeDonaldson-eh2ru, not necessarily. Chimpanzees can understand 400 words and have been known to form simple phrases.

@jaminjones8784

4 ай бұрын

Honestly Jordan Peterson's ability to ramble for 5 minutes without saying anything at all is _almost_ impressive lmao

@joshuajames1998

4 ай бұрын

😂..richturd didn't even make any arguments against Jordan Peterson's claim. He took one flimsy argument of Jordan Peterson to prove him completely wrong on all cases. This is called reductio ad absurdum.. Atheists love when they can make such mockings..😂

@markelmslie6832

4 ай бұрын

Like all Jungians, he talks a lot and says nothing very much!

@janebaker966

4 ай бұрын

How come you secular humanist atheists go on and on about how moral and non judgemental and nicey-nicey you are on my radio,all self proclaiming virtue but really you are all the most nasty judgmental abusive gits out there.

It feels like JP doesn’t believe, but his audience does, so he created this weird version of divinity that works with his worldview.

@kevinbeck8836

5 ай бұрын

yeah I think you have the right of it.

@Diepvries11

5 ай бұрын

JP is trying to convince himself he believes.

@kevinbeck8836

5 ай бұрын

@@Diepvries11 oooooh yeah thats a part of it for sure

@grapenut6094

5 ай бұрын

@@Diepvries11 He doesnt believe literally but he finds christianity useful. Most religious people are like that, they just wont admit it to you because they think its what is required for their end goal.

@IrregularPineapples

5 ай бұрын

depends on how you personally define "believe" -- such an unserious comment by you

Peterson going from serious to jokingly talking like an NPC is hilarious

"Reddit-tier" is pretty sophisticated language for a twelve-year-old.

A lot of people are missing Dawkins point. The problem isn’t that Peterson uses complex language, it’s that he miss uses it. It doesn’t take much to follow along with what Peterson is saying but when you do a lot of it is either avoiding questions or downright nonsensical

@davidanderegg1232

4 ай бұрын

Naw Dawkins is missing it not peterson

@archiebuchan2563

4 ай бұрын

@@davidanderegg1232 miss using I meant to say

@davidyoung2990

4 ай бұрын

I disagree. I think he makes perfect sense

@davidporter671

4 ай бұрын

He really doesn’t use that complex of language. lol pick up a book once in a while.

@archiebuchan2563

4 ай бұрын

@@davidporter671 crazy how you read my original comment and just took the opposite point from it. None of his language is that hard to understand and that’s his issue. On so many topics he is so evidently speaking out his ass if you have a basic knowledge of the theory around it

We need less Deepak and more Dawkins. We're missing Hitchens, too. RIP.

@fluorescentmilkshake

3 ай бұрын

Hitchens was a woman hating loser.

@michael1345

3 ай бұрын

You have an excellent replacement dare I say even better for Mr Hitchens in Alex.

@holliswilliams8426

2 ай бұрын

I miss Hitchens, he was so funny.

@fluorescentmilkshake

2 ай бұрын

@@holliswilliams8426 Actually, women are funny. Hitchens was a dope who said women were never funny. Maybe? He just had no sense of humor.

@lawrencefrost9063

2 ай бұрын

even better than Hitchens...jeeeeeeeeeeesh@@michael1345

Well, as much as I admire Peterson on a lot of things, I have to give that one to Dawkins.

How religion started: "hEy mAn, cAn You pAsS SoMe mOre HAshIsh 🥴"

When Peterson talks about psychology, he generally knows what he's about. When he talks about politics or religion, he has no idea

@sandguyman

4 ай бұрын

he wrote a 500 page book about religious symbiology and its intersectionality with psychology, part of which dawkins misrepresents in this clip

@Yahwe666

4 ай бұрын

@@sandguyman uga booga waka waka bla bla bla woo woo

@biggusdickus5752

4 ай бұрын

@Yahwe666 By far that's genuinely the most intelligent response in this whole comment section lmao

@sirmiba

4 ай бұрын

@@sandguyman And is Jungian through and through. Dawkins' dismissal of Peterson's approach to religion as "saying things that goes over people's head" just goes that he is not a *serious* atheist. Dawkins is so attached to the idea of religion being false, it has literally taken the shape of a religion in his mind.

@Yahwe666

4 ай бұрын

@@biggusdickus5752 I know, right?! 🤣

When it comes to JP, people need to open their mind to the gap he's been attempting to bridge over his lifetime. Everyone wants black or white, but Peterson reveals the blurred lines.

