Take A Moment Thanks, my friend's Stay Safe and Stay Free 42.3D gods are not required.

They earned that applause

@Francisco Nieves wtf

@@wisespidey Francisco is probably a robot, mate. Just sayin'

@@ScottJBailey12 ik, this is outta topic but have you seen the snydercut?

@@wisespidey I have not...

Disagree, the only criteria should be to have two old people, one of which cannot hold themselves back from talking over the other.

@@sb_dunk CSI here, we've scouted you for an internship

That depends entirely of whether the candidate’s ideas are worth steelmaning.

It wouldn't work because there is no argument to be steelmanned. There's only allegations, insults and lies about eachother's past. And the rest are their beliefs and hollow promises. No legit arguments

I think *every* debate should start with a steelman argument. Or if the participants of the debate do not know the opponent's arguments beforehand, split the debate into half. At the middle you're supposed to do steelman argument. And if the opponent just lies without any evidence, the steelman argument is basically "You believe X, Y and Z because you *feel* that they are true. You cannot provide any objective evidence for any of these claims. However, your point is that how things feel is more important than what can be proven." The steelman part is about being able to *understand* the position of the opponent without any lies or claiming things that are not true. The audience is expected to be smart enough to figure out if steelman argument is made correctly.

What never makes sense is a highly intelligent, well educated person who is deeply religious or even sees value in religion at all. No one has to be a 180 IQ supergenius to be an atheist. Literally all that's required to be an atheist is ligic, reason, common sense, and a true grasp on morality(as opposed to the barbaric "moral" codes of ancient religious texts). There is precisely zero value, intellectual or moral, to be found in the Bible, because everything contained in the Bible is already generally accepted in the modern world, or has been disproven, refuted, repudiated, and rightly shunned. The fact that a person who has an IQ above room temperature believes in god in the 21st century is just astonishing and confounding. Religious ideas are just so patently ridiculous and out of touch with reality that it's difficult to imagine that any rational person actually believes them deep down. But when an otherwise highly intelligent public intellectual endorses them, that is even worse.

Jorden Peterson is not an intellectual when it comes to Judaism and Israel.

@@TeemoTemosson You are much too generous.

Wish we were choosing between guys like this during the presidential elections.

@@medotaku9360 haha

What never makes sense is a highly intelligent, well educated person who is deeply religious or even sees value in religion at all. No one has to be a 180 IQ supergenius to be an atheist. Literally all that's required to be an atheist is ligic, reason, common sense, and a true grasp on morality(as opposed to the barbaric "moral" codes of ancient religious texts). There is precisely zero value, intellectual or moral, to be found in the Bible, because everything contained in the Bible is already generally accepted in the modern world, or has been disproven, refuted, repudiated, and rightly shunned. The fact that a person who has an IQ above room temperature believes in god in the 21st century is just astonishing and confounding. Religious ideas are just so patently ridiculous and out of touch with reality that it's difficult to imagine that any rational person actually believes them deep down. But when an otherwise highly intelligent public intellectual endorses them, that is even worse.

@@SlampthChompth yeah buddy!

Sadly the label of "antisemite" makes it so people cannot do the right thing.

"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." - Steven Weinberg

​@@Mark73tell that to Nazis and Communists. Good people can't be good if they are bad.

I am going by the definition of the literal figurative analogy of "Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson - Vancouver - 2"

Well, it's like, that's a bloody complicated question man!

What came first the dogma or the dogmatic attachment​ to Christianity?

I'm not trying to make the argument it's actually "Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson - Vancouver- 2" because I'm not but titles are actually stories....

You see, the "2" refers to this video's place within it's dominance hierarchy.

(The 1st debate) Thanks for clarifying the Atheistic position further The left brain 🧠 vs the right 🧠 brain The debate will never be resolved since The fundamental premise of Atheism is (1=0) So it seems that Peterson Was left brain(1) and Harris(0) Since they couldn’t agree completely so Not (=) That’s true mathematically (1=/=0) Now at one point in the debate even Harris said “that I can even accept that” on God Thefore only once for a few seconds they both become fully rational (1=1) I feel sorry for Jordan he had to try so hard to make it happen(Respect him for that) He sure is an open minded guy who can pull you out of your Extreme point of views (In this case Harris’s denial of God) Why Jordan is 1 in(1=0) Jordan 1:27:00(Reading ) “God is how we imaginitivly And collectively represent the existence and actions of conscienceness across time” “As the most real aspects of existence manifest themselves across the longest of time frames but are not necessarily apprehensable like as objects as in here and now.” (His explanation) “What that means in some sense is that you have conceptions of reality built into your biological and metaphysical structures that are a consequence of evolution that occurred over unbelievably vast expanses of time. And they structure your perception of reality in ways that, it wouldn’t be structured if you’d only lived the amount of time you are going to live. And that is also part of the problem for deriving values from facts because your evencient and you can’t derive the right value from the facts that portray themselves to you in your life span. Which is why you have a biological structure which is like 3.5 billion years old. -god is that which eternally dies and is reborn in the persuit of higher being and truth. That’s a fundamental element of hero mythology. -god is the higher value in the hierarchy of value (That’s another way of looking at it) -god is what calls and responds to the eternal call to adventure -god is the voice of conscience -God is the source of judgement and mercy and guilt -God is the future to which we make sacrifices. into the trancedental repository of reputation. Here is a cool one if you’re an evolutionary biologist -god is that which selects among men in the eternal hierarchy of men (So you know men arrange themselves into hierarchy and men rise in the hierarchy, there are principles that are important that determine the probability of their rise and those principles aren’t Tyrannical/ Power they are something like the ability to articulate truth and the ability to be competent and ability to make appropriate moral judgements and if you can do that in a given situation then all the other men will vote you up the hierarchy so to speak and that will radically increase your reproductive fitness And the operation of that process in the long expanses of time looks to me like it’s codefied in something like the notion of The God the Father. It’s also the same thing that makes men attractive to women because women peel of the top of the male hierarchy and the question is what should be at the top of the hierarchy??? The answer right now is tyranny as part of the patriarchy but the answer is something more like the ability to use truthful speech in the service of let’s say “well being” So that operates across tremendous expansions of time and it plays a role in selection for survival itself and it makes it a fundamental reality.” 1:48:08 Sam Harris (where he also admitted (1) therfore they agreed (1=1) even though only for a second then back to (1=0) “To call that thing god, fine that’s the god I have no problem with but that’s not how most people most of the time are using the word “G-O-D”

@@mohsinakhtar7876 So is God a literal person then, or just an abstract concept?

