Richard Dawkins on Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan

[@ellie-tk4jy]

Jordan Peterson is given the status of Christopher Hitchens because he doesn't have a Hitchens around to take him to task.

[@caroline4323]

Oh dear. Very true. I wish somebody would step out to do this task.

[@jimiboi87]

Didn’t Sam Harris have a decent debate with him?

[@pleasestop5643]

@@caroline4323 search up matt dillahunty and jordan peterson

[@davidjason2894]

I do regret never getting to see a Hitchens/Peterson debate on religion and the existence of G-d, but I do not know that Hitchens would own him as well as some of his most glorious moments. Peterson is a formidable thinker and debater, and I think Hitchens would define him as such.

[@caroline4323]

@@davidjason2894 Peterson is a bit manipulative. He picks up stuff he likes, sows it together in a tight-nit circle and it looks waterproofed. But he loses details that don´t fit his "circle of truth", omits them and... that´s why it would be nice to have him discuss things with somebody who would be able to poke his circles...

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

I like JP and JRE a good deal, but the helix thing was a dumb take, I got to give it to Dawkins on this one 100%, while also acknowledging that the LSD line is pretty funny. 😄

[@Bee-tj8gc]

The fact that he is so ani religion makes me not take him seriously Abrahamic religion, Hinduism and Buddhism has been around since as long as human civilization. It's outlasted empires and countries and will probably outlast American and most other modern day countries around today

[@NyalBurns]

Dawkins certainly characterises this argument.

[@trancendedmindpalace]

JRE is usually on point with alot of stuff, but here Dawkins is the expert.

[@jameswebb21]

​@@trancendedmindpalace lol😂

[@simontarantino]

Dawkins is a fraud. He seemed interesting at first but became a clear tyrant of opinion. Thinks he's smarter than the rest of the human beings. Interesting at first but a cynical that cannot comprehend the word spirit. He really admits it, he cannot understand the concept of spirit.

[@johnnymoose6072]

That pretty much sums up JP and JR

[@badreddine.elfejer]

What about Carl Jung ?

[@MarmaladeINFP]

@@badreddine.elfejer - I doubt Jung ever made an argument about archetypes and DNA. Besides, Jung certainly wasn't a right-wing reactionary and anti-intellectual. Much of his ideas came from studying scholarship in the social sciences, including dialoguing with anthropologists. He was simply noting similarity of patterns in the human psyche, not necessarily making claims upon physical reality.

[@edeledeledel5490]

Grifters both; and pretending to be liberal leaning, but really right-wing 5th columnists.

[@sharkymoon422]

@@edeledeledel5490egotistical driven humans for sure, and I agree, definitely have an agenda… What’s their agenda? You may be right.. The clueless left makes them relevant and that lands them the in clueless right box making the clueless left relevant.. I’m guessing they actually are lost in the matrix unaware they are being used.. Good luck amigo ❤

[@joeroberts2156]

​@@edeledeledel5490I like Joe Rogan but it's true.

[@ytunnuyt]

The DNA thing Peterson proposed is truly preposterous. Dawkins is right in calling BS

[@JP-fb8ni]

Are you denying the very existence of DNA? You do realise the existence of DNA, short for deoxyribonucleic acid, was discovered through a combination of experiments, observations, and analyses carried out by multiple scientists throughout history? One of the first pieces of evidence came from Friedrich Miescher, a Swiss biologist who isolated a substance he called "nuclein" from the nuclei of white blood cells in 1869. He found that this substance contained both nitrogen and phosphorus, which was unusual for proteins, the known building blocks of life at the time. It wasn't until the early 1900s that researchers even began to realise that DNA might be the key to understanding heredity and the transmission of traits from one generation to the next. In fact, one of the most famous experiments was carried out by Frederick Griffith in 1928, who showed that a harmless strain of bacteria could be transformed into a deadly one simply by being in contact with genetic material from the pathogenic strain. Further discoveries came in the 1940s, when scientists including Oswald Avery, Colin MacLeod, and Maclyn McCarty definitively identified DNA as the carrier of genetic information. Their experiments actually showed that DNA could be extracted from one strain of bacteria and inserted into another, causing the recipient cells to take on the characteristics of the donor strain. Since then, our understanding of DNA has even continued to evolve. The discovery of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 was actually a pivotal moment in biology, and led to many breakthroughs in genetics, biotechnology, and medicine. Today, we can even sequence entire genomes and use this information to understand the genetic basis of diseases and other traits. Thanks to the tireless work of generations of scientists, we now have a comprehensive understanding of DNA and its role in the complex machinery of life. Including evolution itself.

[@JP-fb8ni]

I misread your comment earlier. Oops! 🤦 For some reason I read it the other way around.🤦 I need an early night. 🤦 I'll get my coat.

[@DavidLoveMore]

Why? Why is it preposterous?

[@ytunnuyt]

@@DavidLoveMore Two snakes intertwined are a common symbol because that's how snakes mate, to pretend that ancient Greeks somehow knew about DNA because of the caduceus is either ignorant or disingenuous

[@seriousguy2160]

Peterson admitted that the DNA thingy was a highly speculative idea and wasn't attempting to blindly defend it. I don't understand why people continually mock him for it.

[@32island11]

I was at this event in London. I got tripped up when asking him a question and told him Sam Harris said religion (instead of science) can answer moral questions. And asked him if he thinks religion can answer moral questions (I meant science) He corrected me then said he doesn't think Harris "quite gets there with his hypothesis"

[@blackout07blue]

Agreed. How could you answer all moral questions with science. Opinion required on many.

[@benjamincarraway8453]

The LSD remark is used to discredit the validity of anything that preceded it. However contrary to being ridiculed, the point is valid as anyone attempting to explain the essential truths of life should try to experience as many forms of reality as possible. It is the arrogance of primates such a Homo Sapiens to believe that the limited aperture of our senses can experience ontological truths about reality. Richard Dawkins would be forced to question his limitations only through the ‘participatory’ knowing rather than ‘perspectival’ knowing about altered perception. But this is the arrogance of man … the audience laughs as they feel momentary power through condescension. This is the exact form of laughter that preceded many ideas that are now held as truths. first they ignore you, then they laugh …

[@eduardosantana8300]

This is pretty dumb dressed up as deep. I could argue your point about anything. Crack smoking, being autistic, being schizophrenic, being very hungry or dehydrated... You aren’t making a good point, just arbitrarily making a conclusion that could be made for absolutely any endeavor. Cheers mate.