@thevaccinator666

5 ай бұрын

💯

@cichlisuite2

5 ай бұрын

Approached him with a very open mind and what I saw was a sophistic grifter. I definitely do not see things as black and white but I also get nothing, other than second hand embarrassment, from listening to or watching Jordan Peterson.

@paulinemclean375

4 ай бұрын

@@cichlisuite2 Agreed. I can see why U of T wanted to kick him to the curb. He’s a disgrace to the entire institution.

@lounowell4171

4 ай бұрын

@@cichlisuite2Did you listen to Maps of Meaning, or his modern self-help bullshit?

@Aaron.Thomas

3 ай бұрын

​@@lounowell4171 Both.

that's exactly the feeling I had watching JP's talks on religion, he talks and talks and even says things that make a lot of sense and all of a sudden jumps to some irrefutable conclusion (in his mind) that unfortunately doesn't make any sense at all

I hope someday mankind will talk about Christianity or Islam as Roman Greek mythology.

BTW Peterson never said the ancient people knew about DNA. Classic Dawkin generalization

@UhtredOfBamburgh

5 ай бұрын

Dawkins is grifting on the idea that believing in anything is foolish. He's a simpleton and simplicity and the lack of what you don't know is the easiest thing to defend

@EyeLean5280

5 ай бұрын

I'm sorry, what part of "I really do believe that's a representation of DNA" did you miss? kzread.info/dash/bejne/nWelysikgMzXnps.html

@EyeLean5280

5 ай бұрын

I thoroughly dislike Dawkins, but he's correct about this, @@UhtredOfBamburgh . Peterson did claim that a medieval Chinese painting represents DNA, and believing such a thing is pretty damn foolish, given that we have _plenty_ of scientific writing from ancient and medieval China and nowhere is there any mention of anything like DNA. Also, when snakes mate they twine around each other that way, making it pretty easy to understand why such imagery would be used in a cosmogonic myth, which is the context of the lecture in which Peterson made the DNA claim.

@homewardboundphotos

5 ай бұрын

@@EyeLean5280 don't you think it's a little strange that ancient humans would draw and create symbols and geometric shapes that are prevolantly found in the natural world? don't you think it's possible that he's not saying people were drawing dna strands, and he's actually saying there is something about the symmetry that is a reflection of the divine? Here's the thing, it doesn't matter if god exists or doesn't exist, religion is still hugely important to you. Because if there is no god, then your perception of realty is completely self constructed, and in this self construction YOU have placed religion as a central structural element of your own experience.

@lVideoWatcherl

5 ай бұрын

@@homewardboundphotos Firstly, what is it even you are trying to say? What symbols and geometric shapes could _any human ever draw inspiration from that is not part of the natural world?_ I mean, did you actually think this through at least a bit before you wrote it? Secondly, why do people like you always try to move the goalposts on anything your chosen idols say? He _literally_ uses those exact words. It is on tape. How is it always a metaphor and not meant literally when it is inconvenient? Paradoxically, this seems rather convenient to me that things aren't meant literally only when it suits a person, even when, per all measures of language, discourse and interaction, interpreting something as other than literal seems _obviously_ delusional. Lastly - _what?_ The central theological question argued against by proponents of reason-based ideology is irrelevant? This seems to expose a misunderstaning of the reason people actually argue that stuff; because it is _not_ irrelevant to dispell with baseless convictions and unfounded beliefs. Selective uncritical thinking allows for manipulation and exploitation, as observed effectively in smaller cults other than Christianity, where sometimes people even go so far as to live years in abuse or to straight up murder themselves for the absurdities they are deceived into believing. Considering religious US citizens, statistically, hold the greater degree of homo-, trans- and xenophobic opinions compared to non-religious people, it is also arguably better for social cohesion outside of a small in-group to teach not a dogma based on unfounded absolutist claims. To disarm these myths, pointing out that they are empty and baseless is _vital._ Additionally, the concept of religion is differentiated from belief as being _institutionalized belief._ A person acknowledging the truth that at least no single religion on this planet is even close to being correct about any _hypothetical_ inactive thing or being outside of this universe, and living their life in accordance with that acknowledgement, is not at _all_ 'religious'. In fact, the lack of fixed traditions, strictly codified value structures and specific institutions or offices makes a belief strictly _non-religious._ Even if such a belief deals with the supernatural, to call it religious is simply dishonest - at best, that would equate to spirituality, another concept that is usually rather silly, but at least more honest than claiming that some bronze-age people some two thousand years ago had the exact answers and then not having _any_ reasonable evidence for this absurdity.

