RELIGION IS FOR STUPID PEOPLE - JORDAN PETERSON

[@Pangburn]

If you enjoyed this clip, please drop a like on the video and consider subscribing. 👍 NEW EVENT! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6nXk5aNeNObrrcsi=zbwVhOBBgwxLtB1e LAWRENCE KRAUSS & THE FRIENDLY PLANET IS NOW ON SALE! We hope you grab a copy 🙂 amzn.to/3YWhz8W

[@jappachronicles8094]

You are going to milk a 4 hour discussion to pay your bills for the next 10 years? Using Sam Harris’ name for clout? Don't you have new debates? You are pathetic. Putting foolish clickbate titles on discussions that have absolutely nothing to do with the video. You are a shameless man deserving of repudiation. Grow up and get a job. Do something creative and stop churning out the same content over and over again. Its lazy, stupid and unbecoming. You've used Sam, Jordan, Dawkings and others for clout over the same recycled debates adding unscrupulous contexts to them. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[@dmurphy5689]

@@jappachronicles8094 ha-choo-ish

[@dmurphy5689]

@@jappachronicles8094 "They" have n0$hame

[@BristleHiffyn]

​@@dmurphy56891 Chronicles 23 New International Version The Levites 23 When David was old and full of years, he made his son Solomon king over Israel. 2

[@ACloudWithoutAir]

I dont think you could have extrapolated this anymore ridiculously. You're reaching, and all of these insulting are like back handed compliments on a hallmark birthday card. It must be a miracle for intellectual creatures to live in an ever so vast bubble of absurdity. But I guess not. It just is what it is and trying to make sense of it otherwise is a waste of time and so is everything else. Human consciousness is a detriment to our basic function of needing to survive with this futile effort of trying to live life with your own meaning. I hear the naysayers speak of making their own terms, but i never hear it about their own personal lives. When you dig deep enough, to live life utterly as a subject, is subjective, inherently and therefore an inferior mindset to live in compared to being an object, with an objective consciousness. To have preference is to search for truth down to your bones in who you are. But it seems the truth is as invaluable as lies in the grand scheme of absurdity, nihilism, and existentialism. Who you are is a happenstance that is a whim. If life is a whim, then so is everything that encapsulates it. Have mercy on the mentally tortured and the physically damaged as they suffer the worst fate of all. The inequality of not being able to be satisfied like you claim to be with your selfish directive. I refuse to accept in this world that we live as creatures with an intellect that is as good as being stupid. Humans derive thoughts from patterns, and such things are based on reality and our perception with our eyes. We are inherently functioning to treat our ideas with great value, and to say our values are merely not that valuable to everyone, then comes further conscious problems of human comparison, thus comes inequality. Then, we have to constantly judge our own beliefs to the point of asking if its actually worth anything because human comparison is built in us. Everyone is judging themselves and others. When you have a belief and it becomes challenged, you have several options that we all know, and it sounds like the idea of an objective reality of a Religious God existing, is too ridiculous to even entertain the thought of, shows you deny people of the right to feel like things can be objective. If I was an atheist I would say our intellect is a curse and being stupid is a blessing. But I can't even do that because that's not reality, there is no objective curse and blessing, because such things would have to be a universal truth that cannot be subjectified. Skepticism is self-defeating, and faith is an inherent characteristic in human consciousness with our concrete ability to believe in something. If a faith in a higher power is absurd,who is to say we should have faith in anything or anybody anymore? Nothing is steady, reality is subject to change, and i refuse to believe the universe is so impersonal, that the impersonal created personal, and my life is the same as never existing because the Heat death of the universe is so ridiculous, it's worse than a hell, because you are claiming basically all will perish and it will be for naught. Humanity is vanity incarnate.

[@steveratton8638]

Not believing in a God does not lead to genocide. The fear of a God watching you has never stopped anyone from committing a sin.

[@oscargr_]

There is no way to know if the fear of a god watching has never stopped anyone from committing a sin. I think it probably has, in the way that my fear of drowning has stopped me from jumping off a ship mid sea.

[@food123123]

that's a crazy opinion to have. you'd have to have insight into every human beings thought process to know whether that's true or not. which you obviously don't. such arrogance such foolishness, must be nice to be that dumb.

[@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT]

@@oscargr_ please think longer about your analogy. It’s no wonder people’s lives are so difficult with this level of stupidity.

[@oscargr_]

@@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT Explain yourself. What makes it a bad analogy?

[@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT]

@@oscargr_ of course you want me to do your thinking for you. Of course. I’ll give you a hint. One results in observable feedback, the other doesn’t. Just because you aren’t aware of the incentives governing a person’s behavior doesn’t mean you get to Willy nilly assign their behavior to a fear of a god. There are always real life consequences and reactions to our behavior that others aren’t always conscious of.

[@junevandermark952]

An Eskimo hunter asked the local missionary priest, “If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?” “No,” said the priest, “not if you did not know.” “Then why,” asked the Eskimo earnestly, “did you tell me?” Author …Annie Dillard.

[@adamborowicz7209]

check mate

[@rigelb9025]

''Because I travelled thousands of miles to bring you the warmth I've decided you so desperately crave.''

[@junevandermark952]

@@rigelb9025 Being convinced that they were following "God's will" ... those missionaries suffered horrible physical and mental agonies. I found the following book to be of great interest in regard to explaining the clash of the cultures. From the book … The Invasion Within … The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America by James Axtell. As an introduction to native life, canoe travel was the most traumatic of all. Not only did it throw the missionary and several Indians together in a tight and dangerous space for several weeks, but it could not even begin until the missionary’s order or the trading company had given the canoemen a large traditional gift to reciprocate their generosity in taking aboard the dead weight of the priest and his baggage. Once the arrangements were made and canoes left the French quays, the missionaries quickly slipped into conditions guaranteed to “cast down a heart not well under subjection.” While the Indians paddled nonstop from dawn to dusk, the priest crouched like a useless monkey among the baggage, his long robes tucked around his bare legs and feet, his head dipping to avoid the brain-rattling thump of a paddle as the sternman stood to negotiate obstacles and rapids. All day long, in every kind of weather, the passenger hunkered in cramped, perpetual silence, afraid to offend his sweaty hosts with obnoxious small talk or linguistic enquiries. If they took a dislike to him for any reason-and “a word, or a dream, or a fancy” was sufficient-they could jettison his precious altar kit or books, “borrow” his broad-brimmed felt hat and cloak, or abandon him altogether. An acquiescent, cheerful demeanor in all situations was the best policy. He would also be invited to relieve himself in the wooden bowls that doubled as drinking cups; standing in a canoe was universally frowned upon.

[@Jhast24]

Except that’s not what the Bible teaches…

[@junevandermark952]

@@Jhast24 Are you suggesting that the bible teaches that even though people haven't heard of Jesus ... they are still expected to BELIEVE in Jesus?

[@AmityvilleFan]

The "moderator" saying the SS thought "God is not watching them" is ridiculously false. Their tagline literaly was "God Is With Us" (Gott Mit Uns).