[@jornbesteman]

Right on, I like both Dawkins and Peterson, but I am with you on this one

[@jornbesteman]

But I am curious whether he has tried lsd once

[@alfredorodriguezdc]

the funny thing is that the DNA helix was first thought of under the influence of lsd lol

[@orlonarsino6729]

Yes but you believe snakes are subconsciously aware of DNA's helix shape? Also people can have hypothetical ideas that are wrong or correct. The state of the mind is irrelevant. People have crazy ideas when they're high and when they're sober. Some are right some are wrong. But just because you're high doesn't mean that being high will always give you good ideas, and vice versa, when you're sober

[@gn2727]

Basically made them both look like some no name idiots. He was in person with both of them and was respectful there, but here he mocks them, like he can't even remember their names.

[@mightyowl1252]

Compared to Dawkins they are

[@whiteeye3453]

So dawkins is a idiot and the pretentious one

[@blakpower1995]

@@mightyowl1252 who's this guy?

[@mightyowl1252]

@@nicholas4727 Arrogance doesn’t mean he’s wrong though.

[@Gush27]

@@nicholas4727 bad at philosophy because he doesn’t support postmodern nonsensical ideas of what “truth” is?

[@Picklemedia]

You can hear the ideological possession of the crowd responding to just a name

[@hagathacrusty8995]

I thought that they were laughing at the fact that Dawkins seemingly didn't know the prominence of such cultural figures

[@eddiedevereoxford4995]

Wrong@@hagathacrusty8995

[@chrisprendez2276]

@@hagathacrusty8995 I don't believe so, my feeling is idealogical possession for sure 🤘

[@user-gf5nu9os2n]

​@@chrisprendez2276you don't know what that means.

[@chrisprendez2276]

@@user-gf5nu9os2n lol ok 👍

[@ericferre]

man, a lot of time has pass...

[@jessereichbach588]

All public intellectuals do the same thing, pretend they are more insightful than they actually are. That includes Dawkins, JP and all the rest. Right about one thing, wrong about a slew of others. Or, "certain" about things that he has no business being certain about while criticizing others for their certainty.

[@Wingedmagician]

Yup that sums it up lol JP is amazing but he oversteps his bounds left right and center. I’m starting to think the same about other big public intellectuals.

[@jessereichbach588]

@@Wingedmagician For sure, they all do it from time to time. Even one of my favorites, Hitchens, wasn't immune to this. Because everyone has biases. Now I'm not exactly a theist, but I hate calling myself "atheist" because the identity has been so distorted by anti-theists. Which includes Dawkins and Hitchens. I agree with 99% of what they say on the issue, and then they start in on "religion" and it becomes ideological because anti-theism is a full blown ideology. Which, is fine and all, it's their right. But calling it what it is, is important. It's not just "atheism", they are ideological anti-theists. And they don't like the idea of perpetuating a construct that sometimes leads to good things and sometimes leads to bad things. JP would be on the other side of that. I mean, he understands it sort of the way I understand it, but then he tries to turn the "God" and "religion" constructs into this esoteric heap of postulation. The fact of the matter is, religion, the texts, they are just things, that can be used as tools. And tools can be used for positive or negative behavior and action. And when someone like JP talks to someone like Dawkins, or whomever, they just end up talking passed one another. "God" exists, lol, "God" is a construct, that exists, as a construct. That's what words are. And we attach meaning to that construct and give it attributes. Some of the attributes we attach to it are real, and most of them are fantasy. But to an anti-theist, even suggesting the word sparks a reaction, a bias. So when Dawkins says "God" doesn't exist. Well, which God? What part? Which attributes? I would say, if we just apply the highest order value to the construct, that being the essence of existence, whatever that is, in a philosophical sense, then that essence or source, or "whatever", must exist for existence to exist lol. I mean it's self evident. Existence exists so whatever causes existence to exist mus exist. And I've had anti-theists rant and rave at me about how I'm just playing semantics.... well um yea... no duh. Because we are literally talking about definitions and words and symbols, used for thousands of years to get ideas across to masses of people. "God" is whatever we want "God" to be. And the purpose of this construct is to communicate lessons and pass down philosophical ideas, in a way that the largest number of people can understand. In away you could say one function of religion is to serve as a language. Which we can further see, linguistically, in the differences in how say Christians speak, versus Muslims, versus Jews, versus Atheists, versus Hindus and so on, the words they use, the sayings, the entire perspective that they base their every thought on. And ideology isn't so different; One of its functions is to allow us to communicate ideas. A prearranged set of ideas to convey a subset of other ideas. And communicating those ideas, symbolically, in image and word, manifests these paradigms into the world through combined belief and action, in repetition. Things like governments, religions, ideologies, things like, unions, or even marriages. None of these things actually exist. We literally manifest them, create them, using "words". And this is what really sets us apart from the animals. Not our cleverness, or general intelligence. Lots of animals can do minor arithmetic. But it's our ability to think abstractly. To create stories, and systems, that we then "create' using "the word". And for some reason, suggesting this, is attached to religious works, makes anti-theists very angry. But you'd have to be some kind of thick to read the opening of Genesis and not get this message. Suggesting the text has dual meaning. Because when we name something we set it apart from all other things. And things are as much defined by what they are not, than what they are. And this imo at least is all in the opening chapter of Genesis. This concept, threaded into a narrative, that can also mean other things, or communicate other ideas. The stories themselves need not be real or factual to convey meaning and posit a specific understanding of a thing. Anyway, it all confuses me because I have never in my life believed in an anthropomorphic deity. And I just honestly don't know why people both hate it or love it. But anti-theists are so insistent that it's a net negative and useless, and theists are so insistent that it's ALL positive and profound. When in reality, its a language used to discuss things that we really have no other way of discussing, concepts, and which we manifest into reality using our abstract imagination and words and pictures, and combined belief and action. Well, hahah that's just ONE subject that divides public intellectuals. And that they have a long history of taking a side on. And ultimately, I never understood why anti-theists care so much what other people believe. It often seems like a personal gripe. Again, really one of my favorites, Chris Hitchens, did this ALL the time. And i always end up raising an eyebrow whenever he's in the mood to bash theists and these books of abstract symbolism. Anyway, sorry for the ramble.

[@markinglese3874]

Richard Dawkins has turned into a bitter old man.