Peterson doesn’t understand religion. Dawkins doesn’t understand Canadian legislation. It’s a balance.

@Cyborg_Lenin

5 ай бұрын

heheheh well to be fair peterson understand neither.

@downeybill

5 ай бұрын

yeah, possibly the world's most cited contemporary academic on the psychology of religion and meaning and he doesn't understand religion, sure he doesn't. not like you do at least.

@Nuvizzle

5 ай бұрын

@@downeybill Nobody cites Peterson on anything.

@nigachu8249

4 ай бұрын

​@@Nuvizzle so nobody you know cites him? seems like a you problem.

@bibotah

4 ай бұрын

😂

"It must be terribly profound because I can't understand it." is fucking funny

Of course he had to throw in the nonsense comment about “free speech laws” before correctly tearing JP down on religion

Peterson stood up to his imaginative version on canadian bill c16. all you needed to do back then was to actually read the bill to realize that he was lying. but yeah, to gain audience as conservative you just need to spit out their talking points so here we are

@zeagias

5 ай бұрын

You have no clue what you're talking about. You get to compelled speech not directly through the legislation because the legislation is vague and does not define exactly what constitutes such discrimination. What might be an an offence under the legislation is determined by precedent and public bodies would be relied on to provide a policy interpretation of what constituted discrimination. In this case it was the Ontario Human Rights Commission who explicitly stated that “not referring to a person by their preferred pronoun can be interpreted as harassment”. Thus, if the court sides with the published view of the OHRC then you would in fact have a precedent for compelled speech. Given that the lawyers in Peterson’s University also took the view that Peterson would need to comply with the OHRC to stay the right side of the law and sent letters to him to cease and desist, Peterson took this as proof that he was correct in that regard. It is important to remember that his objection was not to using preferred pronouns, per se, but to having a body such as the the OHRC set the policy to compel it with the legal backing of C16. It is also important to understand Peterson’s background in studying the roots & psychology of authoritarianism which occurs on both left and right and how seemingly meek beginnings have lead to an Orwellian nightmare in the past. Compelled speech, no matter how noble the cause, is the opposite of free speech. Many people these days were not born when the concept of free speech was understood to be something precious that was worth fighting for. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Dawkins gets destroyed in his debate with Lennox for stupid takes on faith but that doesn't mean because a man said something foolish that everything is.

@_cloudface_

5 ай бұрын

​@@zeagiasokay lady, calm down.

@_cloudface_

5 ай бұрын

​@@zeagiaswhat do you call the king of England? How do you address a judge? Can doctors and professor's insist you refer to them as that? Have you ever worked any job at all in the service, hospitality, sales or retail industry where you're instructed on how to address customers at the workplace? Peterson had a breakdown over a bill that basically says if someone says "Stop calling me that, I prefer being called this" and you insist on trying to hurt their feelings you might get a stern talking to or possibly sent to the Canadian gulags and be stripped of your gender and chased by non-binary wolves until you agree to be nicer. There's a large section of Jordy P fanbois that insist on calling him "Doctor" or even DJBP which is just lovely that fandom compels their speech with such reverence to assume Doctor is actually his first name.

@Bibky

5 ай бұрын

⁠@@zeagias Your only piece of evidence proves a contrary point to your statement. OHRC said such situations could constitute harassment, that isn’t surprising - there are already laws regarding stalking and harassment that protect against deliberated, repeated behaviors that are done in a threatening and agitating manner. The OHSC didn’t expand this description of harassment but rather said misgendering someone can be considered a integral part of that harassment and repeated deliberated actions.

@septegram

5 ай бұрын

​@zeagias Peterson is an overhyped con man with fancy patter and a well-developed story of victimhood. If you go into court and call the judge "you there, with the face," you're going to jail for contempt. If you call someone a racial slur, you can be charged with hate speech. Just because Peterson refuses to acknowledge the current understanding of gender doesn't give his pompous ass a pass.