[@cruzavenue4549]

Hitler and the Nazis were Christians.

[@craigjones9372]

Pleased to see this comment. The gratuitous both-sidesism was offensive. That was the entire point Harris was making, the movement that resulted in Hitler very much was like a religion, in many wants WAS a religion, and nazis literally committed atrocities because they believed there God was watching and demanded it.

[@snowflakemelter1172]

That was something stamped into Wehrmacht belt buckles , the SS were not Wehrmacht but a part of the Nazi party.

[@paulwellings-longmore1012]

And that ludicrous statement was followed by Jordan Peterson's even more outlandish promotion of the Babylonian idea that leaders should be treated as God's earthly representatives. I'm sure that Stalin, Mao and Hitler would all have been happy with that idea

[@hifibrony]

@@paulwellings-longmore1012 Stalin was educated in an orthodox school.

[@dmurphy5689]

'With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.'

[@hifibrony]

- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics

[@bernardleger8478]

Peterson’s inane ramblings are endless!

[@jtjones4081]

Amazing how Peterson can talk about the great notions of Marduk and that leaders are not Supreme but then support Trump for President. I could see Biden going outside to be whipped by Priests while confessing his failures but never Trump.

[@Earthad23]

If you admit there’s something called evil you believe in the opposite, you are all missing the forest for the trees.

[@Earthad23]

@@jtjones4081He’s talking about memes and their relationship to evolution and natural selection.

[@JeseSavignon]

Jordan is exasperating, he says so little with so many freaking words and he ends up going nowhere, because in the end everything is so profound and mysterious and he has to define every single word. I don't think I can listen to him again.

[@snoutysnouterson]

Totally agree with you. I think he is a nice person, but my gosh he is a massive bullshit artist.

[@JohnnyFondue]

sorry you were not able to understand, must be so frustrating.

[@dannygolightly865]

@@snoutysnouterson nice? that seems very unlikely. he comes across as dissmissive and rude, arrogant and holier-than-though

[@pineapplepenumbra]

@@snoutysnouterson "I think he is a nice person," As he is doing his damndest to defend some of the more oppressive and harmful aspects of society, and is promoting an agenda that makes some of the dispossessed in society even more extreme and entitled, and he knows that, he cannot be regarded as a nice person (unless you mean "nice" in the old sense, but I somehow doubt that you do).

[@pineapplepenumbra]

@@JohnnyFondue "sorry you were not able to understand," Oh look, someone who claims that the Emperor has a nice new suit of clothes, and look at how wonderful they are...

[@멸문멸공-b4c]

Endless word salad by Peterson

[@houseofmonaghan]

Exactly, 100%

[@dmurphy5689]

Seems typical with narcissists. Its like they love the sound of their own voice.

[@closequarters4575]

I think Peterson was going through drug addiction and health issues during these discussions with Sam. I recall him mentioning that as a reason for not performing well.

[@houseofmonaghan]

@ so is this sober and well adjusted? kzbin.infoCEEHjtVJHYs?si=0_MBt99RvKq0EmML

[@kane4013]

That’s his go-to whenever he’s cornered.

[@unduloid]

I can't help but notice how the other two constantly interrupt Harris as soon as he's making good points.

[@Eric-cj8sb]

Yuuuuuuuup

[@elem-sike4161]

I was just boiling during this debate. It was Sam vs two religious nuts. Seriously, the host comparing atheist involvement in history to Religion is as disingenuous as can be.

[@paulwellings-longmore1012]

True, but Sam Harris is capable of dealing with both of them

[@t.s.3025]

At least in this bit, I found both of them to be remarkably respectful towards each other. They allowed to be interrupted and let the other flesh out most of their respective points. Refreshing in today's debate culture.

[@fredbmurphy]

Sam is making valid points where Jordan is a word salad bandit.

[@prieten49]

Jeez, that's what my mother, bless her heart, would always say to me, "But the Catholic Church has been around for two thousand years!" as if that proved anything.

[@Pigeon_Birb]

Barely a millennium actually, they separated themselves from orthodoxy in the 1050s.

[@r0ky_M]

​@@Pigeon_Birbcatholics claim their church started with Peter.

[@Okabe_Rintaro_]

Tell her "you know Hinduism has been here for like 5000 years so...."

[@JointManJoe]

it proves that it CAN be around for 1000s of years, i meant, how many institutions do you know that survive 1000 of years, let alone 1000 of years based on ancient core principles, in my lifetime ive seen so many institution found on shaky core principles that will not surive 50 years let alone 1000

[@sadderwhiskeymann]

@@JointManJoe i think that Geneva convention has played some role in that. If it was common these days to impose your ideas by the sword (at least to the point it used to be) then we would live in a different world

[@hellboy7424]

I am not going to mention all the religions but especially Christianity has a very specific and particular origin. It was born during the Roman Empire as a way of escape from death for slaves after a miserable life. The superstition of finding something better when dying after a life of suffering and, of course, as a way to keep them docile and manipulable. That is why the rich patrician class ended up accepting Christianity: a tool of manipulation. Today everything remains the same.

[@Earthad23]

To claim that religions are false implies a truth, you’re being religious in your rejection of an alleged false doctrine.

[@tonyprost5575]

@@Earthad23 sounds like a Jordan Peterson line!

[@Earthad23]

@@tonyprost5575 You all sound like religious freaks desperately holding onto your beliefs.

[@hellboy7424]

​@@Earthad23That's like you calling me a vegetarian because I say artichokes are good or bad.

[@pineapplepenumbra]

@@Earthad23 "you’re being religious in your rejection of an alleged false doctrine." You're being ridiculous. There are many sound reasons to not believe in the nonsense of christianity (or any other superstitious rubbish), and basing one's judgement on Facts and Logic is the opposite of being religious.

[@dennyworthington6641]

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." Victor Stenger

[@JohnnyFondue]

Science also gives thalidomide to pregnant women, tells parents it ok to spray DDT on their kids.

[@Earthad23]

Why fly to the moon? Why is that important?

[@Earthad23]

To claim flying into buildings is wrong is to imply that there is a right. Based on what ? You can’t make this argument while claiming moral relativism.

[@cruzavenue4549]

They didn't say that flying into buildings is wrong. "Flying to the moon" is a metaphor for modern medicine, MRIs, vaccines, antibiotics, cell phones, the internet, jet aircraft , AI, etc....

[@Earthad23]

@@cruzavenue4549 Religion without science is lame, science without religion is blind. - Einstein I don’t know why this is so hard for people to grasp.

[@Frank-costanza]

Wait, did that guy say that nazis weren't religious? They literally were.

[@hifibrony]

"Gott mit uns."

[@AndrewAnderson-bx8uf]

Germany was 95% Christian during that time so yes

[@JointManJoe]

@@hifibrony yeah but no, the base soldier on the field certainly was regligios but those are soldiers, they have about as much to do with the nazi party as soviet soldiers had to with the redistribution of good in the soviet union, oder soldiers in first world war had to do with the respective king. just man doing a job for whomever believing in god trying not to die on all sides

[@hellboy7424]

​@@JointManJoeThey were on their way to creating their own pagan religion with Christian elements. The thing is that they didn't have time because they lost. So yes, they were religious.