[@Bhefyuplaborapsto]

He has always been one.

[@kzlfaku]

Well, he doesn't seem very bitter to me.

[@markinglese3874]

@@kzlfaku bitter and pissy

[@etpc2023]

You were on JRE Dawkins. Don’t be pretending like you don’t know him!

[@orlonarsino6729]

I mean.... he's 82 is he not?

[@hossamgebeily]

I actually love all three. I don’t agree with everything they say, but to me, they all seem genuine. That’s what matters really.

[@edeledeledel5490]

JP genuine? Are you serious?

[@vkjfv]

JP is a charlatan, JR is dumb as they come, RD is too intelligent

[@nowelbobke1506]

@@edeledeledel5490JP’s more genuine than Dawkins thats for sure. JP’s literally like the most genuine dude on the internet. The amount of people he’s helped bring out of the gutter, people attributing him savjng their life. Dawkins has done nothing in comparison to JP.

[@edeledeledel5490]

@@nowelbobke1506 I consider you to be deranged. How many people has JP converted to his supposed diet of just water, beef and salt? And how many have died?

[@edeledeledel5490]

@@nowelbobke1506 And how is Richard Dawkins not "genuine"? Do you even understand what the word means?

[@ZM-dm3jg]

Richard dawkins throwing some serious shade with the way he starts off "Somebody called JBP.." .. as if he doesn't know who he is and is just some nobody

[@Jay-ft3xh]

Correct. Uneducated charlatans are worthless. Or nobodies.

[@skeletorlikespotatoes7846]

​@shrodingerscat8909Dawkins is an embarrassment compared to JP and I don't even like JP

[@skeletorlikespotatoes7846]

@@observationaccount2017 ah no he isn't. I don't even listen to the guy but this tiring childish vomit y'all spew about him is so embarrassing. Sure he's not right on everything. But a fake intellectual? In what way? He's had a lot of experience. And he qualifies his arguments... something even you just failed to do.

[@skeletorlikespotatoes7846]

@@observationaccount2017 again pointing out issues with modern society does in no way mean you just want traditional ideas...and at the same time if some of those ideas DO work it's absolutely stupidity to attack them just cause you think theyre anochronistic.

[@skeletorlikespotatoes7846]

@@observationaccount2017 as much as I hate his sycophantic followers...he's actually one of the few thinkers in mainstream media that isn't constantly making assumptions about ideas. Of course historically he doesn't compare to other thinkers...but if Socrates or Plato we're teaching in modern times people like you would always find a way to attack them or smear them.

[@b1_ferg]

JBP, JR, and RD...I find value in many thinkers with contrasting opinions. The point is to keep listening and to not close your mind. Listening does not mean adopting an opinion, just entertaining the idea of it.

[@yj9032]

Sir, you WERE ON JRE!!!!

[@driptrippin]

He's been in hundreds of shows

[@ATGC597]

So?

[@etpc2023]

@@driptrippinhe pretends like he doesn’t know who Rogan is on here. It’s a bit rich claiming to be the smartest man but you can’t recall being on the biggest podcast ever? I call BS on that

[@lynxlecher9547]

He must have amazing mental hygiene to delete such an unsavory character from his memories.

[@ryantogo8359]

​@@lynxlecher9547okay weird triggered little leftist

[@douglascutler1037]

As a trained psychologist Jordan Peterson should be familiar with the metal condition known as apophenia, defined as: "the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful pattern between unrelated or random things". Next time Peterson tries to pull that line about the double snake and DNA his debate opponent should ask him to define apohenia for the audience.

[@Ambienfinity]

Definitely.

[@juanzavala9023]

Nah, I’m actually grateful for him to dispel the myth you pathologizers seem push out about normal things being bad.

[@douglascutler1037]

@@juanzavala9023 So you believe Peterson's claim that ancient civilization had intuitive knowledge of DNA yet somehow civilization still missed that whole genetic variation/natural selection thing? Not to mention ancient civilizations a complete wipe out on germ theory of disease. Blaming plagues on each other and going to war over it. Germ theory only came from science a few hundred years ago with microscopes and water testing. Are you also a climate denier like your hero? Oh, and you know that notorious debate with Matt Dillahunty where Jordan Peterson claims smoking cessation can ONLY come from psychedelic therapy where people 'see God' and this is proof of the existence of God? Are you aware that your hero failed to disclose the full details of the study he cited? First of all, the study was only 15 people which is too small to make even a clinical claim let alone a supernatural one. Also, the study included a heavy component of cognitive therapy so impossible to say if was that that helped with smoking cessation or the magic mushrooms. Also, some of the test subjects who 'saw God' and then stopped smoking went back to smoking again later. But Peterson would never tell you these details himself. Ask yourself why not. Dude, I'm actually trying to help you with the critical thinking Peterson claims to promote but fails to teach.

[@vuvuzelaasesina7690]

Where can I find the full version? Thanks

[@titus498]

No problem

[@alphacentauri8870]

Don't, it's truly a painful conversation with JP permanently talking over Dawkins with pure nonsensical bullshit

[@loirenhuh]

"Somebody called Jordan Peterson"? That is your intelligence sir. Btw I'm not fan of Jordan.

[@hankschrader7050]

Peterson has a small collection of ridiculous pseudoscientific beliefs and Joe Rogan was obviously joking around. Dawkins is smarter than both of them but even he would concede that they are both far above average in IQ, which probably depresses him 😂.

[@spencerrocchi3388]

Dawkins stopped evolving.

[@iaber1698]

Well, I, being an agnostic, find it difficult to listen to JP about religion but I for sure listen to him on psicology and personal growth. But just because he may be wrong on the religious part does not mean his psycology side is also wrong.

[@CK-dp6je]

Spend more time on him

[@iaber1698]

@@CK-dp6je point me in the right direction to content you disagree with.

[@griego1583]

Same Here

[@Bogdanisar]

I, being an agnostic, find Peterson's psychologically/wisdom-oriented view on religion to be the only one I've heard that makes any sense.

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

​@@Bogdanisar What you said!

[@danielwalley6554]

As someone who has taken LSD, and Ayahuasca - Richard's not missing out on much.

[@defconbrown8667]

Biologists are to science, what mimes are to art.

[@williamfletcher5146]

So we're hearing one side of the story here.... And Dawkins is full of nonsense. But I suspect the comment section is in an echo chamber.

[@RighteousBrother]

I love that Dawkins is throwing shade at Peterson.