Jordan is not religious but sees how important religion is to society. He has literally said it many times

@danrandall3302

5 ай бұрын

Absolute bs right there

@benjaminbradshaw3995

5 ай бұрын

No he has not, he's quite religious

@MrSirFluffy

5 ай бұрын

To be fair, everyone in this thread is partly correct. What OP stated used to be the case, currently, JP is more traditionally Christian. His wife survived an illness which was miraculous because she is the first ever to not die from it, it had a 100% death rate.

@stevenr6397

5 ай бұрын

he has got more religious but he has always said that religions primary utility was in societal construction, its gives you a reason to be nice to your neighbour, who is nice back to you making the world you live in a better place

@beishtkione24

5 ай бұрын

​@@danrandall3302 no, you're just mad that you had to go to Sunday school and you never got over it.

"I hugely respect him standing up to the law that says you can't call people whatever name you want. People shouldn't respect each others wishes about their name."

I witnessed an exorcism when i was about 12 years old. I never doubted that there was a God after that day.

@ARRAM57

Ай бұрын

Maybe you need to grow up from the 12 year old you, who was probably naive, impressionable and in awe at what the grown ups around you were trying to do. All children are amazed at magic tricks.

@mtman2

Ай бұрын

​@@ARRAM57 You weren't there I take it as to just what he saw, many of us have seen and know things you low-info's will never grasp being happy in the box you beeh placed in thinking to tell others what they know is the height of conceited arrogance...!

@marinka424

Ай бұрын

Amen. I admire your strength of faith. I’m sure you are well protected against negative comments. God Bless.

@augustgrnd4583

Ай бұрын

You should have recorded

If they can’t even comprehend Jordan Peterson, imagine these clowns trying to wrap their heads around Jung, Nietzsche or Kierkegaard 😂😂😂

@eringobreathtiocfaidharla1446

5 ай бұрын

And don't forget yourself

@maxotto9877

5 ай бұрын

Peterson can't even comprehend them Whenever he tries to explain their ideas he always does it so, so, so poorly

@bridgenorton537

5 ай бұрын

If you think JP is some intellectual juggernaut that says a lot about you.. none of it good

@Luminouspandora

5 ай бұрын

Umm... I digest them just fine dawg...

@Aaron.Thomas

3 ай бұрын

Speaking of lacking comprehension... Dawkins doesn't say he can't comprehend him, he says the opposite. He says Jordan P uses words his listeners don't understand so they'll think he's smart, but what he says when you do know what he's saying is "bullshit" and he doesn't make any sense, the way Deepak Chopra spouting about quantum mechanics makes no sense to actual quantum physicists.

As a Christian, I largely agree with Dawkin's assessment here. Jordan Peterson, when discussing religion, is often speaking complete nonsense guised in pseudo-scientific language and fancy words.

@IrregularPineapples

5 ай бұрын

that's odd -- i've listened to almost everything and he's almost always spot on or in the ballpark -- his weakest moment being the one Dawkins references here -- a moment he has in the classroom talking with his students trying to open up the possibility to his students that we don't understand psychedelics at all and how they've influenced human beings throughout evolutionary history -- it's not as serious as a take as Dawkins would you have you believe in this clip -- it's more of an exploration

@DavoZed

5 ай бұрын

Peterson's thoughts are gibberish. Nonsense.

@fisharepeopletoo9653

5 ай бұрын

​@@IrregularPineapplesWell what do you mean by odd? And everything? And heard? How can you even create a sentence with words when you haven't defined them yet? And don't forget post modernists are bad because they just think things have no meaning and/or want to redefine that meaning

@MrHendrix17

5 ай бұрын

That's Peterson on every topic he speaks on

@IrregularPineapples

5 ай бұрын

touch grass buddy@@fisharepeopletoo9653

Dawkins is calling Peterson out when he can’t even button his shirt properly lol

Man, no one tell Dawkins about the golden ratio. Man cannot accept that nature is repetitive.

Dawkins has been less sophisticated and more of a grumpy old man over the years. There's fair JP criticism but this isn't it.

@mrboost4186

5 ай бұрын

Why not?

@Brimocholas

5 ай бұрын

Cos Peterson was high on shrooms when he came to that hypothesis Dawkins is referring to

@azynkron

5 ай бұрын

So what constitutes unfair criticism? Anything that offends you since it rocks your man crush?

@EyeLean5280

5 ай бұрын

Yes, he and Peterson seem to be in the same line of work: Professional Angry Old Man.

@rhmotes

5 ай бұрын

​@@Brimocholasand if you've ever done mushrooms, then you know that that isn't a bad thing. The person who discovered DNA did it on LSD. There's merit to Peterson's ideas.