[@JointManJoe]

@@hellboy7424 so, even if that with the pagan religion was right, the havent created it yet, so how are you religious to a religion that doesnt exist yet, dont get me wrong they certainly tried to fill that religion filled hole with cult of personality and ideology (just the same way atheists do today) but thats not relgion in the same sense as for example a time tested tradition as christianity is religion, its more of a half baked world view that gives you the feeling of being free from god while all the while finding something else to take that place.

[@alsindtube]

Lots of words don’t justify magical thinking, Jordan. They only prove that you’re good at deflecting.

[@ThatBoomerDude56]

Do you seriously think Jordan Peterson said even one word here in support of the existence of God?

[@sadderwhiskeymann]

@@ThatBoomerDude56 Do you seriously think Jordan Peterson said even one word here in support of the existence of God? NO. he's the master of deflection.

[@Earthad23]

@@sadderwhiskeymannYou are all seriously dogmatic fools

[@ThatBoomerDude56]

@@sadderwhiskeymann 🤣🤣 How, exactly, is he "deflecting" anything? He VERY CLEARLY refers to Bible stories as "mythology." No equivocation or "deflection" about it. At all. And y'all are jumping on him as if you have no clue what the word "mythology" even means. Have you ever had a literature class? Did you even go to high school? He is CLEARLY referring to Bible stories as *mythological literature* to derive lessons from.

[@cruzavenue4549]

Mythology is "magical thinking." The biblical stories are lessons that believers believe are god's message to them on how to conduct themselves. They can justify any atrocities they commit based on this magical thinking, regardless of actual existence or non-existence of a god.

[@mikelombard21]

Douglas claiming nazism or stalinism is some product of atheism could not be more wrong. Clearly he has never read Hitchens.

[@weerolein]

I don't think he made that claim. Not causally. But he defended a very odd constellation here. Very out of character for him.

[@righteousshift482]

Peterson's such a lightweight thinker, it's shocking he garners such attention. Take his comment, "we're all stupid, some are just stupider than others." On the surface level, this looks self-deprecating, but dig a little deeper, you'll notice a few things. Number one, clearly he's not including himself in the latter category. "I may be stupid but you're stupider than me" is the implication. Not so self-deprecating after all... Number two, if you're making a claim about stupidity, this is a relative term, so "we're all stupid" necessarily is invoking a standard of intelligence by which all are judged. _What is this standard?_ We're all ignorant comparing the relatively small quantity of things we know to the swathe of things that _can_ be known about the universe? Yes, most would get behind this charitable interpretation. *It's not relevant to religions though, is it?* We've yet to see a religion that claims to be ignorant about the cosmos. A humble religion, absent of grandiose claims about the universe and its origins. Perhaps it is out there somewhere. We continue to tap our fingers in anticipation. Much as we await a humble Peterson, acknowledging his ignorance, prepared to engage with other smart individuals and not run at the first sign his axioms, and, for him more importantly, his conclusions, are under threat. Keep tapping those fingers...

[@godnah]

Umm, yeah moron, it's MORE STUPIDER

[@oscargr_]

Being famous makes you smart. He hides his shortcomings by namedropping Jung, Dostoyevsky, the mesopotamians...

[@dannybonsai7102]

anything that humble tends to reject dogmatism and it's "churches" wouldn't be recognized as such. They'd be friend groups, online forums etc

[@Pigeon_Birb]

They are ignorant of the cosmos, generally concentrated on ideas that do not whatsoever reflect the reality of our cosmos, they quite litteraly persecuted people that were saying and proving them wrong. Galileo Galilei comes to mind.

[@Runpulator]

Ha ha, you killed it with that tasty dress down!

[@Ra1ner9]

Religion is a waste of energy. Edit: That means money, time, space, all types of goods and resources, etc... All to the dead con-man.

[@Pigeon_Birb]

No, some people it can help, but i also does damage of course.

[@dmurphy5689]

Slave mentality, obedience training, conformity. G0vernment means to control the mind. NWO> C0mmunist Beast System G0vt.

[@Ra1ner9]

@@Pigeon_Birb Everything has it's positive consequences, but in the case of religion I think the negative consequences outweigh the positives.

[@jimmiems8815]

​@@Pigeon_Birb is schizophrenia helpful? From what I see, you either have people hearing disembodied voices telling them what to do, or you have people lying about hearing disembodied voices. Neither seems good in any situation.

[@pineapplepenumbra]

That's what The Rabyd Atheist points out at the end of every video.

[@Lifeistooshort67]

Christopher Hitchens: "If you want to get good people to do wicked things, you need religion." You certainly don't need a "RELIGION" to be a moral person. It's actually the opposite!

[@Earthad23]

You need to explain what good is if your claim is there is no such thing. If you believe in someone being “wicked” you’re invoking a standard of goodness based on what?

[@Lcacique]

​@@Earthad23do you actually believe that people had no concept of "good" and "evil" prior to God finally revealing Himself? Do you actually believe that throughout history people who had no knowledge of the Christian God because they lived in far off places had no concept of good and evil? And if you believe that God ultimately decides what is good and what is evil and you fall in line with whatever He decides, you aren't even a moral agent. You are just a dog following orders...though the dog follows orders of an individual that exists whereas the believer is following orders of an invisible and unknowable entity.

[@Lifeistooshort67]

4% of Americans identify as atheists. Yet only 0.07% are incarcerated. That leaves everyone else in jail affiliated with some type of religion. By the way there are over 4,000 recognized religions on this planet. Make sure you choose the "RIGHT ONE" because that will make you a nonbeliever in 3,999 Religions except "ONE!" Choose wisely grasshopper!!!

[@rigelb9025]

@@Earthad23 I'd say basic logic & personal preference can do it. For example, I would assume you don't want someone to come at you with a knife. Seems legit. So on what standard of goodness would you base that? Your own need for personal safety and lack of desire to be in excruciating pain should suffice. Which you can then extend to others, by not coming at them with a knife. (This was a purely hypothetical scenario, please don't try this at home).

[@Earthad23]

@ Most religions talk about the concept of logos, which is the logic of the universe itself, what you’ve articulated is what religious people call the golden rule. Which hasn’t been a feature of human existence, it’s more an outlier that has been discovered through history. There’s an emergent ethic

[@justhere4thecomm3nt54]

Douglas Murray thinks if he lowers his voice to a growl at the end of the sentence it strengthens his argument

[@pineapplepenumbra]

Our dog has a similar view.

[@OCD-GIRL]

Dogs

[@WesternPatriot-v8m]

We need to rise above religion and the concept of god.

[@8eyes]

I certainly have. With each day that passes the more and more I slowly realized that the christian god and the god concept makes literally no sense. My understanding is that both concepts are actually icebergs of contradiction, hypocrites, paradoxes.

[@DREAMGARDENmusicclips]

Goodluck

[@8eyes]

@Eliasgreek-y5k Your messiah. Do not push your beliefs onto others.