[@tekkencentre]

I see Peterson throwing shade at Dawkins all the time, so it is interesting to see Richard finally fire back.

[@VinnieG-]

Peterson's thoughts on religion are so ridiculous, it's hard for me to take anything else he says seriously

[@Sal3600]

What? his are the least ridiculous. @@VinnieG-

[@Sal3600]

you losers think this is a good thing?

[@jhinthevirtuoso4886]

hes a snob that''s all he is.

[@robertbrowne7880]

Jordan Peterson has never observed a vine growing up a tree trunk and seen the the artistic inspiration it brings.

[@IgonDrakeWarrior]

Lmao thats the most Joe Rogan response

[@amosbrazeau5272]

I'm with Dr. Dawkins on this one. You can make jordans claims about similarities between mythologies about so many things, i.e. trees, sex organs, tools, and weapons, and I think Dr. Peterson takes symbolism too far at times.

[@YashRaj-fm8sz]

He just says about the subject psychology of religion . It’s a well established discipline . He’s not making stuff up

[@sushimaster77]

It seems he has gotten less scientific about it recently, and I found it strange. But then I found out he has recently done some powerful psychedelic therapy (mushrooms or dmt, not sure which), and now it makes sense that he would entertain the notion of these visions and symbols having some basis in actual reality.

[@soulfulfreedomheart2505]

✨"when the human race learns to read the language of symbolism, a great veil will fall from mens eyes" Manly P. Hall

[@frankmorris7751]

@@sushimaster77 Kinda like macro evolution 🤔

[@johnrussell-bk7lv]

@@sushimaster77 I've taken psychedelics many times. It never make me delusional or unscientific in my thought. If he's drawing false equivalencies and and going off on mad ramblings about unrelated concepts and images that's completely on him.

[@ThinkingHuman]

This may be the smartest person left in public media.

[@FrankD23]

😂..🤡

[@hahafunny8111]

@@FrankD23 what? ☕

[@hankschrader7050]

Tied with Sam Harris, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Charlie Munger.

[@longstrobe2547]

​@@hankschrader7050Elon musk?! Sam Harris! I think we need you to explain the definition of smart.

[@3brenm]

​@hankschrader7050 we can't compare dawkins with elon musk. They're not in the same league. Musk is just a good businessman.

[@redfoot2]

What interview is this from?

[@CameronBrtnik]

The audience laughing haven't either 💀

[@free_salmon]

sorry guys but dr Jordan P is more interested in marking territory than his discussions with guests I saw the video dr peterson acted like a dominant male talking . shame.

[@Fantabiscuit]

But will he submit to the Canadian dominance hierarchy or become a left wing challenger of the hierarchy 😂

[@mangeshpuranik31]

This is in bad faith. Dawkins is one of the most pompous people in the mainstream who is trying to throw both, JP and Joe, under the bus. He’s been on the show of “that blogger Rogan”, and even if you don’t agree with opinion of someone like JP, you don’t have to be so disrespectful about it for getting an applause. Someone ask him why he bit his tongue on Piers Morgan while talking about Islamists.

[@kevingarcia8922]

Agree.

[@5-es4mn]

Ohhh...he deserved it.

[@allyouneedislove2206]

I listened to the entire podcast interview. He was condescending the entire time. He wouldn’t let it go. Although JP ended up talking almost the entire time, and it was rather disappointing because I was really looking forward to hearing both of them converse, it was as if he just didn’t have the interest in even having a respectful dialogue with Dr. Peterson. I walked away from the interview realizing that Dawkins really is as much of a pompous ass as I’ve heard him accused of being. He made a mockery of Peterson. He should be ashamed.

[@allyouneedislove2206]

@@christopherhorner-ox4xn dude, find something else to do with your time other than troll people on social media. There’s a big wide world out there. Give it a try sometime. You’ll love it.

[@kevingarcia8922]

@@christopherhorner-ox4xn I mean, the same could be said about you fangirling for Dawkins 🤷 But that's besides the point. In no way JP nor JR disrespected Dawkins for his views. Anyone who does that lacks etiquette and decent morals.

[@ellie-tk4jy]

I wish he would say 'bollocks' not 'bullshit'

[@saijapz16]

full video?

[@jeffreyb6165]

Love the way he acts like he barely knows who Jordan is and he says Joe Rogan is a blogger. Whatever dude..... whatever

[@jjeremyhunterr]

hard to believe but some people don't live on the internet

[@DanielBro42]

he was on joe rogan... he knows who he is

[@Bee-tj8gc]

​@@jjeremyhunterr ya those people are disconnected I don't speak a lick of Arabic or Russian but you can speak to Russians and Arabs with translation. If you're not on the internet you aren't informed

[@davidshepherd8917]

@@DanielBro42 met him once

[@teo2975]

@@davidshepherd8917 yeah, Dawkins does this kind of dishonesty a lot. And the funny thing is Dawkins has been thoroughly cancelled the major athiest groups, because while he gets a lot of things right, he is also dishonest in relating what others have said. Even Christopher Hitchens took Dawkins to task a few times on this petty dishonesty

[@jenjosh]

Every time i hear this man speak, i feel sorry for him. Just sad. So bitter, angry, sad.

[@MightySheep]

yeah you can tell by the fact that hes smiling and laughing the whole time

[@jenjosh]

@@MightySheep its called seeing in the spirit. Not the flesh.

[@HaniJIsmail]

I agree. I'm a huge fan of his books and am actually going through the Selfish Gene right now. I really wish he'd try LSD and ayahuasca before he dies. I feel like his scientific mind wouldn't be able to comprehend the experience.

[@Nimtrix]

​@@jenjoshIt's called having a vivid imagination

[@Nimtrix]

​@@HaniJIsmailLol, no one's mind can comprehend the experience, that's the beauty of it

[@CurtisWal]

I like Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins. As far as i can tell, despite whatever flaws they may have, all 3 have positively contributed to the conversations in our society. Much more than I and most of the people on here arguing about them.

[@donniehardest875]

Thank you !

[@julianshepherd2038]

I've taken LSD and never for a moment did I think JP or JR were reliable sources of information. JP is nuts and JR used to be kicked in the head for a living.

[@johnrussell-bk7lv]

JP is absolutely nuts. I do think JR is a good interviewer. I don't always agree with him or his choice of guests, but he gets people talking passionately about whatever they're into and I can admire that.