@@mohsinakhtar7876 perhaps the situation is 0=0

Wont happen. trump and his office are destroying presidential debates as we know it. And Biden is not innocent of the same claim.

@@mohsinakhtar7876 just another example of someone using an extreme as a generalization to justify their rational when the regulars actually benefit from it and cause good from it. It is good for everyone else, but because a bad seed, throw the whole thing away. Its stupid at best. Its like a trickle down economic persons argument. Because 5 people will screw it up, out of 100, we can't do a trickle up. Despite the fact it will help 95 people, because 5 people screw up, now everyone has to suffer. Same thing as his argument vs religion. In an honest world without greedy snakes running the show, trickle down works, but as trump has shown us, snakes rule. So the trickle doesn't happen and instead is pocketed. Sams logic, like the trickle people, is wrong. Jordan is right and I would bet he would agree with my statement about trickle up as opposed to trickle down. Again, the point is, religion works despite the bad people who exploit it. Arguing that we need a perfect approach or we keep the SQ(status quo), is exactly why America is fucked right now. The SQ does not work. Acting like God works, living like God exists, is good. Just like government and most anything else for that matter, you need to keep it honest. But removing it completely is stupid at best.

You commute 200 miles a day :---()

@@djuj2121 I've changed location. It's only 130 miles a day now!

@@victorgibson4932 oh just 130 miles. Are you by any chance in a wolf pak

@@djuj2121 just go where they tell me. 😀

What never makes sense is a highly intelligent, well educated person who is deeply religious or even sees value in religion at all. No one has to be a 180 IQ supergenius to be an atheist. Literally all that's required to be an atheist is ligic, reason, common sense, and a true grasp on morality(as opposed to the barbaric "moral" codes of ancient religious texts). There is precisely zero value, intellectual or moral, to be found in the Bible, because everything contained in the Bible is already generally accepted in the modern world, or has been disproven, refuted, repudiated, and rightly shunned. The fact that a person who has an IQ above room temperature believes in god in the 21st century is just astonishing and confounding. Religious ideas are just so patently ridiculous and out of touch with reality that it's difficult to imagine that any rational person actually believes them deep down. But when an otherwise highly intelligent public intellectual endorses them, that is even worse.

True, He is incredible.

He was sharp back then. Now he’s a proper loon. So sad.

What never makes sense is a highly intelligent, well educated person who is deeply religious or even sees value in religion at all. No one has to be a 180 IQ supergenius to be an atheist. Literally all that's required to be an atheist is ligic, reason, common sense, and a true grasp on morality(as opposed to the barbaric "moral" codes of ancient religious texts). There is precisely zero value, intellectual or moral, to be found in the Bible, because everything contained in the Bible is already generally accepted in the modern world, or has been disproven, refuted, repudiated, and rightly shunned. The fact that a person who has an IQ above room temperature believes in god in the 21st century is just astonishing and confounding. Religious ideas are just so patently ridiculous and out of touch with reality that it's difficult to imagine that any rational person actually believes them deep down. But when an otherwise highly intelligent public intellectual endorses them, that is even worse.

Not a patch on Douglas Murray.

You need to watch more debates.

RobG811 He is as brilliant as both of them. I one hundred percent agree I'll be trying to find conversations where he takes a more significant play in after this.

Get that man a cape!

Is that a joke?

Absolutely, man. He made a well balanced job and kept the main path. Perfect trio!

"would HAVE rambled..." hate me if you like...I am a Teacher :-)

The best one I've ever seen hands down absolutely, doesnt needlessly interrupt with terrible comments. Actually understands the debate and forms compelling points.

Truly. He should be utilized as much as possible.

Alfredo Gonzalez sounds to me like you didnt understand jordans argument

Mark Wilkie remember when Sam asked Jordan about the resurrection, Sam got Jordan to concede that the resurrection is almost certainly bullshit and Jordan had nothing to say but Weinstein tried to come in and save him, then as the conversation went on, Weinstein was the one to pivot from that to masturbation, and you can tell by Weinstein and sams interactions that they both knew what he was doing when he changed the subject

Alfredo Gonzalez the thing is that the resurrection was never the topic of discussion. The topic is what are moral values grounded in. So JP conceded that point to Harris, but that means nothing to the discussion topic. The reality is Harris was never able to articulate what his ideal set of values is grounded in. JP admits that Christianity is not necessarily it, but that something concrete needs to fill the void to avoid us spiraling into relativistic chaos and that religious stories act as just that thing. By the way, if you study historical texts carefully, there is actually fairly compelling evidence that the resurrection happened. JP is certainly no expert in this historical event as he admits. Read, “The Case for Christ”. Don’t bring your own bias into it.

I think peterson's framing of sam's position was atrocious. His framing was that sam believes we don't get much value from stories and we should focus on facts. Sam literally said 10 seconds earlier that you can find a lot of value in stories you just don't have to mix them up with fact. The fact that peterson was incapable of steelmanning harris makes me think he is bad faith or incredibly close minded.

Unfortunately we can not have these type of intellectually stimulating debates when it comes to the mainstream media as they mainly target the masses

Amen. An actual intellectual debate and mediation by top shelf individuals.

@@sylviaowega3839UKposts is more main stream then main stream media why you think flat earth took off?

actually if they perform one session per day that number will equal 14600

We can only dream, hope and...dare I say it? Pray.

Kevin Byrne lmmfao

Lmmfao

Same old arguments going around in circles, there will never be an end to the science v religion debate. Science seems to always win the logical arguments though 🤔

They're getting paid to keep the ball rolling. If the "ball" isnt moving the masses begin questioning their relevance and competence

Then they wouldn't be politicians now would they?