[@GeneratorOperatorDestroyer]

I doubt that will happen in my lifetime lol.

[@pascal.ziegler.score94]

This is still just a belief… we don’t need to rise above anything. so where do you wanna rise above next after you rise above god?

[@dyoder16]

I love how he thinks he gets one in and Harris smacks him down with fact is great.

[@Rpaulbroker]

The other two can't compete with the intelligence of Sam Harris.

[@paulreader1777]

Was a fascinating clip, especially for the period of silence from Peterson.

[@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1]

God claims are like nails on a chalkboard

[@Runpulator]

Because if one screams and rants about things like devils and demons, hell and threats loud and obnoxiously, that makes it seem more real to the poorly educated! 😂 That way you can get them to believe in things like talking snakes, magic trees, talking donkeys, talking burning bushes, talking clouds, 1000 year old men, bakery goods falling from the sky, magical boat in a magical storm, and water walking woo wizards who zap trees, part seas and poof magical party wine into existence! Isn't that some annoying shiza?

[@ThatBoomerDude56]

What "God claims" did Peterson make at any point in this video?

[@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1]

@@ThatBoomerDude56 Well, that depends on what you mean by “God Claim”, and it also depends on what you mean by “Point”. This is a very complex question... One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung's archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnitude of Neo-Marxist existential nihilism.

[@Earthad23]

How are you not making god claims?

[@Earthad23]

@@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1Just say you don’t understand his arguments.

[@CraigBlack-k8i]

When you lie to children you create a bias, a stumbling block in their minds. This bias remains even if they are able to get passed it intellectually. It becomes toilet paper on their shoes that follows them, confronting logic from the inside.

[@agitomakishima9292]

people too often confuse nonsense with philosophy

[@rwldebruijn1979]

5:08 "Religion had a role, atheism had a role"?! What a ridiculous thing to say. First of all, atheism is not a religion. It hasn't been widely promoted and propagandized through the ages. So its effects on human behaviour aren't comparable. Secondly, someone who says that they don't believe God is watching them isn't automatically an atheist. And thirdly, just saying each had a role is completely ignoring how much of a role.

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

Hitler and Stalin did not lead religions, but they did lead movements that sought to combine all human powers into a tightly controlled centralized structures--economic, political, metaphysical, sociological. Just like religions did. So, in this sense, they were atheist. But the atheism itself was almost incidental. The power-hunger, the centralization, the rabid ideology, those are what made Hitler's and Stalin's movements so devastating to humanity.

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

I wonder how many leftists will fess up to their temptation to power-hunger? Just like Stalin, but prevented from carrying it out by free societies.

[@Thunderrolls]

Yep. That's the issue with atheism, particularly the pro atheism stance: It rails against the universal needs & the ugly reality of the human condition. We're not perfectly rational agents in an idealist philosopher's wet dream, nor are we replacable cogs in the materialist tyrant's wet dream, either... The liberalism that spawned idealism [atheism], and then materialism [Marxism, Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.], is an umbrella for a series of worldviews that have been incomparably catastrophic in such a short time frame. Why have they been catastrophic? Because... these systems privilege only the ugly, destructive elements of human nature, while they deny the rest, which come to manifest in industrial levels of cruelty. But then, stupidly, these late stage liberalism ideologies then provide none of the transcendent, pro social elements that religion does. So, religion is what grows out of the irrational human condition when it's allowed to flourish. When humanity flounders, it seems to take on an idea that, surprise surprise, also denies humanity's fundamental nature. So, the problem with atheism is that, while it's more logical than faith, it's also somehow more bullshit, in only the absolute worst ways, too. There you go. Atheism: it's the system that's the most true about most facts... while being dead wrong about THE most important fact: human's aren't fundamentally rational creatures, and there's nothing you can do to change that besides... what they already tried and failed miserably at doing in their efforts to perfect humanity's shortcomings in the mid 20th Century. But, go ahead, roll your eyes, shrug, and go on still being smug and feeling so much more clever than theists, because you don't believe in "sky daddy." Zeus Pater will strike your secular ass down one way or another, sooner or later. RIP, landlover.

[@dmurphy5689]

BS "history." One is not like the other, at all.

[@Pigeon_Birb]

Hitler was kinda sold as semi-devine figure, they called him Volksgott, meaning god of the people. Nazi germany and Stalin did the same as the romans when they adopted christianity, they were using it for power an popularity not as a belief. Nazi germany also had used to write Gott mit uns on soldiers belt during the war, meaning god with us.

[@r0ky_M]

Hitler and Stalin had a delusional cult following as does Jesus.

[@dennyworthington6641]

"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." Voltaire

[@AhmedSuperDooper]

amen

[@polarbear4612]

Like Peterson, Douglas Murray should not speak at all on the topic of religion as he is so misinformed and uninformed. Saying that the Nazis were not religious is an egregious error, same as saying atheist doctrine led to atrocities? Name that doctrine Douglas.

[@edus9636]

"Saying that the Nazis were not religious is an egregious error, same as saying atheist doctrine led to atrocities?" The nazis used the mystic swastika as their symbol, and they didn't believe in God, but surely used the (still Christian) Germans to brainwash and use them as cannon-fodder. They were the SAME atheistic leftwing pack like the atheistic communists, maoists and darwinists, all 4 groups following the atheistic triumphant lemma of the "survival of the fittest" in the smoothest and most perverted way. After WW2, the atheists did a profound manipulative "job" inventing the absurd "social darwinism" to COVER UP the truth. And still do.

[@GreetingsWithFire]

“One thing I admire about the church, is that it’s managed to serve as a repository for these fundamental, underlying fictions” Am I crazy or does JP admit the stories are made up🤷🏼‍♂️

[@Pigeon_Birb]

He choses to "believe", doesn't actually think its true. From what he explained himself, he is technically an atheist but he thinks religion is a great tool to keep people in control and prevent shit like crimes wich is complet bs.

[@charliegarnett9757]

Yes…you are crazy.

[@GreetingsWithFire]

When he describes the stories as “fictions” what else is one to believe

[@StoicMarcusAurelius2024]

@@GreetingsWithFire Religion does not define life, the universe, or the future-it is just a promise of something that works for some. There are many other beliefs, which by definition means there are no facts to support them. A story is fiction anyway. We all believe something, even atheists. Searching for religious truth is fruitless.

[@ThatBoomerDude56]

@@charliegarnett9757 Do you seriously think Jordan Peterson said even one word here in defense of the existence of God? If that's what you think he did here, you missed his point as widely as Sam Harris did.

[@spacedoohicky]

The moderator is terrible.

[@2SHARP4UIQ150]

Whatever undermines your ability to think critically and rationally will ultimately steer you towards a dangerous and misguided path.

[@arifsaleem5467]

JP is not entirely wrong in assuming that the vast majority of ordinary people are stupid. They need to have a personal belief, it gives them psychological strength, despite being inferior it makes them feel superior. Nothing can beat the feeling that though they can kick my arse but gonna burn in hell forever and ever, whereas I will be in heaven.

[@JohnnyFondue]

If you are actually "doing christianity" correctly, there is no feeling superior, none at all.

