Marcus was in charge of a lot of colosseum events and would even spectate them, his book meditations was put together almost 100 years after Christianity was conceptualized and was popularized. Meditations was political propaganda put together to sway the masses to worship the government's leader Marcus and to put away the attention that Christ brought. Like they say, history is written by the winners. Marcus was a mortal man without any "magic" to him, no grandiosity, hes not capable of being as "good" as he said he was. Meditations was a good book in many ways, no lie about it, but it lacks in many departments and is written by the pinnacle of betrayal and fraudery. You cannot talk to me about being a good person with morals and ethics, and also be a Tyrant at the same time leading mass murder in colosseums and battlefields. Its unequivocally immoral to be a world leader basically. Socrates the man himself who put the first building blocks to Stoicism, with Plato really laying the clay out and Aristotle really just blowing it out to mass with Alexander, Alexander is just taught what Marcus acts like is Revolutionary. Socrates the man himself was slain by the government by simply speaking the truth, outsmarting them, and calling them unintelligent. Socrates couldn't even sit in the same room as Marcus Aurelius probably. You wanna give a man credit where credit is due? Name a man before Christ who said "Do Good unto others, and do even more good onto those who hurt you." Name a man who was brave enough and wise enough to come to that notion before Christ. Marcus Aurelius had no problem watching Christians flayed and burned in a colosseum simply for refuting the roman empire and its gods that were just carbon copies of the greeks. The roman empire fell explicitly due to their lack of moral code that was harvested from greek myth. "Sex and Culture" proves this statistic and event. Not even the jews themselves supported Christ's teachings, his teachings were out of left field and nobody expected it. He had no rational source to build those concepts of his lectures. If I am going to doubt the 4 gospels, why even bother trust anything? why trust science? the big bang was hypothesized by a practicing catholic cosmologist, there is no actual scientific evidence ive literally physically seen and been layed before my feet in person, its all been in a book or on a screen shown, no different than reading a book, LIKE THE BIBLE. with Artificial intelligence on the rise, in 200 years humans wont even know the difference between fact and any fiction because AI can just falsify any kind of evidence. they can tear the fabrics in which you judge to be authentic and worthy, AI could even tamper with history and outright delete it if we hand it off to that much power. they could convince the youth the nazis never existed. When you push your skepticism to that extent, you might as well be as absurd as a tree, unalive yourself basically, theres no point, its garbage. Just quit being so unnecessarily condescending to the point of obnoxious rhetoric that is over 100 years old, it never worked before and it especially doesnt work on me. Atheists just need to admit "I lack the emotional and mental security to put my trust into something that nobody alive fully knows about." Marcus is a 3rd rate hack, he didnt build the entire 21st century's modern empire on his codes. it was Christ. it was Christ who had millions of buildings built in his name for 2000 years, not Marcus Aurelius. Several Millenia from now, in your nihilist sci-fi future, the aliens will look back and see how powerful Christ was on paper, not Marcus Aurelius. You can't escape even Jesus Christ, you even curse him when you use his name as a swear word, he never leaves your subconscious.

Underrated 😂😂

Accurate

I’ll take this explanation 😅

I was dreaming up some witty way of making your point, but I can’t top this. 😂😂😂

Def GPT 😅😂😅

it looks like He did

The evidence clearly points to the fact that Jesus did rise from the dead. So yeah, it’s pretty simple.

@@alantaylor3414 "EvIdEnCe" yeah sure

​@alantaylor3414 man, that is incredible that you have evidence that clearly points to Jesus rising from the dead! Could you please share this evidence so we can all understand how this miracle was recorded, measured and tested?

@@alantaylor3414 no that is not what the evidence clearly points to. But do list the evidence...?

Sam is a miserable prick who wants everyone to be as miserable and meaningleaa as him

Yep

That's because the asker isn't looking for an answer. They are looking for a write-off.

@@Sageman101and round and round we go

The point that peterson is trying to make is that it's not a simple question, actually, according to his worldview, that is the most complicated question someone can ask

Wtf r u talking about, just cause it to stupid to understand doesn't mean everyone is.

Why the bad language?

Just because your to stupid to understand doesn't mean the rest of us don't get something out of what he's saying. Your just bitter because he wants men to step up and make something of themselves but your to lazy to get off ur ass and do something constructive so u try and tear down the mean instead of being self critical. How extraordinary pathetic

I missed that quote, I think you are (suprise) misrepresenting his argument.

Maybe you just don't understand him😆

I'm not sure how the man doesn't know whether or not he believes in Christianity and it's truth claims. That's insane, and very different from "defining yourself."

facts.

He could just say "I don't know"....he deliberately avoids questions and dances around topics it's ridiculous.