Sadly I don’t think on average they have the raw intellectual material like Sam and Jordan to even get close.

You sick sadist. You really want to watch old men’s heads explode like the fembots in Austin powers? Actually not a bad idea.

Umang Jain touché

6 times for me. You weren’t listening carefully enough.

​@@karagi101 or it's simply info. And the worldview changing only suggests you need to keep learning 😂

You must be quite gullible then.

⁠@@samsabruskongenyou might be quite close minded then😈

Listen to Bahnsen V Stein. This is babby-tier prattle.

True, it'd be nice to have more of that in other debates of any kind.

@@typhoonofideas It was an interesting debate, but this part is a self-congratulatory myth. They do it to be cordial in these sorts of environments, sure. But Harris and Peterson (in particular) are both guilty of presenting the least-generously interpretation of certain arguments (say, ones that sit in opposition to their world-view) when they're not in this sort of face-to-face debate situation. It's really frustrating when you're really looking for one of them to give a clear answer to detractors.

I know right,that was such a badass move.

Jordan Peterson almost made me believe Sam views

@@usxnews1834 There's much more utility in steelmanning than just being cordial. It indicates upfront whether or not you actually understand your opponent's position.

How dare you say that. I'm offended. Someone needs to deplatform you immediately! Help! Ring the fire alarm! Mummy I need a safe space to hide me from differing world views and intellectual conversation!.....you are right though, universities are now seriously retarded.

Until they ve become political businesses

well go to a good university not in america. You'll find conversations like these but they arent broadcasted

Sad how lefty snowflakes have robbed universities of value beyond the electronic proof of indoctrination you get.

Wow that just broke my heart

What never makes sense is a highly intelligent, well educated person who is deeply religious or even sees value in religion at all. No one has to be a 180 IQ supergenius to be an atheist. Literally all that's required to be an atheist is ligic, reason, common sense, and a true grasp on morality(as opposed to the barbaric "moral" codes of ancient religious texts). There is precisely zero value, intellectual or moral, to be found in the Bible, because everything contained in the Bible is already generally accepted in the modern world, or has been disproven, refuted, repudiated, and rightly shunned. The fact that a person who has an IQ above room temperature believes in god in the 21st century is just astonishing and confounding. Religious ideas are just so patently ridiculous and out of touch with reality that it's difficult to imagine that any rational person actually believes them deep down. But when an otherwise highly intelligent public intellectual endorses them, that is even worse.

Haha same.

@@jaredangell5017 you have a strong need for validation if you have to put down the intellect of these two brilliant men in order to appear smart. I pity you.

@@jaredangell5017 even if you believe to ne as smart or even smarter than him, to imply that he's not a giant of intellect, as you put it, is just wrong. Im sure you are a smart guy. However Jordan Peterson is smarter than 99.99% of people, for sure. Anybody can say hes smart. Jordan Peterson proves it through his countless lectures. And just because you are hypothetically more intelligent than him it doesn't make him stupid per se.

@@jaredangell5017 I did read 12 rules for life, and he wrote it with the intention of being easy to understand by the masses. I haven't read Nietzsche or velikovsky, but i am sure they are way harder to understand. And by the way, by saying he is no giant of an intellect you are kinda implying that you are smarter than him. But thats just my opinion and im thankful for your appreciation of my right towards having it. Also thank you for the quick responses. I need practise for tomorrow's final exams in an english group discussion. This will certainly be of value :)

@@jaredangell5017 ​ I responded because I'd like to put down people who like to put others down. Turnabout is fairplay. "Wow, seriously?" Implies disbelief. Which may mean you have a cognitive bias that if you can understand it others should as well. I could be wrong with just this sentence but on the second one... "Neither one of these guys are exactly giants of the intellect" This doesn't have proper basis as we can define "giants of the intellect" in a number of ways. But your basis on this seems to be that they aren't exactly giants of the intellect because what they write is easier to follow than Velikovsky or Nietzsche. Another bias that doesn't take in to consideration that maybe they had to make the books easily digestible to the public. And still isn't a proper measure of what "giants of the intellect" are. Anyone can make a book that is hard to follow. "my God how far the human race has fallen this century!" Implies that the human race has progressed so much that there shouldn't exist one or two individuals that can't follow the conversation of two other indivduals. It's like 'Hey man! Humans are the most advanced species that accomplished so much so everyone should be evolved enough to understand everyone else that is not even that smart.' It's ignorant of the relationship between human race progress and biology and probably can be explained by you living as a hermit. Basically you've put down 6 on the whole of your comment. Lazy quack and Chris Hardin because they could only understand every now and then but you could. Hurray for you. Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson because according to your standards they are not really giants of intellect. Even though you admit that you're aware there is plurality in intelligence. The human race is now far-regressed in your opinion because two people could only understand every now and then. Downright absurd. And yourself by belittling the current capacity of the contemporary with just a three-sentence comment. "Is that what I did?" That is what your comment suggested. You've put down others because of a strong need for validation. And for you to not know that implies your comment was indeed a reactionary response. I really hope being a hermit and not caring about others opinions of yourself is a good contribution to human progress. Stay in your bubble.

This is a fantastic synopsis on the disconnect between the two.

Other way around, but yes.

@@Apokalypsiis no.

@@Maria-jn4ix Yes.

Brilliant

he did a great job moderating these debates. However he sadly fell off the intellectual cliff since then....

6 months later....... Nope, still not finished. 😂

LMAO!

oof

....Or you can get a dictionary and/or a thesaurus and turn a 2 hour video into a 6 hour viewing session to pause and read then have your brain turn to slightly more gelatinous jelly.

LOL!

for sure man.... i thought its impossible to moderate like he did untill I saw him here

Old comment but I'll add to the thread none the less. It's the sound guy analogy. You never compliment the sound engineer for a clean video but you will complain if there is a problem with the sound.

Huge respect for both of you!