[@arifsaleem5467]

@JohnnyFondue Seriously? 🤔

[@JohnnyFondue]

@@arifsaleem5467 Yes seriously.

[@rigelb9025]

@@arifsaleem5467 No feeling superior. Only that you need to save everyone else.

[@ÁzsiábaSzakadtam]

Peterson produces far the longest circular sentences mankind have ever heard. I can't think of any other reason than making his audience awestruck on the surface but actually just letting them confused inside. Which is a well-known method of religions.

[@MagnumDB]

3:41 - Sam Harris uses examples like joining Isis and supporting the inquisition. Two very specific moments that you can easily point a single finger too. I think now religion is to be blamed for a multitude of smaller actions that are all trying to lead up to something much worse. where Christians fight for these crazy laws and role changes that may seem innocent in a vacuum, and the Christian‘s don’t come out with the actual underlying reasons for these changes. But we can all see these are small, deliberate, incremental steps towards major change. They’ve been fighting to get religious and conservative judges appointed across America, trying to change those who run the school districts… fighting Planned Parenthood, fighting for gay conversion therapy, etc., etc. All these things to try to force America into a Christian nation only. A white Christian nation only.

[@snowflakemelter1172]

Some Christians are doing that some are not. Is there a single " Christianity " anywhere all pushing the same policies ?

[@rigelb9025]

ye.

[@gigicolada]

💯

[@ptkk21]

The same thing was given to Hitchens by a panel of religious men. It was something in a shepe of: "What if not everyone is as smart as you, what if most peope don't understand the way of science and eligion gives them comfort?" Dawkins was also asked similar question.

[@Semiotichazey]

The point isn't whether atheistic movements committed atrocities, or whether these movements were "quasi-religions." The salient point is that it's true that atheistic movements committed atrocities, but atheism itself had nothing to do with the those atrocities. You can't say the same thing about theism and atrocities committed by theistic movements. In other words, Stalin didn't murder people on behalf of godlessness-he murdered them on behalf of Communism. But the people murdered during the Inquisition were slain in the name of God. There's a throughline between theism and atrocity, as well as collectivism and atrocity, but there is no connection between atheism and slaughter.

[@hifibrony]

Very well put.

[@theunaccompaniedsenior]

So much cope.

[@Semiotichazey]

@@theunaccompaniedsenior So little thought

[@theunaccompaniedsenior]

@@Semiotichazey Whatever, luzer.

[@Semiotichazey]

@@theunaccompaniedsenior lol you truly have nothing to say. Typical peterson fan: a blind follower with no thoughts of his own.

[@UncleBuZ]

The claim that atheists kill because of their atheism is fundamentally flawed. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods and doesn’t prescribe any moral code or directive for action, let alone violence. To suggest it motivates killing is as nonsensical as saying not collecting stamps inspires arson against post offices. This argument confuses correlation with causation. Atheists, like anyone else, act based on personal, political, or cultural factors, none of which stem from atheism itself. The claim also relies on historical distortions, such as blaming Stalin or Mao, whose violence was driven by totalitarian ideologies, not atheism. Atheism, unlike religion, lacks doctrines or commandments that could inspire violence. Ultimately, this argument is often a deflection to avoid addressing religiously motivated violence. It vilifies atheism without basis, ignoring that atheists derive morality from philosophies like humanism, rooted in reason and empathy, rather than dogma. The claim doesn’t hold up to logical scrutiny and is a misrepresentation of both atheism and human behavior.

[@lemnisgate8809]

Atheism doesn’t motivate killing anymore than true religion does, here’s the difference religion at its best when violence arises steps in to prevent and stop it it makes one think twice about their own actions and the actions of their society. On the other hand atheism built on Darwinian philosophy survival of the fittest which is basically every man for himself seems to project if violence should arrive do what you must to survive. One is about selflessness the other about selfishness. I admit my bias being a person of faith therefore I’m hopeful and willing to hear a rebuttal but please let’s not venture into the realm of what supposed adherents to either side has done in the name of said side.

[@UncleBuZ]

@@lemnisgate8809 Your argument misrepresents atheism, Darwinian philosophy, and religion. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, it has no doctrines or moral codes. It doesn’t advocate selfishness or “every man for himself,” as morality is shaped by societal values, philosophies, and empathy, not belief or lack thereof. Equating atheism with “Darwinian survival of the fittest” is a misunderstanding. Evolution emphasizes traits like cooperation and altruism in social species, including humans. It explains these behaviors but doesn’t prescribe them as moral guidance. Atheists, like theists, often value selflessness and community, deriving their ethics from frameworks like humanism or reason. Your claim that religion inherently promotes selflessness while atheism promotes selfishness is overly simplistic. Religion has inspired acts of peace and charity, but it has also justified violence and oppression. Atheism, by contrast, doesn’t motivate violence, it lacks doctrines altogether. Violence stems from ideologies, politics, and human nature, not atheism or theism alone. The idea that morality depends on religion ignores the fact that both religious and non-religious people are capable of selflessness and selfishness. Morality comes from our humanity, not belief or disbelief in a god.

[@lemnisgate8809]

@ I never said morality depends on religion the Bible itself argues against this assumption…“For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭2‬:‭14‬-‭15‬ ‭KJV‬‬ Of course atheist can be moral even people we’d both consider evil love those within their own circle. We need a better definition of atheism did you know during the Roman persecution of the early church they called the Christians atheist because they did not believe in their pagan gods, so the title has morphed quite a bit. In terms of religion and what it has inspired we’d be wise to discuss which religion we are referring to as I stated previously people have done things in the name of all sorts of people and organizations that were contrary to them so it’s disingenuous to blanket state this or that as fact. We must also properly define religion religion as defined within the Bible itself is “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” ‭‭James‬ ‭1‬:‭27‬ ‭KJV‬‬ Does that sound like a call to inquisitions or crusades absolutely not but we still define those things as religious endeavors. It terms of our species being inherently or genetically this or that is a misnomer if it were true why have schools to socialize and teach people how to act, community selflessness are the antithesis to survival of the fittest, it is because early mankind banned together that they survive not the opposite. The problem we will both have is the fact that no man is an island that has never been a control group to study complete atheisms affect on society or religion because it’s all mixed up we all influence one another some atheist espouse biblical philosophy without knowing it because the influence it’s had on a friend a neighbor even an enemy, and the opposite is true, until theirs a divide with neither side being influenced in any way by the other to study and say with is better we must learn to coexist.

[@blackhat5434]

@@lemnisgate8809 You don't seem to understand what "atheism" is. Let me try to dumb it down for you. "You"- God is real "atheists" - I don't believe you. That's it. Like when someone tells you a story about a magic purple unicorn in their basement, and you’re like, “Nah, I don’t think that’s real.” That’s atheism. Simple as that. Got it?