[@h.m.7218]

"JP is nuts" said the men who never ever opened any psychology book but think so high of themselves that they believe they don't need to... Ha ha ha... With enemies like you, Peterson can't lose the culture war. Good job, guys ! Ha ha ha...

[@philosophicast2122]

What constitutes a “reliable source of information”? If it is what bears closest resemblance to reality then our senses are not even reliable sources of information. Our perception of reality has been distorted by evolution to favour survival, perceptions are thus akin to a pilot’s dashboard. Thus when you say LSD provides no reliable information, as opposed to what?

[@johnrussell-bk7lv]

@@philosophicast2122 They never said that LSD provides no reliable information. They said that they don't consider JP or JR to do that. But I think reliable sources of information are things like scientific journals. Scientists use mathematics because our senses and intuitions are so demonstrably unreliable. If we can use mathematics to deduce the existence of things like black holes and subatomic particles long before we ever have the technology to capture an image of one I'd say that's pretty reliable. Of course human error and bias are possibilities in any publication, but the peer review process is incredible at weeding that stuff out. Still even if scientific journals can't be considered "perfectly reliable," mathematics and the scientific process in and of themselves certainly are.

[@Bee-tj8gc]

I don't believe you've ever taken acid or mushrooms

[@shanesawyer5103]

Peterson is smart and highly entertaining, Rogan is entertaining & likable in an Everyman kind of way. But neither of them are scientists. I’m not even a big fan of Dawkins, but he is in a separate category. He actually has empirical scientific knowledge. Between JR’s juvenile conspiracy theories & JP’s metaphysical musings, they are much more akin to the really high college freshman expounding on his theories in his dorm room than any serious thinker.

[@ryantogo8359]

You have a sad, fundamental misunderstanding of what science is

[@eddiedevereoxford4995]

Dawkins doesn't rate psychology as a proper science. (He doesn't rate religious studies or philosophy either.)

[@user-fb9pp4og2t]

Jordan Peterson does live for symbolism, however, I listened to it and JP did not argue that.

[@ugrinvuckovic1770]

People should listen to the talk he had with Jordan; Jordan was very open about the fact that the snake idea is almost certainly not true but he was fascinated by the similarity and mentioned it in his lecture as an interesting anectode for symbolism for his students. When u get down to it, the two of them think in two different ways and that’s fine; all it means is that the truth they’re both talking about is different. Jordan is talking about metaphor, symbolism, parables, parallels, etc, Dawkins is talking about strictly provable facts

[@susandrakenviller3683]

JP is selling BS and thinks he is the Messiah, that is the difference. If anyone else than Dawkins would have said this too him he’d be mad and start ranting.

[@Hrodric]

​@@susandrakenviller3683well will you address what the guy in the comment said, or just spout what you think anyway? As he said Peterson wasn't stating it as matter fact, rather as something curious.

[@ryantogo8359]

​@@susandrakenviller3683what a weird comment from a weird little person

[@lachlanbell8390]

@@Hrodric It's always those who claim to be most opposed to dogmatism that become the most angry & irrational when other people refuse to buy into their dogma.

[@Victor-qk7mw]

Yep, i just saw that podcast (ep 256 on JP's channel) and JP was very clear about the speculative nature of his statement and idea. Also, i believe they respect each other a lot, but some people would preferr them to fight instead just so they can shit on the view they don't agree with

[@kaplansedat]

what a lovely preacher and an admiring congregation.

[@eddypoletto1852]

Right? But hey, he's comfortable in his contradictions and I don't mind it.

[@wolfen8622]

Hitchens would’ve needed 3 sentences and a smile to deal with this grifter. 😔

[@joeljmmp4456]

Jordan Peterson and Dawkins will both go down as greats, but both have their weaknesses. Peterson can sometimes find patterns where there aren’t and lose his footing in reality, whereas Dawkins can be too cynical and strict and thereby miss important things. So I think they kind of need each other.

[@Solus3D]

You can't compare a clown like JP with Dawkins. Is like compare a flea with a eagle.

[@spaceofreasons]

Good.

[@smartbart80]

Dawkins is more honest as he’s very careful to stay within his field of study to explain the “what”. Peterson is trying to use his scientific education to explain “why”. It’s a Sam Harris vs. Deepak Chopra kind of pairing, although Deepak is nowhere near Peterson when it comes to understanding science.

[@james1098778910]

Jordan peterson will absolutely be forgotten in 20 years, as will dawkins probably. Neither of them discovered or developed anything of interest. JP is a charlatan spouting word salads, RD is a scientist defending common sense. Neither of them will be remembered. For what?

[@donniehardest875]

But the thing is.. just cos you cannot see the patterns Peterson can see, doesn’t mean they don’t exist? Fibonacci is a sequence that nobody else saw but he did! Now it’s one of the most renowned patterns in society today!

[@ladybayside7547]

He is so self righteous, I’ve gotta say, I’d rather have Petersen any day of the week.

[@lordoftheflies7024]

So, it isnt BS for people to say we draw snakes coiled around eachother because of an urge to recreate the DNA structure? Wow. Just, wow.

[@donniehardest875]

@@lordoftheflies7024 how do you know it’s BS? It’s his opinion and he’s clearly studied a lot on it.. and he could be right, could be wrong? I’m sure you probably haven’t tried to understand it, neither have I.. so to just sit here and say he’s talking BS and wrong isn’t the right way to go about it in my opinion. And anyway; every “opinion and belief” that ever had any importance in our society starts off as a crazy idea.

[@lordoftheflies7024]

@@donniehardest875 "How do u know he's full of it? He could be wrong, he could be right" Oh my goodness. THIS is the state of affairs of the counter culture? Imbecile, ur literally considering the opinion that we draw snakes coiled around each other, a common sign of MATING (that's how snakes get it on) as it being actuality a subconscious urge to recreate a DNA helix. What evolutionary benefit does this have for us? NONE. So, why in the living f*ck is this counted as insightful? Oh my goodness. "Every opinion that turned out to be right started off with a lot of scrutiny being applied to it" And MOST opinions were correctly scoffed at and others were unfortunately accepted despite being shown to be false later on. What's ur point? I doubt, seeing how u people feel about leftists and tr*nnies, u would accept this as a valid defense for either of those two ideas or groups of people. Why then is this defense valid for something which has no basis in reality? I hope u realize that Dawkins, unlike Peterson, IS a biologist. The man DOES know what he's talking about

[@ZzZ-qd1zo]

With a million generic self-help authors out there, why do so many choose the griftiest right wing clown to worship?