There is so much truth in that comment, it’s pretty insightful. Sam Harris’s insistent dissection and deconstruction of everything reminds me a lot of my ex.

@@BlurryDays The exact same thing can be said about JP. I wonder what your ex thinks about him. No offense intended.

@@RecTec77 No offense taken, I don’t think she’d like him. I tend to attract to JP rather than SH because I think JPs model of philosophy is much more resistant to nihilism. It seems like SH attempts to explain the entire universe from a pure rational and materialist perspective. I don’t think humans are built to be motivated that way nor do I think the universe works purely in that way.

@@BlurryDays You and JP see the universe from the perspective of what you want it to be. Sam Harris tries to see and understand the world the way it is. Nihilism is very realistic from what we know, it's very likely that the universe has no plan for us and there is no deeper meaning. I see it this way: There is no deeper meaning to life but I still care about my family, friends and just having a good life. Why? Evolution. Why would I say fuck my family just because there is no deeper meaning? No, to me, what's important to me IS the meaning of life. I want humanity to continue, and other people to be happy, that's just in my genes. If we're all dead in a hundred years, I think that would be sad and I would try to make it so that doesn't happen, because it's important to me. If we're all dead in a million years, I still think that it's sad but I don't spend any time thinking about it, because I cannot change it and who knows what will have happened by then. I really dislike that we always talk about the universe and life the way we want it to be rather than what it actually is. There is no objective morality? So what? I still don't want to kill people and I'd rather there were no rapists and murderers. So we as a society have to come together, decide together on what the majority considers right and then do that, which we have done to a certain degree. That's a neverending process.

@@famatu Before I can address any of that I’m stuck wondering how you are so sure of that first statement... ?

Agreed

Nobody grasps peterson because he talks bollocks!

@@tonron888 He's an incredibly successful speaker, author, professor, podcaster, etc. Clearly millions of people grasp him just fine. I'd encourage you to keep trying.

@@tonron888 I'm a fan of JP but he does use 100 words when he could just use 1.

@@sharplikecheddar2 no they dont, if they did we wouldnt be seeing him anymore;)

Not quite. The position that Peterson maintains is actually very hard to explain briefly and easily and is actually a derivation of several premises. I highly encourage you to read his Maps of Meaning in order to understand more deeply about his position and how hard it is to explain quickly and easily.

Sounds bias but whatever it's yt

@@davidmolina5758 Meh. I’ve listened to all 4 Harris-Peterson debates multiple times as well as dozens of JP class lectures and a few of his large Biblical lectures. I think my claim that Harris’s steel-man captured Peterson’s position in this debate better than Peterson ever articulated it holds true. He obviously didn’t address every presupposition that undergirds Peterson’s worldview but he did very much capture Peterson’s criticism of him on the topic of religion very very well and in much clearer terms than Paterson did.

Way better, and with 39.8 less hours 😂

When I saw him debating Eric Weinstein on Dave Rubin's show, I thought the debate was even harder to follow. Couple of absolute geniuses

Check out his interview/discussion with Camille Paglia. It's just brilliant. She and him are literally best friends for life by the end haha

I didn't saw a big challenge there, man.

Agreed. Sam effectively disillusions pseudo-intellectuals. Unfortunately, I don’t think the same intellectual challenge occurred both ways. Sam shows that efficient recall and fancy vocabulary only get you so far.

Yeah, Sam Harris looked almost bored sifting through the hand signs, tone rollercoasters, and word salads. You can’t rational justify believing in one dogma while life’s ambiguity remains constant.

And he's a very interesting person in his own rights as well 👌

Bret and his brother should do such an event.

Probably the only moderator I've ever watched that I actually want to intervene and get excited to hear what he has to say

Bret is the most intelligent on stage

He should mediate those foolish presidential debates unlike the ones they bring on who are blatantly biased and stupid

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Jp did not offer any.

If you’ve experienced any sudden and unexpected brain growth, you may be entitled to compensation

So me.... LOL

I feel my brain hurting.

you may wan to have that checked out lol

nah man, few moments after the vid finished, the smoke stopped leaking from my ears and everythng, I think we're good

Krishnanunni H M Yes, he's actually moderating and does it very convincingly.

Yes, it really helps to pick a moderator that is on the same intelectual level as the debatees.

He's playing god. ;-)

IKR!!???

He's great at summarizing their points and asking good questions. He's not great at balancing the conversation when Sam cut off Jordan a dozen times.

For me, Peterson's narcissism ruins. It

@@davidstaffellIt’s really a shame how far Jordan has fallen from critical thinking from the date of this debate.

Haha... That was clever indeed

Ohh, nooo! ⚡⚡

damn. I have so much to learn.

Would a true masochist just keep it a secret?

@@alanmaher7161 that’s a good question, but masochist doesn’t translate to being upfront. A lot of people are horribly ashamed of that stuff and yes, even a true masochist.

😂

i would debate to the last breath, what an opportunity

Between the two, who would be the more likely belligerent after a few brewskys?

@@howardrobinson4938 Sam. He frequently talked over Peterson. I think he would be the first to get heated. I think Peterson would be the first to start using words incorrectly

Right?!

captainpummel we’ll put

You are a step ahead. You see the pure value in simply coming to terms with eachother through deep communication. Those who truly think its easy to distinguish who is more adept at these subjects is foolish. All brilliant individuals.

captainpummel no not really. You’re just another fool who refuses to take positions even when one seems right. In short your like Switzerland - never were they great, never will they ever be great.

You find JP clear?

+captainpummel, I think it's possible to appreciate both's contribution to the intellectual discussion while still clearly agreeing with one over the other. What Sam says resonates a lot more with me (as an atheist and as a biological scientist), but I thoroughly enjoy watching and listening to both of them, especially when engaging with each other. I feel like what Jordan says is more useful than objectively true and what Sam says is more objectively true than useful. This value judgement is using each other's arguments as a frame of reference.

Yes, thats exactly right

Very sycophantic.

@@local-teen it's a joke though.

Me: "Under no circumstance does pineapple belong on a pizza." Jordan Peterson: "Yes, that's exactly right."