[@UncleBuZ]

@@lemnisgate8809 First, while you didn’t explicitly say morality depends on religion, the way your earlier argument contrasted atheism and religion suggested a direct link between atheism and selfishness, with religion as the source of selflessness. If morality exists independently of religion, as your Romans 2:14-15 quote implies, then atheists and theists alike can derive morality through shared human values, societal needs, or personal conscience. This undermines the claim that atheism inherently promotes selfishness or violence. Second, your historical note about Christians being labeled atheists in Roman times is an interesting one, but it highlights the importance of context. In that era, "atheist" referred to a rejection of Roman gods, not a broader disbelief in all gods. Today, atheism is understood as the absence of belief in any deity. While definitions can evolve, the modern usage is distinct and doesn’t carry the connotations it did in ancient Rome. Regarding religion, you rightly point out that not all religious teachings advocate violence. The James 1:27 definition of “pure religion” is indeed about compassion and moral conduct. However, defining religion solely by its ideal form disregards its historical and practical complexities. Religion, as practiced, often involves human interpretation, which can lead to acts both altruistic and harmful. Recognizing this doesn’t discredit religion but acknowledges that its impact depends on how its teachings are applied. Your criticism of “survival of the fittest” as incompatible with community and selflessness is fair, but it misunderstands the term as used in evolutionary theory. Cooperation and altruism are evolutionary traits that have allowed humans to thrive as social creatures. The phrase doesn’t mean “dog-eat-dog” individualism but rather the success of traits, like empathy, that promote group survival. Finally, you’re right that no society exists in isolation from religious or secular influences, making it impossible to study atheism or religion in a vacuum. However, this mutual influence doesn’t prevent us from examining patterns. Societies with higher rates of secularism, for example, often report lower crime rates, higher education, and stronger social safety nets. This suggests that morality and community don’t rely solely on religion and can flourish in secular contexts. Ultimately, coexistence is key, as you note. Acknowledging that neither atheism nor religion has a monopoly on morality helps us find common ground and work toward mutual understanding rather than division.

[@zacharychristy8928]

Jordan literally mis-pronounces the word "a" to sound smarter.

[@robertl.6919]

Taverns and bars have been gathering places for few thousand years were opinions, thoughts, life experiences have been shared and discussed between people of the communities. They all have their own God, the barman.

[@marlinblack6597]

If you believe that it takes belief in a god to do good things or suffer the wraith of that god, then are you good or are you just self-serving. It is no different to donating to a charity and then advertising that you donated. Someone who does not believe in a god, yet does good deeds without reward is truly good. To think, I do good deeds, I will go to heaven, really means you are doing it to benefit yourself and not purely through the goodness of your heart. To say, godless people are more likely to do bad things does not hold water simply because of religions long record of heinous crimes over the centuries.

[@rigelb9025]

Hard to deny.

[@Eforero83]

If then doing good deeds means "works" then what do you make of this Biblical teaching found in Ephesians 2:8-9, which says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast." When it comes to Christianity, it is NOT of OUR WORKS or own EFFORTS that allows us to get to heaven--the "good deeds" that you were talking about earlier--but rather, our salvation is done by God's Grace, which is biblically define as unearned or undeserved merit or favor. And this Grace, this UNearned or UNDeserved merit or favor, funneled through our faith in Christ Jesus. Therefore, it is our faith in Him that gets us to heaven. Sidenote. The "works" of our faith in Jesus Chrisr can be seen through the Fruit of the Spirit found in us. But that's another topic altogether. Point is. We Chritians don't do good deeds to get to heaven. We do good deeds because heaven can be found in us, in who we are. Know what I mean?

[@rigelb9025]

@@Eforero83 Yes well as far as I'm concerned, if anyone is good-natured & kind hearted for whatever reason, that's good. I think the underlying point here is that the argument we often hear which criticizes atheists for having no moral compass is somewhat specious if it's being made by someone who ABSOLUTELY NEEDS an external framework in order to guide them through every moral judgement they have to make, whether they act out of fear or out of divine grace, or whatever else. Some atheists will be good, others will be bad. Same could be said of religious folk. Ergo, religion & socializing are both very deep-seated aspects in human development, and as they did evolve side-by-side, one does not entirely depend on the other. For example, you can ditch religion and keep socializing, just as you can ditch socializing and keep religion. Although perhaps religion does depend on the social aspect to a large degree.

[@derproka]

Glad to hear they recorded this in the world’s largest bathroom

[@CarlT-cc9bn]

Jordan Peterson has mastered the art of saying a lot and nothing all at the same time.

[@cgaud1n69]

My fear of damnation or eternal death has kept me from doing things I would otherwise not think as CONSEQUENTIAL. I am not religious, but I am spiritual. My logic tells me that there MUST be consequences for inflicting pain and suffering on your immediate environment. Otherwise we can do whatever the fuck we want.

[@rlwdesigns]

This is silly all of the best things in life are not rational. Love, Friendship, Forgiveness, Hope etc. This slavish insistence on rational justification in all things is nonsense. Rationalism isn't the only game in town unless you believe that paradoxes don't exist.

[@stvnnmnn]

Interesting to note that these interactions are never done with the language of theology. One has to assume first we are all human and share the same experiences as other humans. Jordan and Sam speak to each other as fellow human beings and relate using human experiences as examples Good stuff!.

[@Sóumit-q6z]

Sam Harris's words are soothing lullaby ❤❤❤

[@JohnnyFondue]

if you are an idiot maybe.

[@electricmanist]

For someone to say that the church has been responsible for spreading fictions for hundreds of years, does nothing more than demonstrate their own prejudice/ ignorance. You see, we are all spiritual beings (being born into physical bodies) which enable us to grow (for want of a better word) and learn as we journey through life-- towards our eternal spiritual existence.

[@faafafineartist]

FFS JP is scarily obsessed with the sound of his own voice running marathons, up and down mountains, and to hell and back.

[@dmurphy5689]

LOL

[@travissimpson7829]

My aunt is a member of MENSA and still religious. It's not just about intelligence. Tradition and social norms play a large role in people being religious

[@TheMNbassHunter]

At 4:40, your point isn't necessarily a point at all. Some would say it doesn't matter if god was watching or not. They would say you aren't judge by your actions on Earth and the only sin for which you can't be forgiven is the sin of not believing. You can be the biggest piece of trash in the planet, but if your truly believe in god, you may be forgiven. What utter rubbish is that? But, hey, what do you expect?! Religion is utter rubbish.

[@dmurphy5689]

Easy peasy believism.. they fell for the Ego trap (flattery is a snare). The Sheeple (narcissists) arent responsible/accountable for their own actions, scape-goating them onto someone else. Ever notice how they display so many NPD traits? By design

[@bekindbehuman9613]

A Punjabi principal “ high is truth but higher is truthful living “ This is because ultimate truth may have many layers and dots to connect , but truthful living is what one can to the best of one’s understanding and capability .

[@charliecampbell197]

The evil of religion is specific to the three abrahamic religions, Other religions do not set one group of people as superior to others.

[@snoutysnouterson]

And Hinduism, thier class system causes this. I actually think all religions think that they are better than all other religions, all besides Buddhism and Jainism.

[@snowflakemelter1172]

Buddhism has a key factor none of the others have , it tries ( maybe in vain ) to show that the self is an illusion.