[@milesbetrov]

You did not take him to task. That was a one way conversation and very boring. RD was quiet as a mouse

[@mrpopo8298]

How intellectually dishonest of you to say those things. I listened to that conversation. The reason he was quiet was because Peterson was trying to filibuster him so that he didn't have to answer the difficult questions.

[@petermogyoros]

🎉 well done Rich! Just pure gold. 🎉

[@veelindolent5794]

I am a big fan of Jordan Petersen. I think he is absolutely good at answering questions. His humility is a beautiful thing to see.

[@narendrasomawat5978]

@Kai Rain U don't think but we think. Not everyone is like you.

[@engima3196]

Maybe he could give you some advice about becoming addicted to clonazepam😂

[@JN-wr9he]

I don’t see any real humility there

[@lionelgrisbane-ud87]

You have no idea what you’re talking about

[@engima3196]

@@lionelgrisbane-ud87 Exactly 😂

[@alexandremorissette4285]

OG intellectual. JP and the others today dont even compare.

[@whiteeye3453]

Richard is pretentious snob who didn't prove that god dosen't exist And don't understand religion in general

[@deltafx9462]

Man, talk about knowing nothing about intellectualism. JP, Chomsky, Zizek, Dawkins, etc are all great in their respective way. Maybe not on par with Wittgenstein, Nietzsche or Derrida. But still great. Dawkins is interesting in his own right too.

[@MartinLaforce]

I miss them days

[@CatholicismRules]

Dawkins is an intellectual when it comes to biology. When it comes to philosophy, neither JP nor Dawkins are intellectuals. Especially not Dawkins. Dawkins couldn't even understand any one of Aquinas's Five Ways.

[@deltafx9462]

@@CatholicismRules finally. Someone whose speaking some sense. Thanks for your comment. All these Dawkin fanboys know very little.

[@robertwhiteley-yv1sy]

Relation is prior to the relata.

[@iroh1796]

link to the full lecture?

[@Tretas.]

The caduceus, the staff with two snakes of the Greek messenger god Hermes, has been wrongly used as a medical symbol since the XIX century. It has often been mistaken for the Rod of (the god) Asclepius, a visually similar symbol that actually belongs to the greek god of healing and medicine -- this rod has only a single snake coiling it. So not only did JP made up a nonsensical take, he didn't even get the symbol right. Which is typical of JP 💁‍♂️

[@mstone-wd7kc]

It’s good wine though…

[@Fantabiscuit]

You haven’t taken LSD

[@abramjessiah]

Dawkins needs to experience lsd and ayahuasca.

[@petitio_principii]

What a sad world where we have as more prominent pop- "intellectuals" the likes of Rogan, Peterson, Weinsteins, rather than Dawkins, Sagan, Gould, DeGrasse Tyson... I'm afraid we've entered the road to idiocracy.

[@mitchellseach3404]

Gee whiz, how’s the echo-chamber of Peterson haters in this section. Dawkins is coming at it from a purely intellectual vantage, denying any notion of a spirit. Rogan is right, feed this man something to open his heart.

[@icraftcrafts8685]

"someone called jordan person" - this shows dawkins fear

[@LomuHabana]

Fear of what exactly?

[@shanesawyer5103]

Lol no

[@albinothug]

Dawkins’ arrogance serves him well as a young whipper-snapper, but now he’s just a persnickety old man.

[@BurnerBagel]

I twisted two pieces of grass around eachother when I was bored listening to the teacher in primary school PE. Doesn't mean I had an idea of DNA structure.

[@peacefulmind1409]

Sam Harris has very little knowledge about Buddhism and Hinudism. He claimed several times that Buddhism and Christianity are incompatible. His claim is absolutely untrue. In the deepest level, Buddhism and Christianity are in fact compatible. Buddhism is not atheist, even though Buddha never emphasized the idea of God, however that does not mean Buddha opposed the existence of God, and he was a atheist which he was not.

[@makokx7063]

One of the main facets of Buddhism is the belief in samsara, reincarnation. Christianity believes in heaven and hell. That alone makes them incompatible.

[@jimiboi87]

Lol I love how Joe ends up making the most intelligent comment out of all three of them in this scenario.

[@MightySheep]

This is why JP is the stupid person's smart person. That's not to say he doesn't have good insights in his field of expertise but when he starts talking about religion and other things its just absolute waffle.

[@normhype1311]

Religion is his expertise. His recent round table discussions with other theologian academics are really interesting.

[@shanesawyer5103]

Yep 👍🏼

[@shanesawyer5103]

@@normhype1311What makes him an expert on religion? The fact that he’s read the holy Bible? That’s not what he taught as a professor.

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060]

Its a mixed bag. If you are familiarized with Jung and can appreciate myrh and metaphor then you can find value in some of his "religious musings".

[@Yolaf_]

My thoughts exactly 😂 you don’t have to take a drug to expand your consciousness but it helps

[@yajy4501]

Dawkins is right, but I do think he should take LSD. He’s 82. He should be getting in every experience he can before he passes haha

[@Adamkww]

He's 82?!

[@ryantogo8359]

People like him are very closed-minded

[@flvflv4712]

Dawkins is an jntelligent but very sterile and arrogant man.

[@yj9032]

He debates creationists and fundamentalists. He is NOT the arrogant person in the room. JP and JR are.

[@sevans606]

​@@yj9032Wasn't Dalkins on JRE?

[@mrpopo8298]

You are confusing confidence with arrogance.

[@ryantogo8359]

​@@yj9032you sound like you have some wires crossed. Rogan isn't either of those things, weirdo

[@jimladen22]

I think it's important to maintain an open mind when encountered with ideas that you might think are preposterous rather than simply dismissing them as bullshit. JP is a very intelligent man and I'm sure he has valid reasons for this hypothesis and he certainly isnt the only one who has made this connection. Interesting that Dawkins mentioned that Joe Rogan mentioned LSD because there is a book written in 1995 called "The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the origins of knowledge" by Jeremy Narby who suggests that indigenous shamans might access molecular knowledge of DNA through hallucinogenic visions, evidenced by consistent serpentine imagery and advanced botanical understanding. Rather than engaging in social media battles over right and wrong, we should remain receptive to diverse perspectives, recognising that others might possess expertise we lack. While our views should be grounded in knowledge and research, they should also be adaptable and open to examination; only then can we truly evolve individually and as a society.