@@spherituality7691 I clicked off of the thread before I laughed at your reply and had to come back to like it because people who make you chuckle deserve appreciation.

haha

Sam’s claim of the idea of no evil just ignorance in the Hindu and Buddhist religions is valid but that idea is also present in Christianity and Islam. There the idea of the self in Islam where the true self is like a wild dog. A wild dog does whatever it wants it’s bound by its needs and humans who want to be better put that dog on a leash or in the Islamic text a chain so that they may control themselves and not let their basic animal instincts and human emotions rule them. Now burning the Quran or the word of God part. The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) I’m using him as an example as he is the highest human moral in Islamic society. So anyway once a man did the effort to gather human and animal dung in a container and threw it on the prophet’s back. During this insistent the prophet was on a prayer mat and his daughter was sitting next to him. She wiped the dung off his back. The prophet forgave him. The second incident the man invited the prophet for a conversation but instead he publicly humiliated the prophet. The prophet forgave him. But when that man started cruelly killing innocent Muslims his head was cut off. Now with regards to war the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said avoid war at all costs unless someone attacks you three times then engage in war. With regards to his slave wives. He had no slave wife’s. Some of his wives were former prostitutes, widows, girls whose parents didn’t have financial means to raise them and women generally in need. There is a instance where he asked a woman to marry him. She’s said no so he didn’t marry her. He also said that if a Muslim man is to marry widows and prostitutes should have first priority. Just like Peterson’s idea that religion isn’t all bad but you have to read the text as a whole as well as individual verses. During Muhammed(pbuh’s) reign it was the time most slaves had been freed in history. The time after the prophet is just general history even if it’s the story of his companions. The Islamic religion was completed in his lifetime. The Muslims that perform heinous crimes are arrogant of their own religion.

Daas Demha wtf bro

@@saad-wd6fd while reading about Muhammad's life and his actions you can only wonder how ANYONE, even Muslims, could call him a man of morals.

😂

I don't think we need them anymore because the good ones get retold anyway in new stories just with different characters, flavors and locations and the bad/useless ones don't. As they say, "There's nothing new since Mozart." These archetypes wouldn't vanish if I waved a magic wand and nuked every version of every copy of every religious text ever written. So I feel that JBP's point doesn't hold much water.

Sam Harris is using this debate to forward an agenda to promote Islam and Muslims in a negative light .He is coating his agenda by hiding in the cloak of universal dislike of organised religion. He is not having a universal unbiased debate based on looking at human nature in its survival instincts. That is not tring to get to the truth about human life.

Joseph Marsh I don’t think we need them anymore because Disney and Pixar movies

I agree that stories and myths are an immensely valuable part of being human. But it's dangerous to pretend the myth is real, the way religious books and priests do.

Perhaps they don't just provide a subjective meaning, perhaps they are "the" objective meaning, and without that enlightenment, our existence becomes arbitrary as many modern people have decided in their turn away from the moral truth

Would appreciate it if you give examples from this video where Jordon is changing the meaning of nouns to suit his arguements.

Canadian Jew✌️

Kudos to you for treating this with that much seriousness. It shows a real thirst for knowledge

I love the way you said they translate it in layman's terms. I don't think a lot of people realize the big "pretentious" sounding words are a large tool of the landscape in which these topics are discussed and that the translation can be a pain in the ass.

Sam harris here, just wanted to drop by and say Fuck ALL of you and the positivity of this thread. LIFE IS GRIM. Why even small talk and give positive criticism on his positive critique? It achieves nothing more than what was already achieved by the poster. There is no more lemon juice to squeeze out of this already squeezed lemon so quit stopping by to twist it some more. Y'all sound like a bunch of Jordan's. Quit that shit.

Ludus Music Sam Harris here... Id be delighted

Ludus Music love your avi 😂

Sam calls the unknown "not god" is probably more accurate. He doesn't know what it is, only what it's not. Which is not a reasonable argument.

@@fixeddice1982 I almost agreed with you, but I actually remember Sam saying that you cannot disprove the existence of God in the same fashion that you can't disprove the existence of Santa. All he's saying is that there are many other better and more feasible alternatives than god. I think that he would still refer to the unknown as unknown.

Mike Peterson never calls the unknown 'god.' He does not rename the 'unknown' in any way. That which is unknown is unknown. He does say, 'Psychologically, whatever is most important to you is as your god.' Peterson does not define this god, for that's unnecessary for his argument. He's making a psychological point, a fact that many atheists like Sam (who admits to an 'allergy to religion' but doesn't think about it) fail to hear and thus to understand, like Sam.

Mens et Ens True, and important to distinguish. It's not simply "the unknown" that Peterson defines god to be. This is problematic though, and is why Harris rightly objects: "Psychologically, whatever is most important to you is as your god." That's completely subjective and argues within itself for a completely agnostic, secular society. No single "whatever is most important to me" is going to supersede others' definitions of such without causing suffering and hampering others' freedom of speech/belief/happiness etc. Basically, keep it to yourself. Your personal religion is beautiful and useful. The tyranny of religion forcing itself upon others as if it were objective truth is harmful and destructive. Harris rejects that Peterson defends the latter with the former, and Peterson rejects that Harris conflates the two as one entity. They're both right from their own perspectives. Practically, though... heuristics are only useful as long as they bridge our ignorance. We should not use ancient imperfect religious/philosophical placeholders when we have a custom-reality-shaped mold to work with.

INSET HUMANITY _This is problematic though, and is why Harris rightly objects: "Psychologically, whatever is most important to you is as your god."_ Except that it is. Psychologically, what is 'God' but that which one follows, which directs one's life? How can Harris 'object' to that except from the unlistening assumption that 'all that sounds like religion is bad,' which misses Peterson's point? If he objects to the term 'god,' then he cannot hear what Peterson says, for Peterson does not mean what Harris means which is not what most of the Church has meant for most of its history. _We should not use ancient imperfect religious/philosophical placeholders when we have a custom-reality-shaped mold to work with._ Unless the ancient actually is true.