[@charliecampbell197]

@@snoutysnouterson i don't see hinduism setting themselves as.superior to those of other religions. Neither shintoisn Taoism Shamanism. The evil concept of a "chosen people" is really an abrahamic concept even if it has been adopted by various cults.

[@charliecampbell197]

@@snowflakemelter1172 Probably every religions has its own key concept. For abrahamic religions it is "we are right you are wrong giving us.a right to oppress you".

[@tristan6773]

I think jordon should add that we are all stupid. in some way or another. we all unknowingly (or knowingly) harm the people we love I’m not saying the bible gets everything right. it just has thousands of years of wisdom. we shouldn’t take religion for granted. i’m not a christian. but I do believe

[@gerardgauthier4876]

...several tens of thousands of years... Wait a minute! The Bible types claim the whole reality thing is only 6000 years old.

[@Ghost-dx8mm]

"the Bible types".....the atheist types believe that everything in existence came from NOTHING.......now which one is more idiotic

[@JohnnyFondue]

This is poorly informed. Most Xtians do not believe this.

[@gerardgauthier4876]

@@JohnnyFondue But people can arrive at that number from the Bible... Now who is poorly informed?

[@mmelimahlobo7656]

The struggle that many unbelievers like Sam and the like is that they want to explain everything,you cannot explain God he is beyond our comprehension

[@tracybenson6364]

I look forward to the day that intelligent thoughtful people no longer give Jordan Peterson a platform..

[@snowflakemelter1172]

Your way better than him, so intelligent and so modest too.

[@rigelb9025]

@@snowflakemelter1172 Such a gratuitous ad-hominem. Please.

[@scarfranco]

@@snowflakemelter1172 why can't someone state their opinion without getting personally attacked? Why don't you use a valid argument instead of sarcastically saying what you said about this person?

[@xinosaj]

I don't know why people think Harris is so smart just because he talks fast. He makes statements in his books that aren't factually true (for example, he states in End of Faith that people will only do cruel things under the influence of religion, which completely ignores the Milgrim experiment). His argument here is fairly bogus - and I can't believe his interlocutors didn't point this out - because he's trying to hide behind "atheism" defined as mere absence of belief. No, no one has ever done bad things for "lack of belief." That's a no-brainer. But people aren't defined by what they "don't believe," and they don't act from their non-belief. If we take what Harris actually believes, we see these assumptions have done a lot of harm in history. In his own books, as well as those by Dennet and others, there are suggestions against free speech, for preemptive wars, etc. We can argue that many current social trends are underlaid by a pure materialistic belief system, and we sense intuitively - often with a deep sense of unease - are harmful to both individuals and the community. One shouldn't have conversations with "atheists." You can't have conversations with an absence. You have conversations with positive affirmations. If the atheist is a Marxist or a Libertarian (which Harris awkwardly lumps into "religion"), you have a discussion with a Marxist or a Libertarian. You don't have a discussion with an "atheist."

[@l3eatalphal3eatalpha]

Murray as vacuous as Peterson.

[@Tossphate]

Not one of these three people believe in religion. The only difference between them is how much they admit this to themselves

[@johnadams1600]

religious people are not STUPID, i am atheist and do not believe that they are stupid.

[@Loots1]

Youre stupid ever thought about that

[@Pigeon_Birb]

Although they are not stupid, as many christians made major discoveries, like the big bang, genetics and the inventor of the mri, but their justification for believing what they do is idiotic.

[@dmurphy5689]

Some are. Maybe not those you know, but I know a few that are. That or its a mind-control spell they arent willing to allow to be broken? MANY do not desire to know what is true, having eyes yet unwilling to see >third eye blind. We have to sincerely want to know the truth to see it. Thats what happened in my case, anyway. Things just werent adding up so I began to step outside the mind-control "boundaries" and do some research. Threats of hellfire and damnation (trauma) kept me in line for most of my life, as a Christian. "The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn" Stupid: having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense. Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

[@dmurphy5689]

OSAS and Rapture beLIEvers are the worst. "Blessed Hope" and all. Both are blatant false doctrine. Even as a Christisn, I realized that early on.

[@bradthompson5383]

Yeah, they just sold their souls. They want comfort so bad they are willing to become sociopaths in pursuit of it.

[@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084]

Murray said ''those people had 1 thing in common, that none of them thought God was watching them'' which is irrelevant, because none of them also thought that the flying spaghetti monster was watching them either. Religion doesn't stop people doing evil, they do it believing God agrees with them.

[@Runpulator]

If allowing oneself to be a superstitious magical thinker like a 4 year old is stupid, then the Occum's painful truth, is yes 🤷

[@rigelb9025]

I think the thing that makes religion so powerful is that it is actually based on solid (& scorching) fact. In order to persist in time, it had to be wrapped-up in swaths of fluffy language, which makes it superstitious. But the foundation of it is quite real.

[@Runpulator]

@rigelb9025 Which exact specific religion are you referring to, genius?

[@rigelb9025]

@@Runpulator The denomination of Flying Pastafarianism.

[@asperry97]

Science and religion. What an interesting dialectic. Would you believe me if I told you that one time in human history, those two ideas used to go hand and hand? Now, unfortunately, humanity has managed to weaponized them both. Truly sad.

[@riggers1977]

Sam Harris is right. That’s all there is to it.

[@bungyportugal]

Thank you Sam for pointing out that canard for it's a dishonest way of scoring points with emotional audiences. Consider though that JP is not stupid and therefore KNOWS that this is a dishonest tactic because in no way could he truly believe that atheism is responsible for Mao and Stalin.

[@Sojourning-e1n]

Where is the hard data on religious wars vs non-religious wars and lives cost in each, historically?

[@rigelb9025]

I believe there isn't a single war (at least major one) that was brought about without the underlying pretense of religion. As I understand it, religion basically relies on hierarchy & authority. At some time back in the bronze age, once man had begun wielding fire & advanced weaponry, the biggest Alpha male became the one who could make the biggest display of might to his tribe & the next one, probably by way of committing the most massive & brutal carnage. After that, whoever was left was either told to keep quiet about it, and the few other tribes who got scattered across the map would live to tell their grandchildren about it, which created this grip of fear that the supreme ruler could use to hold onto that power through increasingly sophisticated means, thus creating a mythos of the 'all-powerful' that could be retroactively invoked as a nebulous source of true power. And to be fair, there may be some up-sides to that, I dunno.

[@Sojourning-e1n]

@@rigelb9025 If a person makes a claim and there's hard data to bolster it, then don't you think it would be presented? But it never is. So I think there is no hard data and the claim is just a myth. Unless you want to consider the Encyclopedia of Wars to be hard data, but that one destroys the claim, reducing all religious wars to about 6.8 %, with Islamic wars representing about half of that. The vast majority of wars, imo, are fought over political and economic reasons.

[@Sojourning-e1n]

Its absurd on its face to believe the physical can be used to disprove the metaphysical. These are different categories altogether. It would be like a 2-dimensional flatlander trying to prove triangles can never have more than 180 degrees, when all he has to work with is 2 dimensions and the natural laws that apply to them. The 3-dimensional being would be laughing at him and saying "you can't possibly grasp curves unless I reveal them to you. But even if I reveal them to you, your 2-d comrades will think you a fool."