How disappointing Dawkins has not bothered to check the facts about Peterson's "stance" against Canadian government, which like everything else Peterson, is full of blatant exaggeration and lies.

@elmango705

5 ай бұрын

What blatant exaggeration and lies?? He said from the beginning that restricting private speech to a point where you HAVE to use someone’s pronouns or you risk getting fined, is a line that the government shouldn’t cross. And it is a line, that the government had never crossed in like 300 years of common law.

@freddyguy8582

5 ай бұрын

At least someone is saying it. All legal opinions with credibility said his view of the legislation were misguided as per the actual legislation

@lukecarrion1694

5 ай бұрын

@@elmango705 You are literally doing the exact same exaggeration that JP and all other right wing grifters did about the law. The law did not restrict private speech and dictate that you had to use somebody's pronouns. All it did was make gender identity a protected class so you could not discriminate against them. Also, a line that has not been crossed in 300 years? You have to be fucking joking. Every country has laws exactly like that. If a transgender person is employed at a place and their boss/coworkers repeatedly intentionally misgender them to the point of discrimination and harassment THAT could possibly lead to a fine. Which.... obviously yeah. That's just common sense. This has ALWAYS applied to cisgender people. Stop falling for the grift and do your own research.

@elmango705

5 ай бұрын

@@freddyguy8582 No, you can actually get fined for misgendering someone. Look at this case from Walsh‘s „What is a woman?“ documentary. I think it was a father who was fined $30,000 for misgendering his own trans daughter.

@freddyguy8582

5 ай бұрын

@@elmango705 and exposing her name during a publication ban, wasn't that simple

“I don’t understand Canadian laws that he stood up against so I think it’s enormously courageous, but I do understand religion which he’s BSing about”

Jordan Peterson bullshits about shrooms.

DNA helix? Seriously? Dawkins is criticizing Peterson for that? It's not even close to central Peterson argument. It is just not important.

@UrMomsFavSnack

Ай бұрын

Can you present a steel-man of Petersons argument then?

@saintsword23

Ай бұрын

It was just an example of the nonsense.

@RobDaCajun

Ай бұрын

It’s the easiest angle for Dawkins to attack him on.

@paveletx

Ай бұрын

@@saintsword23 or just a straw man argument

@mrflyingturtle9447

Ай бұрын

Strawman needs to be created. Jordan Peterson has went on record stating that he thinks this is true. Source, watch the video.

His courage standing up to a Canadian law that didn't exist.

@andyspell9417

4 ай бұрын

He believed if he didn’t use someone’s preferred pronouns he would’ve been charged for a hate crime. Since bill C-16 came into effect no one has been charged for a hate crime for not using pronouns

@michaelhall2709

4 ай бұрын

@@andyspell9417I doubt he believed any such thing, as the law proscribes no specific penalties for such conduct. Peterson is nothing but a fraud.

@--Ezra--

4 ай бұрын

I mean his understanding of the religion goes as far as his understanding of that bill. I guess Dawkins didn't read the bill either or didn't understand it 💀

@bustamoveorelse

4 ай бұрын

@@andyspell9417 People have been fined. You know what happens when you don't pay a fine, don't you? Also this is such a basic understanding of the importance of law

@andyspell9417

4 ай бұрын

@@bustamoveorelse citations needed for no charges please.

A critique of Dawkins is that; just because your vocabulary is small and your comprehension of linguistics is limited does not mean that somebody who has a greater capacity for speech is wrong because you failed to understand his words.

This world is full of people who think they are smarter than they are. Whose ego is bigger than it should be.

JP's stance against Canadian free speech law was also a total BS exaggeration and right wing fear mongering!

@KT-pv3kl

5 ай бұрын

in what way was it BS?

@jacksonelmore6227

5 ай бұрын

Jan 6 is BS exaggeration

@isakregal1879

5 ай бұрын

No one has ever been arrested for misgendering someone.

@KT-pv3kl

5 ай бұрын

@@isakregal1879 Robert Hoogland was not only fined but also arrested for misgendering his daughter

@blu3260

5 ай бұрын

@@KT-pv3kl Peterson's claim: "Guys it's 1984 they're arresting you for using the wrong pronouns! Also give me money" What C-16 actually did: "Okay you can't commit hate crimes against group x, y, and now z"

that dude is talking very wisely, profoundly and smart. He must be correct

@madeincda

5 ай бұрын

Exactly why KZread celebrities are popular. You let them do the thinking for you...