I'm not even sure what point Sam is attempting to make here. that we can derive morals from nihilism/atheism? that abandoning religion is supposed to make it a better world? that his criticisms of religion and its social consequences somehow disprove the existence of god? I mean clearly, atheistic communism is responsible for over 150+ million deaths in a small fragment of the 20th century. clearly, secular governments and motives are responsible for far more deaths and misery in history than primarily religious motives. Sam Harris' arguments work well on the uninformed, they're hypothetical ideas kind of like ideas of Utopia are hypothetical that don't translate into reality. but I can see how mouth foaming clueless atheists support him, they're man-children that haven't cleaned up their room, going after a TJ Kirk template. Sam is a great wizard with words, that makes useless, simplistic and irrelevant analogies to compare against complex problems................

Andrew P -- Outch. Most of the discussion must have gone over your head given what you wrote. "atheistic communism"? YOU have to prove that the absence of a belief in god leads to atrocities. What about "Christian nazism" if we're inventing new terms here...?

PW, communism was derived through atheistic rationale and implemented by power hungry atheists. given that atheists were the minority, that makes the point even more statistically relevant. the larger point is that, if you're going to blame the atrocities committed by people on religion, and argue that religion compels people to do things they would not normally do, then we have no choice but to look at what the so called "non-religious atheists" (including secular governments) are compelled to do. you cannot have the argument one-way only because it suits your particular narrative. sorry about that.

"communism was derived through atheistic rationale" - Please elaborate on that, so I know if you're an intellectually worthwhile discussion partner or a moron.

I'll let Lenin elaborate that for you: " Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.[7]" "Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[8]" and The Soviet Union was an atheist state[11][12][13] in which religion was largely discouraged and at times heavily persecuted.[14] The role of religion in the daily lives of Soviet citizens varied greatly, but two-thirds of the Soviet population were irreligious. About half the people, including members of the ruling Communist Party and high-level government officials, professed atheism. For the majority of Soviet citizens, religion seemed irrelevant. Prior to its collapse in late 1991, official figures on religion in the Soviet Union were not available. State atheism in the Soviet Union was known as gosateizm.[15] I could go on and on and on. if you haven't noticed, this is something called evidence for my argument and none for yours.

The one where it looks like he's wanking an invisible penis in font of his chest doesn't help his argument.

I find them distracting. It’s seems when he feels unsure of what to say his hands start fluttering around to distract from his convoluted words. He needs to download and use the Waking Up app.

@@AAB463 I think he is sometimes intentionally showing visually that he is mentally fumbling, giving the opponent an awareness of the weakness. If not intentional, he has to have recognised it on playback, and be able to recognise it when it happens in realtime. And he keeps doing it.

@@jayvdb It's part of his thinking process, if you watch his lectures you'll see that he does it a lot and that it seems to help him organize his thoughts and/or it organizes how he wants to lay out what he's talking about.

@@jayvdb its not that deep, all types of people talk with their hands and jordan happens to be one of them.

That also includes you now you have put that comment & now me

@@LowieX accurate

Ded

"I feel like this and that" means nothing to me because I don't care how anyone 'feels' about things.

very good funny- but I'm alway aware of my abject stupidity.

ROFL

Haha he’s allergic to straight answers

Exactly 😂

now we just have to show young people how enjoyable it is lol

Put in some earbuds and clean ya room

Maybe Sam can come up with a guide line that can suggest for you what to do best, although I doubt that. So just stick with what you have and make the best of it. ^ debate summary.

Peterson: but what do you mean by watch? Harris: what do you mean by debates?

I have exams in a couple of weeks. I'm gonna fail but at least I'll have gotten through these debates

Did you watch the first debate?

Trey Love I did watch the first. I felt it to be necessary to really get to the meat of the conversation which was in the second night.

problem is they would never get voted becuase people vote for lousy characters much more

Then they wouldn’t be politicians

Funny thing is, I believe him!!

He probably does !! Haha

lol, the funniest thing is that I've seen enough evidence to believe him to be true XD

Yes, the data on that is quite clear

Lmao

@Emmanuel Araujo access without direct payment or services

@@hellomynameissL1m so yore saying there is an indirect way...

It's like reading a book written by both of them. Every other chapter swings to one extreme or the other, until the end of the book where chapters get closer and closer to a point where a conclusion can be drawn

Sam Harris said on Rogans podcast that he hopes that we move toward a Netflix style payment system for content like this. Let’s hope that never happens!

@@Brandon-kl4ns it might not be such a bad thing. Consider UKposts when Netflix became big. Netflix just had more content for payment but UKposts content continued improving. Similarly a paid version of this won't necessarily put this kind of content behind a wall but rather introduce new better paid content.

I know right? Something truly sinister is happening when people this reasonable, compassionate, interesting, and capable of calmly conducted civil discourse, are being threatened and kicked out of universities for doing nothing but speaking openly about issues they and others have with certain ideas. It's no wonder they've gotten as much attention as they have, this could go bat-shit crazy if we're not careful. Peace out brother!

I am no fan of Perterson, but trying to get him kicked out is some serious snowflakery.

@@hhiippiittyy You would think rational students would naturally steer clear of his biased lectures, eh?

@@StaggerLee68 Or just suck them up as part of the academic process. Unless Peterson is involved in legitimate discrimination, his biases are the concern of the employer (university), not the customer (student). It's like trying to get a car salesman fired because he likes corvettes more than trucks. Kinda.

@@hhiippiittyy If he declares to represent the values of his denomination he must do so. Most are rightly concerned about the agenda of this particular gods book and it's doomsday destiny. It is the insistence by Christians in the U.S. that Christianity be mandatory in governance and education. I welcome the concept of religion to be honored in the heart and home but apart from that, like politics, some things are meant to be private. I don't know much as you about your books but I'm pretty sure both god and Jesus stated that you should worship in private, eh? I could very well be wrong but it sounds very reasonable if you are to believe. Cheers.

Love this!!