[@james1098778910]

No. JP is not a very intelligent man. Anybody who believes that you can subconsciously look into your own cells and find your DNA is a clown. No, he does not have any reasons for claiming that. We shouldn't be 'open minded' about absolutely ridiculous ideas.

[@levcimac]

it's possible for Dawkins and Petersons key perspectives and insights to be true but partial and each person shedding light on different aspects of reality. The philosopher Ken Wilber and his meta theory is one integrative method which is able to show how different epistemologies relate to different ontologies and require different kinds of hermeneutics in order to have some level of objectivity.

[@haydog]

Rogans absolutely right, one psychedelic trip and watch that fellas entire worldview change

[@lynxlecher9547]

And turn into a money grubbing conspiracy theorist?

[@ryantogo8359]

​@@lynxlecher9547okay sad triggered leftist

[@red..riding..hood..]

@@lynxlecher9547right 😭😭

[@legster983]

The laughs within a second just shows the contempt for Mr Peterson ! I love it x

[@frankmorris7751]

You love people showing contempt for other human beings? Says a lot about you and Dawkins.

[@knight1fox253]

@@frankmorris7751 yes, we have contempt for people who advocate for extremist policies while pretending to have the moral high ground based on word salads that are packaged and propagated as intellectualism

[@frankmorris7751]

@@knight1fox253What does your hatred for Jie Biden have anything to do with this video?

[@knight1fox253]

@@frankmorris7751 🤡

[@kenaultman7499]

Why not? Do you know how the structure of DNA was conceptualized? A guy took a bunch of LSD and saw the structure. He then took the structure to see if it would work, and it did. So, there might be something here we don't understand. In fact, a lot of scientific discoveries have been "divinely inspired."

[@JimboJazz]

Allegedly .Makes for a great story though

[@JimboJazz]

Easter bunny inspiration

[@Ryan88881]

Actually, what he needs more so is psilocybin but still a splendid example of the epistemic disparity between the audiences and general modalities of Peterson in contrast to Rogan.

[@briancase6180]

"somebody called Jordan Peterson...." That made me laugh out loud. That's EXACTLY the right amount of respect for Peterson to display in any context.

[@JohnHWelch63]

I'm sure he did take Peterson to task, and I'm sure it wasn't as cut and dry as Dawkins claims here. You take JP to task you better be prepared and if you're not, I guarantee you'll get your ass handed to you. JP is no slouch!

[@mrpopo8298]

No, it was, you can listen to it (it's only audio). I think Jordan has it up on his channel. He had Jordan on the ropes, lol. Jordan was doing his best to not answer the tough questions like he always does, but Dawkins wouldn't let up.

[@JohnHWelch63]

@@mrpopo8298 I did watch that video. The whole thing sound like s caual chat over coffee to me. Dawkins sounded like he had just woken up, and Jordan did 99% of the talking.

[@mrpopo8298]

@@JohnHWelch63 cope harder

[@JohnHWelch63]

@@mrpopo8298 I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm assuming you mean I can't cope with the fact Jordan got his ass handed to him? If so, then I think you should know I'm not a particularly big fan of Peterson. I'm more of a Dawkins fan. All I meant by my original comment was that Peterson isn't easy to debate. I didn't think Dawkins gave his A game in that particular interview. If he had, Jordan would have went home crying like a baby.

[@BlandBandit]

Dawkins and Peterson are both great thinkers. Dawkins basically told him he was drunk on symbols and even then Peterson said, well maybe.

[@jhibbitt1]

whilst i agree with everything dawkins said, his tone feels a bit mean spirited. both men invited him for interviews and seemed to be fans of him. maybe i'm being too sensitive, but i feel like he could disagree without this mocking tone

[@mileseals4838]

I think that spiritual people (aware of spirituality)can't relate or talk to this level with logical people like this

[@normhype1311]

Yeah I think it’s just inability to understand another perspective

[@tacituskilgore2851]

This guy must have the saddest most dry existence of all time, also Richie there is no such thing as "mild" pedophilia and cannibalism isn't right 🤡

[@greedysourceofgod4819]

What did he say about cannibalism ?

[@6663000]

Peterson is more insightful than Dawkins. Joe is a great conversationalist. Dawkins is a snob.

[@pvr10]

JP is done he doesn't know who he is

[@aaronpannell6401]

Unfortunately he isnt

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

That sounds more like Joe Biden.

[@sum8601]

Unironically, yes this is the trajectory of JP. He's not nearly as prominent as he once was thanks to him loosing his marbles and becoming a grifter. He has large support still sure, but only to a very select political group. Eventually he'll just be remembered as nothing but a self help guru peddling pseudoscientific bullshit. He's essentially the western Deepak Chopra

[@10_vittesse]

Wasn’t he on Joe’s or is that just recent and this is old

[@ptkk21]

Just take a look at the online conversation between JP and RD. Peterson asks questions and that responds to them by himself. It was so obvious that he is scared that Dawkins will ask a question for which he is not prepered.

[@ThePsysard]

Mr. Dawkins I’m sure you’ll be a different person if you take psychedelics. A more humble one.

[@rhysperegrine5100]

Humble like the 'alpha male' Joe Rogan, who knows more about Covid than the World Health Organisation, and more about ancient Egypt than qualified Egyptologists. Or humble like Jordan Peterson, the anti-chaos crusader who knows more about climate change than qualified climate scientists. Compare this to the arrogant Dawkins who, when asked about climate change, explained that it's not his discipline and that he'd rather shut his mouth and listen to the expertise of actual climate scientists.

[@narendrasomawat5978]

​@@rhysperegrine5100 Richard Dawkins also have lots of political incorrect statement he has been cancelled for that so don't only attack on someone who U don't like politically.

[@rhysperegrine5100]

@@narendrasomawat5978 Don't care about his politics. I just appreciate the fact he doesn't make hyperbolic, ultra-confident statements about things he doesn't understand... unlike Rogan and Peterson

[@ThePsysard]

@@rhysperegrine5100 ​It's easy to attack JR or JP only to virtue signal, and look smart. Bc all other smart people you know do... My assumption is that you never listened a full JR podcast. He's the pollar opposite of know-it-all. Just listen to his apology video which I don't think he should have apologized since he did nothing wrong. I truly love Dawkins, as I truly love JR and JP. I love different aspects of each. Aspects that make sense to me. You can learn from anyone in the world. Just pause and listen to them. Btw, WHO made many mistakes since COVID as did so many others. The record is pretty clear if one looks beyond mainstream bubble, and seek the truth no matter where it is.