@onlysongs1607

5 ай бұрын

@@madeincda, the wording

@CatOnFire

5 ай бұрын

​@@madeincdaTo be entirely fair, this is what everyone did for most of their schooling. We all learn from others. If someone says something and we consider it and come to agree with it, then we haven't committed any great sin. We have simply accepted an idea that we first encountered as someone else said it. So long as we understand the things that we believe and are open to changing our minds with evidence, then there is nothing wrong with this. The problem comes when you decide that this new information can not be challenged. If you decide that no evidence can ever change your mind then you stop being open to learning and you are likely to end up with the wrong answer because of this.

@gedde5703

5 ай бұрын

I assume you are referring to Dawkins.

@hundly

5 ай бұрын

They should probably debate and get that settled. After all Dawkins debated a whole class of individuals and Peterson does rhe same ...dont call bullshit on anyone unless you ask to debate them and they run off

For someone who went to a CofE school and had Christianity force fed at an age where i dont really know or care, its refreshing to see someone explain biblical stories in such a way that resonates with me now

Dawkins missed a button on his M&S shirt.

@ignotodue6625

5 ай бұрын

😅

@jamesrutterford576

5 ай бұрын

M&S make great shirts though😅

@ten2ten7

5 ай бұрын

I can’t unsee this now 😂

@geckowizard

5 ай бұрын

It was unbuttoned by a ghost.

@Johnny-Torres-Cedeno

5 ай бұрын

Imagine idolizing a guy who can't even dress properly. 😒

Thank you for finally pointing out the obvious!!!! I’ve been saying that about Jordan Peterson for years. He doesn’t make sense at all. At all! Fancy words, but no meaning or context.

@Worldsportstalk24

4 ай бұрын

He makes sense 99% of the time. His language really isn’t that complicated

@robr177

4 ай бұрын

Just because you can't understand what he's saying, you feel you have to bash him? What did you watch? One of those 10 second "clips" that random people post? Why don't you watch one of his lectures? You will change your opinion. Assuming you come by it honestly.

@sapper1495

4 ай бұрын

@@robr177 With Jordan Peterson is just a lot of circular reasoning that often doesn’t address the specific question he is being asked. Specifically in the topic of the existence of a god. I have seen him debate Dillahunty, Harris and many more and he doesn’t convince me one bit. Well, to each their own.

@sapper1495

4 ай бұрын

@@Worldsportstalk24 Oh it’s not that I can’t understand Jordan. It’s that he insist on using circular reasoning. I want to scream out to him and say what is the root of your argument! Please make a claim already and stop disguising your ignorance on a topic by using fancy words to make yourself sound intelligent because it’s not working. It’s so frustrating hearing him speak because he negates any real conversation by not properly addressing the core of the argument. Again fancy words but no context. Sorry to hear you enjoy his speeches.

@Worldsportstalk24

4 ай бұрын

@@sapper1495 sometimes he does that but not that often. Saying what he says has no meaning or context is just asinine. Sorry you don’t appreciate him, your loss.

To be fair, the ancient Greeks did speak of RNA, which we didnt discover until after we discovered DNA, less than 100yrs ago. But everything else he said I completely agree with.

I sometimes feel that when I hear Christopher Hitchens speak, but I know that that is because he's too clever for me!!

It's sad Dawkins has bought into the "anti-woke" bs and thinks Peterson wasn't talking absolute shit in regards to canadian free speech laws.

@rubinbingham9547

5 ай бұрын

Dawkins is showing Gell-Mann Amnesia towards Peterson. He knows Peterson is speaking bullshit in the field Dawkins is familiar with but doesn't acknowledge Peterson is talking bullshit in every topic he talks on.

@Durins_Babe

5 ай бұрын

As a canadian, I absolutely agree with you.

@cichlisuite2

5 ай бұрын

I'm so glad to see someone here that recognises this. You'd have hoped in that context that Dawkins would appreciate that it was worth seeing what experienced Canadian lawyers and legal academics said? It's very disappointing from Dawkins. Peterson wasn't being brave. He was just being belligerent in order to gain attention and notoriety (and sadly it really worked).