JP’s answers are far more deep and honest than most people that simply affirm or deny that they believe in God or a god. He actually thinks it out, then he explains his line of thinking/rationale which too many people can’t be bothered to pay attention to or think out along with him.

@@Maikigai Ok....if he explains his thinking so well, can you tell me if he believes in the biblical god or not?

Marcus Aurelius was religious though

10/10 agree

And aurelius was a morally bankrupt dork and terrible father lol

​@@ChillAssTurtleAnd God murdered millions or women and children in a flood.

@@ChillAssTurtle Tell me how much you know about Aurelious's beliefs?

The most interesting comment in this section. I am still on the fence whether Peterson talks the way he talks because he is truly emphasizing the complexity of these questions and their relation with the other concepts such as meaning, good, truth or he talks this way because he wants to be mystical and does not want to be seen as "Christian" or "atheist". If I understand him correctly, he can say whatever he believes more openly, i.e., less open to interpretation. For instance, he might say believing a God exists is different from believing that there is a man on the moon. God is not a person or a thing. God is at the top of the hierarchy of our value systems. The reason for every behavior of our own. In this sense, we all believe in God. But he doesn't put it this way, he always leaves it open to interpretation that he believes God as it was described by bible. A person, a being with consciousness, a being who's all good, omnisicent and powerfull.

What is religion?

"Sir, i was only asking if you want fríes with your burguer...."

😂😂

I can't tell if you missed his point.

@@d4024probably missed

Or gaslighting. He is a psychology person. They make their living convincing others they are broken, when in fact THEY are the broken ones.

At what point did Peterson ever claim to know himself any better than anyone else.. This was never said, he is claiming we do not know ourselves as Harris is suggesting, this line of thinking is rooted in philosophies that developed separately from each other throughout our history. Philosopher Alan Watts - "Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth" You want to be right, Harris wants to be right, Peterson wants to know the truth, therein lies the difference, he did not claim absolutes where others have. Approach these conversations with more humility and nuance, and play the devil's advocate.

@@mwfmtnman What a cope out of an answer, it's lazy. Do better.

@@Bandito-Dorito it most certainly is not a cop out. Just because you are one of them or been taken by the scam, doesn't make me the problem.

@@Bandito-Dorito you drank the kool-aid

its annoying

and he can never keep eye contact, always looking at the floor or to the audience.

For sure. But mostly from Peterson. He is the king there..

Salad is good for you though, so I’m all ears 😊

@@HAL-rx3bh I agree.

I have many disagreements with that but for now, if you believe in an objective good than that puts you above atheists.

This is the comment

If you don’t believe Jesus was a real person then you certainly can’t believe Plato was a real person. You need to be consistent. Your belief that Plato was a real person is based on “claims”. Why reference Plato when there is no evidence he was a real person. Just “claims” which are not evidence.

​@@alantaylor3414because of biased source and supernatural elements. I will believe you if you say, you have dog as pet but if you say that you have an unicorn, will anybody believe you?

@@alantaylor3414 What you're saying is flawed and this is why. What we have with Plato: a claim about a person's existence and some things he said/wrote. What we have with Jesus: a claim about a person's existence and some things he said, PLUS a bunch of stuff that he did that defies our understanding of the natural world. Surely you can appreciate that the evidence required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of Jesus' existence AND his miracles is much more than the evidence required to only prove the existence of Jesus. The same is true from Plato to Jesus. It takes a great deal more evidence to accept that Jesus existed AND was the son of god than it does to accept that Plato existed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Plato's writings aren't extraordinary in any supernatural sense like those of Jesus. But for what it's worth, I don't hold with great conviction that Plato really did exist, nor that Jesus did. The truly important thing with Plato is simply that SOMEONE wrote those things. So the above comment could be changed from "Roman Christianity took Plato's notion of divine creation and repackaged it" to "Roman Christianity took the notion of divine creation (created by Plato or whoever wrote what's attributed to Plato) and repackaged it" and the substance of the sentence would be unchanged. I will also say that the person you're replying to said nothing to suggest that they don't believe that Jesus existed. You just claimed that for them.

At the end of the week he still wouldn't have given a clear answer.

Okay, so go provide this atheist moral doctrine and maintain a community based on it. When you fail and learn your lesson, come back and let's talk.

thats true bro but also the truth lies with tyrants of the planet @@RA-ie3ss

@@RA-ie3ss ??? Atheist or better said atheism is NOT a "belief" and therefore has no so called moral doctrine. Who said there is an atheist moral doctrine?. I'll wait . Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock ... ... ...

@@RA-ie3ss If you need someone else or an entire doctrine to tell you what morals are, then u never had any morals to begin with.