[@ThePsysard]

@@rhysperegrine5100 Also perspective shifting and mental benefits of psychedelics are absolutely clear. A scientist who jokes about it means they're just stuck in normative narrative and systematic stigmatization of these substances.

[@davidjason2894]

A petty tactic is to pretend you don't know the names of your adversaries, thereby dismissing them. Recently, I watched a Munk Debate where a leftist journalist was intentionally mispronouncing his opponent's last name, hoping for the same effect as Dawkins. 'Someone named Jordan Peterson' ( you mean someone infinitely more famous, recognizable, and successful than you, Mr. Dawkins ) or 'that blogger, what's his name' ( Joe Rogan, the #1 podcaster in history, with a record size contract and a regular audience of more than 10 million listeners ). Pat yourself once on the back for me, er what's your name again? Oh, ya, Richie. Seriously, GFY sir, you're outmatched.

[@DeuceGenius]

Rogan is too funny but there's a bit of truth to that statement. You really can't talk about lsd meaningfully unless you've tried it.

[@eddypoletto1852]

And the experience would very likely help Dawkins getting what he's missing!

[@ptkk21]

That's the difference between european standards of ettiquete and intelect and those of US.

[@Vabloath]

JP has mentioned that "the snake helix-DNA relation" idea is in the very boundaries of his knowledge and it is just speculation. He knows that his idea is probably wrong but he is just trying to see what's up with it.

[@johnchambers9836]

Richard Dawkins. One of the greatest men alive. Listen to him. Understand him. Protect him

[@narendrasomawat5978]

Jordan Peterson was talking about order and chaos with those snake symbols. Dawkins is just too dumb to understand that.

[@jeremieplourde332]

What I don't like about Dawkins and his crowd is represented perfectly in both the clip and the comments: The absolute bitter contempt everyone here is possessed by.

[@callum7081]

Dawkins is wrong. His whole argument is strawmanning god to be a Christian fundamentalist god from the 1800’s.

[@bharthyadav6794]

Jordan Peterson is a great example of "dumb guys" smart guy

[@yungzizou3789]

Dump guys yeah?

[@bharthyadav6794]

@@yungzizou3789 dumb****

[@6663000]

Incorrect

[@steven-el3sw]

2016 called...they want their catchphrase back...

[@red..riding..hood..]

@@yungzizou3789yeah.

[@gabriellemaes4078]

You don’t have to be smug Really. It’s so childish and unbecoming of you Richard.

[@porridgegod42]

Having listened to the very conversation Dawkins references, Peterson was the one being childish - rambling quite incoherently for 90% of the “interview” - whilst Dawkins was extremely patient and respectful. Therefore I think we should cut Dawkins some slack here after enduring what he did.

[@gabriellemaes4078]

@@porridgegod42 I admit Peterson went on and on. But Dawkins showed his true arrogant nature willfully misinterpreting Peterson to give one the illusion he was a fool. I think that just shows what kind of a person he is.

[@BurnerBagel]

JP is not a real intellectual. His popularity was boosted by his political views. He's as average as any other doctor in psychology. His argument against climate change is literally just that he doesn't trust mathematical models for not being 100% precise all the time. He reposted a p*rn video thinking it was footage of communist China. He attempted to cite 2 studies on attractiveness for his body type argument on twitter, failing to read the fact that the studies were only based on facial features. He pushed an ivermectin study, only to be told by the publisher himself that he had misinterpreted everything.

[@ryantogo8359]

​@@porridgegod42op is talking about his arrogance in this video clip, Einstein. Nice try it moving the goalposts though

[@misterfister7473]

I can smell the smugness of that room through my screen

[@somebody553]

So awesome 😂

[@ohrenishii88]

Is that Joe Biden on stage?

[@frankmorris7751]

The trouble with Richard Dawkins is he's never taken LSD and actually thinks he got the better of Peterson.

[@DeuceGenius]

Peterson shared no valuable insight or views that even interested Dawkins at all. That being said we've all been telling Dawkins he should try psychedelics for many many years. He said years ago he was thinking about trying it. If he has he might just not admit it publicly. But I agree he should try it. Dawkins is also one of the biggest intellectual heroes of my entire life. His book the selfish gene changed my life. However that interview with Peterson was terrible. It was a waste of Dawkins time to even be there. Idk why Peterson wanted to talk about metaphysical crap. These views are my main disagreement with Peterson, though I admire other things about Peterson and his views on other subjects. But you can't argue with Dawkins about things like that. He's shot down those arguments Peterson out forth from every possible angle in the past. Years ago. And I agree with everything Dawkins had to say about it

[@frankmorris7751]

@DeuceGenius Just because Dawkins feels disinterested in something doesn't mean it's without value. Dawkins isn't looking for truth. He's looking to justify his stance. If he were looking for truth, he would debate those at the top of apologetics. Instead, he speaks with a psychologist who is just beginning to question religion himself and then foolishly dismisses him as if he can't even remember people's names He's an arrogant, ignorant ass.

[@TrueEnglishMan01]

Peterson d!ckriders are sad lost boys lol. JP is a rw self-help charlatan and intellectual lightweight compared to even the likes of Dawkins, let alone actual thinkers like Zizek.

[@frankmorris7751]

@Capt. Ronald Speirs And yet you nor Dawkins can provide one smidgen of unproven evidence of macro evolution. BTW nice rant. Too bad it's hollow.

[@frankmorris7751]

@@TrueEnglishMan01 yes, I intentionally avoided the idiotic notion that any Communistic/Socialistic form of government has merit beyond creating a dictatorship in which said government didn't kill its own.

[@jamesbenjamin5746]

How can we take Dawkins seriously when he called Joe rogan, the most watched podcast in the world a blogger? DAWKINS is so out of touch its embarrassing. 1) Peterston said it was an ancient symbol and 2) Rogan said psychedelics. 3) The word Bullshit is not a scientific argument Dawkins.

[@shanesawyer5103]

Lol, he’s not a blogger he’s a podcaster. Big difference!

[@metamorphicorder]

Cant take a guy seriously who calls joe a blogger. Lol.

[@rackedbound1648]

Real vs Faux intellect