[@Daisy0962]

You are very presumptuously judgemental in your 1 sided, full of yourself, overly worded jumbo mess, which can't speak any factual.yruths ,for your over opinionated with your name calling, looking to promote yourself, while testing others apart by your swine with a ring in your nose opinion.

[@Daisy0962]

Don't need your spelling critiquing either, take it to the tyrannical computer felony criminals.

[@WayneASchneider]

"Treat other people the way you would like to be treated" is a rule almost everyone tries to follow. And you don't need any deities to behave that way. You don't need to believe in a punishment after you die to do that, you just have to recognize that if you think it's okay to murder people, then you believe it's okay for people to murder you. You don't need some other human claiming some deity laid out the rules to follow. And you don't need someone who lived thousands of years ago telling you how to behave in modern times.

[@jameswilson5813]

The smartest man alive believes in God.

[@Michel-Graillier-fanclub]

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful'' - Seneca

[@samgod]

Such an unfair debate. Peterson's eloquence is not only outmatched by Harris's rationality, but by reality itself. What I can't understand is how a person as well read and intelligent as Peterson not only doesn't realize Harris annihilated each of his arguments, but that he doesn't seem interested in conceding "yes Sam, maybe, just maybe, atheism is better and religion isn't as necessary as I once thought." He must enjoy the endless "axiomatic" humiliation.

[@ottifantiwaalkes9289]

Ego?

[@samgod]

@@ottifantiwaalkes9289 damn, nailed it.

[@faafafineartist]

"trying to work out what happened" regarding the holocaust is less about trying to sift through the facts of what happened, but MORE about trying to sift through the political denialism, propaganda, and/or deliberate lies to delay truth to come through.

[@rigelb9025]

yes.

[@stephenwan6415]

To the heading of "Religion is for stupid people" - the scripture say: "The cross ( of Jesus Christ) is foolishness to those that are perishing, but to those that are being saved, it is the power of God".

[@frankbuono-gf2jn]

I didn't hear Peterson's reasons for saying that religion is stupid but as a blanket statement I think he is totally wrong. Religion simply means to reconnect - whether that connection is with God - however you define that , or reconnect to Life. And surely Peterson, as a psychologist, must now that we are all disconnected from Life to some degree through repression.

[@rigelb9025]

But what you seem to be conveniently leaving out is that this connection is maintained by certain 'invisible' forces, which can (and have) been invoked countless times, of which no direct testimony exists, for a reason.

[@richtrophicherbs6463]

How does he get from wealth inequality to multiple time frames?

[@alsindtube]

You just have to deconstruct the entire metaphysical substrate by means of dividing the moral landscape into an unintelligible word salad, silly. 🤪

[@richtrophicherbs6463]

@@alsindtube of course, why didn't I think of that? What a silly bunt.

[@SaintD382]

Imagine being so impulsive that you _instantly_ take the bait when your opponent gives you a chance to say religion is for stupid people. Peterson couldn't wait to accept that dare! He undermines his whole position just for the sake of "shock".

[@Trismhmm]

The possibility that our faith does not end up as our religion, to the point where the outcome does not constitute our means to the infinite end.

[@Rpd1977]

It must be so difficult to debate Jordan. How on earth are you supposed to stay awake while he is speaking to offer your argument? Jesus.

[@noheroespublishing1907]

"None of them thought that God was watching them." And as Christopher Hitchens used to say "When God is on your side, all is permissable." Meaning, Religion literally does nothing.

[@brandonmcgregor9912]

The moderator says he doesn't like the "tennis match" of blaming atrocities one religion and atheism, then almost immediately takes part in said tennis match by making the tired old comparison of being like "Mao, Stalin and Hitler were not religious" then immediately restates that he doesn't like the tennis match. And incidentally, from what I understand, Hitler's religious views are still highly contested.

[@visigothbacara]

Where do these live debates happen usually? I’d love to go to one some day

[@blanders98273]

Man, Sam really gives it to you straight. You can tell he has spent time stripping away the delusions. The other two are just in their heads.

[@dusklvr]

I worship the Divine Goddess in the temple of the forest 🏞️

[@mylesjordan9970]

I remember so many Germans, immediately post World War II, partially by way of exonerating themselves from complicity in the Holocaust, partially by way of trying to make sense of it, expressing their conviction that “Gottes Wille” was ultimately responsible. I remember mostly women who used that phrase; it reflected what was being barked from pulpits all through central Europe, during and after the war. The Wannsee Conference wasn’t yet general information.

[@rigelb9025]

Yepp. I can only imagine what the few current-day survivors must be thinking right now, again.

[@TGBTG1234]

The blindness of people willingly trying to misunderstand...

[@BijouBakson]

No stupid person thinks they're stupid. In fact, they're really offended when they're told they're stupid.

[@sadderwhiskeymann]

JP speaking somewhat coherently!!! THAT'S NEW FOR ME!! Very well done to the organizers of this discussion/debate!

[@WayneASchneider]

Did Jordan Peterson use the term "religious fictions"? What did he mean by that?

[@michaelfern4079]

The stories told to religious people. Like Adam and Eve in the garden etc.

[@hifibrony]

Peterson spends more time/words saying either nothing or things that are utter BS than anyone I have ever seen. See the utterly incomprehensible horseshit he begins spouting at 12:03 which utterly ignores Sam's point.

[@DIBBY40]

The answer to bad science is not no science but good science. The answer to bad politics is not no politics but good politics. The answer to bad religion is not no religion but good religion.

[@AERONOOB]

does pangburn upload 600 clips from this one discussion they had?

[@andrethegiant2877]

"Words, big words, words no one knows, people no one knows, words, words, some history no one can check, words, ohh" -Jordan Peterson

[@philipdeklerk325]

Peterson is adapting his position for different crowds. He is a lot of hot air.

[@jamesyoung1022]

Gods, kings, tyrants, and dictators cease to have power the moment the people deny them power.

[@rigelb9025]

The only thing the 'upper' have going for them, is coordination. Long-term though. (and perhaps intelligence). And when you think about it, it's much simpler for a small group of people with similar goals to coordinate, than for a vast group of people with unrelated goals. Until that large group's entire survival is threatened, perhaps.

[@stephenwan6415]

To call yourself : "we are not that stupid"- the paradox truth is, we are that stupid! For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. A fish in a pond thinks little of the world because he doesn't know it.

[@bjarnivalur6330]

Who is the guy in the middle? I don't recognize him.

[@michaelfern4079]

That’s Douglas Murray.

[@solomonessix6909]

Jordan may be the only one who thinks his rambling filibusters are deep.

[@JRP3]

"What level of wealth inequality will everyone find alarming" The French revolution provides a clue, we are approaching or at similar levels of wealth inequality.

[@mjz16]

We don't learn from our mistakes. The human brain is our worst enemy. There's too much irrationality, religion and more, that keeps us from acting to promote good universally.