Only because before it was in books haha, Plato and Aristotle etc But I near totally agree :D

They think that people they disagree with are stupid, which is in my opinion about the ignorant thing you can do. I'd love to see some of these people stuttering their way through a debate.

id also add on that the debate never finished... it should of had another 2 hours

and that is exactly what Jordan was trying to say with the steelman opening statement.

I think you missed the point. Jordan is definitely against the religious points you highlighted. I'd watch more of him if you think otherwise, but consider this: If you remove the radicalisation and misinterpretation of religion and just stuck to the values in the search for the manifestation of truth in the world, in western culture. You will find the bible a library of books at the base of the hierarchy of knowledge and ideas in the world created over time. Something very, very strange about that fact.

Religion =/= God

Well of course, where religions compete with each other there might be conflict. But within the religion it is for the most part safe. The core problem with atheism was that it enabled so much of the millions of deaths in the 20th century. And it was purely rational because those leader (i.e Stalin) were nihilistic. If your worldview is that all life is suffering then is perfectly rational to want to end all life. What will correct for that... science ? more materialism?

precisely correct and a frustrating to see 🙈🙈

um, the religious of the world are responsible for vastly more death. the core problem is with you, not someone who doesn't believe what you choose to believe. @@ed841

Forget being good to each other. Good is still an intangible. Stop contradicting your statements because you end-up sounding like an absolute retard.

What problems???? The answers are very easily found in Gods Holy Word. You don’t have a very bright mind if you don’t trust in that

@@CravenM1980 Humans have pondered their origins for at least as long as drawings were carved and painted into cave walls - generations ago. Isn’t it interesting that human gods came about right around the time we began storying this place to each other? The stories you tell about your god can give picture to some of the unknown but pretending it satisfactorily answers all questions is irrational. Human religion itself becomes very clear and explainable when in the context of being something created by humans. The numerous incarnations of gods exist because humans attempt to give form and meaning to this place and ourselves. It’s beautiful, deeply moving, and one of the most powerful metaphors in human history but it seems it will only ever exist as metaphor.

@@joshuareeves9985 I just love how you use cave paintings to try to explain God away. God is beginning and end. It’s proven through Jesus Christ who did come to this earth. Evolution isn’t fact just fiction. I don’t agree with religion at all. I agree with the Bible that’s it. Science has proven the Bible, history has proven the Bible. Keep trying to explain God out of existence and He will show you His power

@@CravenM1980 I was once where you are. Just as I did, you discount all other human belief. You separate yourself and your god as being an exception to all other human religion. You’re convinced your god is the correct god and somehow above scrutiny. There’s no way it can’t be real, right? It took me years of wrestling through the many questions. I challenged dozens and dozens of critically thinking humans. I was exposed to enough other perspectives and well reasoned minds that I finally, _finally_ accepted that the god indoctrination I grew up with and was sure beyond doubt of, was only part of the picture of this place. It will likely be one of the hardest things you’ll have to work through but I can tell you it’s brought more peace to me than praying to God ever could. I’m now able to admit I don’t know everything. I no longer have to rationalize the ridiculous amount of things the religious rationalize. I’m now connected to my fellow humans in a whole new way. I still find beauty in the imagery and wisdom in the stories but I see it for it is. It’s the picture given to this place by us as we try to figure all this out. It does not answer all questions. It will only ever be as real as we humans say.

@@joshuareeves9985 I’ll certainly pray for you my friend. Your issue is simple. You gave into satans lies and now you’ve turned from the one true God. I can only pray that you find truth in your heart to change. You have clearly explained someone who is completely lost

They're creepy as hell.

@@stewartmoore5158 You can't handle the jazz digits, man. Oh, you're fine with those pop digits; 4/4 time, nice and easy, dee dee dee. But the jazz digits... ....where are they going next? What will they do? Not even the jazz digits know. You fear the crazy jazz digits.

imo they seem kind of pretentious. i like him though.

I thought I was the only one who noticed. They irritate me...

@@KaP0401 micro aggressions 😂😂😂

The question is if Sam Harris doesn’t believe in the objective morality worldview… How can he make objective claims like saying “raping is wrong“ if that’s just HISSS OPINION? Saying “raping is wrong” would just be a subjective statement and could and is not ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVELY true because that’s just Sam Harris’s individual SUBJECTIVE OPINION on what’s he thinks is “wrong” So that begs the question… Why would his human opinion that thinking “raping is wrong” Be “right” and another humans opinion that “raping is good” be deemed as “wrong”??? When that is just that person’s individual subjective opinion???? WHYYY is this humans opinion (Sam Harris) MORE RIGHT than this other humans opinion (Hitler) On what good and evil are??? by what authority??? They are both just humans with no authoritative source above them… who can, by their free will think and believe, and do WHATEVER THEY PLEASE. A human has no say over what another human can or can’t do or what they do is good or evil… IF IT’S JUST THEIR SUBJECTIVE OPINION So if you’re intellectually honest you will conclude that there is now a hole in Sam Harris‘s worldview because if he DOESN’T BELIEVE that God’s opinion on what good and evil are is the objective standard of morality He CAN NOT claim something such as “raping is wrong “ because 1st that’s an objective absolute truth statement, and 2nd The objective world view says “raping is wrong/evil because God deems it wrong“ but Sam Harris doesn’t believe in God??? Soooo if he’s going to be intellectually honest with his worldview; he’s going to have to admit and say what Hitler did was not wrong/evil because that’s just his subjective opinion on what evil and wrong are…..he has no objective standard on which to found and claim that statement and belief on. I just philosophically and logically proved God exists… all glory to the Father in heaven for the wisdom!!!!

@@malachijones705 🤦‍♂️

@@malachijones705you are a sausage mate

@@shoveitindiaz7972 all I got from that statement was… “I’ve read a lot of words, and I couldn’t comprehend them because my intellectual capacity isn’t there yet”

@@malachijones705 all I got from yours is a whole lot of wasted time over analysing, go for a walk or something it’s nice outside

Lmao

I don't get Bethesda reference

@@TheUArabej play Elder Scrolls (especially Skyrim), Fallout, or even DOOM and there are bugs and glitches aplenty. Great games (except Fallout, IMO), but they have their glitches lol.