@lawnmower16

5 ай бұрын

This! Fucking this

@raukris1307

5 ай бұрын

​@@cichlisuite2 What I've noticed--and this is hardly profound--is that people are brave only to the degree that it doesn't cost them anything to be brave. Dr. Peterson was pretty clear that he was opposed to the government's attempt to enact legislation that sought to compel speech. He was correct when he pointed out that this has never been done in the history of English common-law. And he was quite firm in his conviction that he was NOT going to go along with this, whatever the cost to himself. That isn't being belligerent for the sake of attention. That's standing up for what you believe in. Dr. Peterson couldn't have know he'd soon be trending no.1 on KZread when he chose to take the stance he did. Besides, it shows more integrity than I've ever seen the dour Mr. Dawkins display. (Not to imply Richard Dawkins hasn't got integrity, I'm just not aware of any occasion where he risked his career to stand up for a principle.) For that matter, when have YOU ever risked it all in order to stand against something you strongly opposed?

Man, I love hearing somebody with such gravitas saying exactly what I feel

@SamoaVsEverybody814

5 ай бұрын

Gravitas indeed lol

@bawseeeee602

5 ай бұрын

Seems that you seek external validation

@MCAincludeTC

5 ай бұрын

​@bawseeeee602 for complex matters, relating to existence in particular, it's necessary to have this sort of "confirmation" from outside. Especially from sources such as Richard Dawkins

@9n3-

5 ай бұрын

@@MCAincludeTChe’s not a “source” - he is literally speculating🤣

@Zimzamzoom95

5 ай бұрын

@@9n3-everything is a source

Richard explained everything Jordan Peterson is in a nutshell 😂

Dawkins intelligence is exceeded only by his arrogance, which seems to be boundless....

Ignoring the existence of afterlife is the most unwise decision.

Peterson: professional bullshitter

@luciusesox1luckysox570

5 ай бұрын

Wonder what side of the political fence your on. Wouldn't be the one that he shows up for the hypocrisy that pervades it.

@KillaKermit

5 ай бұрын

​@luciusesox1luckysox570 he's a right wing grifter, spewing bs for money - anyone with a functioning brain sees through it. Can tell that ur one of his throne sniffers tho.

@9n3-

5 ай бұрын

@@luciusesox1luckysox570most people who don’t like JP are tankies

@deviladvocate21

5 ай бұрын

​@@luciusesox1luckysox570 this just in: politics is more complicated that sitting on either side of a fence and dogmatically picking every set of beliefs from that side

@laxarus3259

5 ай бұрын

Which part of what he says is bullshit ?

Dawkins calling something sheer bullshit was the most awesome thing! 👌

@Scotty-P

3 ай бұрын

It's phenomenally ironic, actually.

@MrLove11590

3 ай бұрын

Actually makes him sound a lot less intelligent as a result.

@ericmanget4280

3 ай бұрын

@@MrLove11590 Nah, if we had to entertain listening to every obviously nonsense theory then we'd never get anywhere.

@FrankLucas-pw5hs

3 ай бұрын

Dawkins argument against Peterson's "most aggreigous example" bullshit - much like the existance of God - is pure speculation. Dawkins misrepresents what Peterson said and is the biggest sophist ever. To the contray - its not inconcievable that, a society (such as the ancient egyptians) who could determine a true north (as proved by the multiple pyramids all facing truth north) - or a society that came up with our calendar & had mapped out and understood the planets so intricately - could equally be capable of perceiving of a idea similar to DNA. Peterson didnt even say that they definitely did - he was merely speculating - and its a reasonable speculation lol

@MrLove11590

3 ай бұрын

@@ericmanget4280 Being dismissive and using profanity will never convert a Christian to atheism.

I don’t need a lot of smart people to tell me in what should I believe in , I believe in telling the truth and not lie , do not steal and don’t hold grudges.

he doesn't slams JP, he just insults JP...

@Flux_40

4 күн бұрын

watch the video "a brief look at jordan peterson" and learn what a charlatan he is.

People who say "you must not understand Jordan Peterson if you dislike him" have the same energy as people saying you need a pretty high IQ to understand Rick & Morty.

@saneman7177

3 ай бұрын

No offence but if you’re around people who’ve said you need a high IQ to understand Rick & Morty you’re probably spending time around people with a pretty low IQ

@Mk-qb2ny

3 ай бұрын

No they don't

@SwizzleStickMcGee

3 ай бұрын

Well, what do you dislike about Jordan Peterson? People who dislike Jordan Peterson usually can't tell you why, it's just some emotional screeching. I guess I would call that chihuahua energy...where you're just shakey & aggressive, but don't really know why.