​@@RA-ie3sssecular humanism. Simple.

Peterson is absolutely correct in his response. It is an absurdly loaded question to ask given the context of the debate, this question in itself should have been an entire session. I am not even religious, and I am not even a fan of Peterson, however, how can you not see the validity in that statement? We cannot articulate our own beliefs to the extent that Peterson is saying, once you introduce theism, it just adds on a whole other layer. I am beginning to think the ones who think Peterson avoids questions just lack depth, humility, and nuance. It's an entirely unfair critique, at least in this scenario, Peterson is being honest and forthcoming, he does not claim to know himself to that extent, and he is correct according to so many schools of thought in philosophy and psychology. Alan Watts - "Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth" You are all fools.

@@Bandito-Dorito ​Peterson wants to have his cake and eat it too. It is quite obvious that he won't take any hard lines because he is pandering to an audience and his pseudo-intellectualism approach. I'm fine with him wasting peoples time when they try to debate his amorphous beliefs. The man is a fraud. Religious text are a main pillar of religion and Peterson shouldn't even be debating without a coherent take on it.

@@Bandito-Dorito ​Peterson wants to have his cake and eat it too. It is quite obvious that he won't take any hard lines because he is pandering to an audience and his pseudo-intellectualism approach. He is just wasting peoples' time when they try to debate his amorphous beliefs. The man is a fraud. Religious text are a main pillar of religion and Peterson shouldn't even be debating without a coherent take on it.

Lol

Peterson helped me come to a point of self understanding and forgiveness of myself. I was convinced I was the most arrogant, annoying, and otherwise preposterous and ridiculous person in the world and the most condescending shmuck who ever lived. After listening to Peterson for less than ten minutes, I learned that I was an ameteur in that realm. With his astounding oratory prowesss, and his gift for words, Peterson showed me I wasn't the most loathesome and obnoxiously pretentious person in the world. He was.

​@@OceanusHeliosoh my fucking God this was such a well written paragraph. I'm dying lmao

@@OceanusHelios😂 Well said!

You were right the first time.

​@@OceanusHeliosyou had me on the first half😂😂😂😂

watch his biblical series and you'll understand the complexity of the matter. it's not a simple issue when viewed from his perspective

lol

To tekno, Partly true, but only that? Is not beautiful art still beautiful art, now matter what?

@@bennyandersen742 Yes,art is still beautiful no matter the agenda behind it.People have always paid for beauty and these grifters knew that well and exploited it too.

@@teknoaija1762 The question is more, why are so many drawn to beautiful art? It's definitely not only because it's worth a lot of money. And don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean the question is not interesting. I think Jordan Peterson often has some good points.

@@bennyandersen742 He has made some decent points in the past,but his venture to apologetics has gotten negative feedback.

@@teknoaija1762 I don't think he's apologetic. He is just exploring the territory of religion and tries to figure out if there is something profound to "extract" there. I saw his biblical lectures. They made him attractive to religious people, but for the wrong reasons. The lectures were quite interesting.That's the closest to religion I have been in ages , hi hi.

Believing that any of the people on this panel are not intelligent is hilarious. Just because you don't agree with someone, that doesn't mean they aren't prone to reason. Like.. what?

"YOU'RE NOT OMNISCIENT!!" Yeah, but don't smuggle in omniscience via "revelation".

He's a joke and got mocked by the audience. Jordan doesn't care about the true but only to appear to win the argument. Pathetic. What is truth? Not the Bible you pathetic apologist.

Yes,I sort liked him until I heard his dumb apologetics.Clergy spent fortunes to impress their prey in order to perfect their grift.Who gives money to ragged priest with run down barn of a church.They were middle age mega churches,nothing has changed in that business.The bigger the church,the richer the preacher,the more they give.

He's a nitwit in all fields.

You just cannot separate spiritual from physical. He can.

Yeah, but one of them is smart and the other is JP.

@@furtdrven2512 They're both smart.

well said. i don't understand how one can hate on any of them, if they clearly have good intentions.

@@yakob-g Thanks 👍

so people can watch him do his mental gymnastics act

@@Aquamayne100 like a circus clown?

@@exaucemayunga22 exactly

He’s more interesting to watch than any other thinker rn tbh. Materialism is played out. I’ve done seen so many speakers talk about the objective world that I could honestly care less at this point. At least he’s changing things up with his complex interpretation shenanigans

The same dude that said rigging elections wouldn't be an issue for him if it means keeping trump out of office?

@@basilmweramakokha9557 That's not what he said

INTP logic is dominant. That's why Sam keeps winning.

@@sandroschmidt6731 right, what he actually said was much worse than what I paraphrased. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/kmV-YZensaGDr6c.htmlsi=I98vDNmoRaYXRs6z

Jordan and logic can't be put together

did you ever watch any of his lectures? how can you say that man has no subtance to what he says

@@yakob-g since you asked. i actually used to like him, i used to watch all of his footages and lectures from his classes, u know a modest psychologist with canvas cardigans lecturing abt what he studied. Then he got rich, cult of personality hit, bible waving started.. more and more rage ranting everyday. Red face cryings, Shoving book of exodus down our throats, dressing up like a Joker and becoming a mouthpiece. These days It’s a character played by him in order of his political fights, academy money and tours. Pretty insufferable.

You've never been given an opportunity either.

XD "god"

No no. What have you written or contributed???

Thanks god.

He was having psychological problemas at this time, he talked about this debate in his Channel and admited he was wrong

A troll.... A man who dedicated decades of his life to helping people understand and deal with the dangers and societal effects of alcoholism, while simultaneously helping people understand why they were unsatisfied with their lives,which was all before he had any fame at all..... Yeah I don't think you know what that word means. Here's a hint, start with a mirror.

Three questions for you. 1. We know what is told to us about the nature of a God, but what non-cyclical proof is there that it is in fact true at all? 2. Let's assume God is real, which one is it? Even just the Abrahamic God varies in doctrine between faiths and sects. If, as it appears to be, the proposed version of the Christian God and the proposed version of the Islamic God are antithetical to eachother and cannot be adequately worshiped together at the same time, how does one decide on which god is the true one? 3. If we are to decide to determine which of the versions of god is correct through an evidential approach evaluating the texts of the faiths, surely we end up in a situation where assuming the nature of god as you suggest, could actively work against us. Given this, surely we should not assume the nature of god, or even the existence of god, by the same logic you are giving

Ditto

He fooled many of us at some point

Same. It hurts!

Keep being shocked

Same

It is been 20 years since new atheism started and we have seen no advancement. You were wrong so you should change accordingly. If not, then lets give it another 20 and see how much atheist advancement occurs.

I see it differently. In simple terms, we are all different. This creates synergy and tension between people. Tension inevitably leads to some form of sin. You posit that God could create a life for us that is sin free, but that is irreconcilable with what makes the human experience great. It's the overcoming of tension and differences that creates the most beauty. Without the bad there would be no case for good and without the ugly. Nothing could be considered beautiful. We need to be different; there will be sin. Man has created unbelievable art and monuments because of the celebration of our differences, which come with baggage; sin. Without sin, there is no point, as we would all be the same.

Then don’t. Thanks for sharing🤙🏼

I'm very skeptical in general but I'm also very philosophical and what's wild is I've watched quite alot of Jordan Petersons videos and he generally speaks in ways I originally thought nonsensical but I found there's actually a method in the madness so to speak, he speaks very metaphorically generally in story formats and mixes it with psychological analysis and it is actually really beautiful when he does it. What's neat is he does this with the story of the buddha as well and I wonder if he has done it with other stories too, but my point is if you listen to only his debates against atheists or him discussing abrahamic religious literature with theologians then he's generally very boring and that gives you a pretty rough idea of where his mindset kindof falls apart on a logical path of thought, but the merit is his love of the poetry of storytelling and his love for psychology and to guide others based on his vast knowledge of the human mind however under developed psychology may be the profession is getting better everyday with more study and experimentation being done by newer and brighter minds who are seeing further than others have. At 27 years of age something I've found to be true in my experiences so far is that if you write someone off with the worst thing you've heard of them you forsake all the wisdom they have to offer with the best things you haven't heard of them, and I'm most certainly not implying that you should allow horrible people to do horrible things just because they have done something beautiful when they aren't being horrible, but what I'm saying is that when you demonize a human for everything they do you remove any kind of positivity that could have a good impact on the world that may be worth something more than just hating the whole of it.

Do what I do. I fast forward when crazy, Nazi, rambling imbecile talk. I have been fast forward all politicians and skipping to commentary for years.

Why would anyone care about your opinion of JP?

@@williamcampbell5168 opinion? No one. The fact that’s he’s an irrational, rambling Neo Nazi. Everyone. Fuck that guy.

I can tell you aren't listening if you agree with him.

@@jamesdettmann94 Religion is more about faith than reason. Atheism is about reason. Thus You can't win against professional atheist like Sam Harris without "verbal gimmicks" .Jordan knows that.I respect Sam knowledge btw I read his hit book on meditation and it was subtle

@@kipajitv Sam knows exactly what religion is about, and sees no place for it.

@@jamesdettmann94 not a single person truly understands it. you have to be naive to think he does.