@fakavangchhia2051

3 ай бұрын

as jordan would describe you, "you are painfully naive"

@saneman7177

3 ай бұрын

You hang out with people who say you need a high iq to understand Rick & Morty?…. I’ve never heard anyone say that before… I’ve heard people say it’s a weird show but I think that’s pretty much undeniable

Jordan Peterson gets for more press and attention than he merits. Plain and simple.

@Afed390

4 ай бұрын

Disagree.

@El_Guapo509

4 ай бұрын

He just an eloquent anthropomorphism. A human peacock.

@Oneoneone111One

4 ай бұрын

People supported him for the same reason Dawkin’s does here. It was useful politically to them. He leveraged that into being treated as a public intellectual which the right hasn’t been flush with in some time. The right often gains its public intellectuals this way.

@Solar.Geoengineering.Advocate

3 ай бұрын

its because the algorithm is set up to turn everyone into a right wing lunatic. start out on youtube with a new account and new device. you will be recommended jordan peterson and matt walsh and all those absolute lunatics

@FitziCal

3 ай бұрын

​@El_Guapo509 the most ironic comment I've seen today

For the record, JP is LITERALLY a confessed Christian. It IS his belief system, he doesn't have any doubts about it. He accepts its ontology, cosmology, hermeneutic, etc. He understands Christianity in a way which radically surpasses the Evangelical Protestant sphere, and goes right into patristic and Thomistic though. He tries to synthesis it through the lens of his intellectual discipline (and through himself) in the way that St. Thomas Aquinas synthesised Christianity through Aristotelian thought... as we might pass light through a stained glass. He does it rather conscientiously. It's not like he's a Jungian, and say's he believes in God, but means the Self.

Misunderstandings are very similar to lessons they almost, to the point it's pretty safe to say 99.999999% are never fond on a one-way street.

Jordan Peterson wants all the rights but none of the responsibility of Christianity in the world today.

@itstimeforafuckingcrusade

5 ай бұрын

When he "interprets" Nietzsche's statement that God is dead in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," he tries to make the claim than Nietzsche is sorrowful about it, that he sees the death of God as a catastrophic event. He gets this idea from the excerpt of "the madman," where Nietzsche's madman (a reference to Diogenes when he shines a light in broad daylight, and when he's asked why, he says that he's looking for an honest man), shines a lantern in the morning at the market yelling that he is looking for God. The crowd mocks him. One asks, "Is he lost?" Another asks."Did he lose his way like a child?" Another asks, "is he hiding?" Did he go on a voyage?" "Emigrated?" Thus, they yell and laugh. The madman then jumps into their midst and says, "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. "How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed, and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed, he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto." Peterson then goes on to claim that Nietzsche is sorrowful about the death of God because without the "higher moral values" that the Christian God provides, humanity without them shall instead sink into nihilism. But he actually cherry picks this specific passage because later on in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," Nietzsche remarks in an excited sense over the death of God, because that opens up a sea of possibilities for new values, and his prophet Zarathustra decends to inform the world of the death of God, and the arisement of the "übermensch." He knowingly misinterprets, or in a malicious sense, twists the message that Nietzsche is trying to convey. He does this with multiple other authors, such as Dostoyevski, but Nietzsche is the one that stands out the most.

@IrregularPineapples

5 ай бұрын

... that's almost the exact opposite of what he's about -- he is precisely saying that rights and responsibility are the same thing -- to quote him to explain what links the two: "your rights are my responsibility"

@FiniteGlory

5 ай бұрын

@@itstimeforafuckingcrusadeTL;DR

@MrFlejon

5 ай бұрын

​@@itstimeforafuckingcrusadewell, there is a clear character development in Zarathustra. God's death is grave and sorrowful. Nihilism is hanging there, without a light to guide you in the dark. There is a sense of grief, and how to cope with it. Maybe you don't like or agree with his interpretation. But keep in mind, no one agrees on Nietzsche either. Dawkins would read Zarathustra and say "it sounds profound but it's all nonsense". Some literature isn't written to be understood, but to evoke something in you. Peterson has a very strong understanding of that, and is imaginative enough to try and make sens of it

@adrianmasters250

4 ай бұрын

Jordan has done more for Christianity than the entire church structure in the past 5 years, what have you done?