@@turdfergeson8641 I got what bug and a feature is. Don't get this name though.

Ok this is amazing xD

Brett is a ridiculously intelligent man. The average mediators are journalists, Brett is 25 levels above them when it comes to cognitive ability.

@@jamestodd1104 perfect answer. Brett is utterly brilliant.

The concept of Metaphorical truth is actually coming from Bret Weinstein.

Notice how the decline in social discourse (and arguably also in art, music, fashion, architecture, etc) seems to be strongly correlated to the increase in atheism?

@@rocknrolladube is it strongly correlated or just happening at the same time?

@@stevowilliams8279 You think conservatives (religious people, by and large) know the difference between correlation and causation, or the criteria for evaluating either of those individually in any kind of dataset? Seems improbable, since they're always in these comment sections, (among other places, like the town square) over-reacting to the world around them, failing to understand it, often not even attempting in the first place.

@@genericusername8337 yes i do think some of them do, thats a hell of a claim to make about an entire group of people. I think youll find the cause and effect argument on both sides of humanity.

I felt like there was plenty of interruptions

Yes we are. Whoever is „we”.

I am 😌

Yeah, people only believe the world has become stupid, because they don't actually understand science and statistics. They don't know what things like selection bias or confirmation bias are. There's two main examples of situations where people don't see the selection bias going on, and so they have an inaccurate picture of reality. One of the two, is that people think there's a crime wave going on, because never before has their been this many videos of crimes taking place. The number of videos has skyrocketed, as has the number of reports on news channels about these crimes. When in reality, the crime rate has never been lower. It's never been safer to live in a western country than right now. Crimes of all kinds have fallen in number dramatically, but especially violent crimes. But since everyone has a high quality camera in their pocket at all times now, there's orders and orders of magnitude more videos of crimes taking place than ever before, and so it gives us the impression that there truly is an enormous crime wave occurring, at least to those of us who lived in the time before smartphones and digital cameras existed, and had to get all our news from the TV and newspapers. And yes, the other big example of this misunderstanding of the statistics is when it comes to intelligence and knowledge. There's never been more videos of people being total morons, than there are right now. People take the comedy film Idiocracy seriously and claim that it's really happening in the real world these days, even though Mike Judge I'm sure thinks people are daft for thinking a silly comedy film is some kind of accurate prediction of reality. By every metric we have in science to measure intelligence, the human race has never been smarter and more knowledgeable than right now. We are collectively smarter than humanity has ever been before. And collectively we know more than every before, e.g. literacy rates have never been higher. Every single year we measure it all and humanity gets smarter and smarter each and every year. It's always going up. But there's never been more _VIDEOS_ of idiocy than ever before. There used to be more idiots, many many more idiots than are around these days, it's just there weren't thousands of videos of them being dumb like there is these days. In the past we might have seen videos on the news of people doing dumb things, every so often, but these days we can see videos recorded in every single country in the world within minutes of the video being uploaded, so of course when you take all the idiots from the 7+ billion people on earth, of _COURSE_ it seems like there's way more idiots than ever before. But there's actually far fewer of them than there were before, it's just that in the past, people didn't have their idiocy filmed and broadcast to the whole world instantly like nowadays. And it's never been easier than right now for idiots to group up with fellow idiots and have a protest against vaccines or claim the earth is flat, or something like that. They are in groups that span the globe, almost entirely on online forums, Facebook, reddit, etc. Anti vaxx morons seem to be flooding the world. But it's nothing new. Anti vaxxers have existed since the very beginning of vaccines, people have always misunderstood them and got scared to take them. Right now, we actually have fewer morons than ever before. But the remaining ones have thousands of videos of them being dumb. So it's easy to think the world is going nuts and regressing somehow. But again, by every metric we have to measure intelligence and knowledge, the human race has never been smarter and more knowledgeable than right now People just have to start trusting the science. Not the click bait media, or UKpostsrs without scientific training, or Instagram "influencers" etc. Try to have some hope, for humanity.

Bbgirl you're on social media rn. And It seems most people watch to feel Smart as evident by the Audiences sheep like applause. Also if all the comments about having to look up words every few minutes are true then I'd say I'm a bit more right.

A couple of problems with your optimism. Most people will treat this debate as entertainment, and it will little if any impact on their lives. Applauding these debates and finding them interesting is quite a different thing that putting in the long and difficult work to change and improve. Second, social media and those who support the news (with their attention and reactions) is a sufficient sample size to point to the scary realization that enough people ARE as ignorant and as tribal as either social media or the news would suggest.

I know this comment is a year old, but the “next life” has no bearing on this conversation, which is a conversation on how to make the best of THIS life… the only one we KNOW we have.

This is absolutely absurd where is your evidence for a next life. Which absolutely will not happen btw

wasn't even close. sam just being his usual polite self.

Sam wouldn’t let Jordan speak

Exactly. Jordan is an A class bullshit artist, a weasel.

@nikolai 1939 But it's not what you said, and the rest of us are normal adults, so you must be confused :/

@@Cr0uch1ng71g3r I'll second your notion. Proof of that is how well he gets along with fellow weasel Shapiro

Jordan doesn't care about debate. He cares to tell everyone what he thinks true to better the society.

Yeah because hes already steelmanned the hell out of his ideas and Jordan has already posed to himself the point Sam builds and has worked through why he thinks his idea isnt defeated by this point. Like why resistance to update is actually necessary and seen in darwinian evolution or his relation of sacrifice to delayed gratification

John Zhang Sun tzu?

Proverbs 27:17

It's a friend sharpens a friend

That was a proverb?!, nice.

@@TheClassicWorld You talk alot of shit you don't know

It's distracting and unnecessary.

A crowd full of NPCs

@MNI Andes But then I have to spend 40 hours reading it.

Where are the imojis in this Utoob interface?

The devil is in the details.

Almost certainly not.

That's a hell of an assumption, man!

Bcoz its easy to understand we can conclude sth here: 1. Sam has not done thorough research on what assertions he is trying to make and brought up simple analogy to confuse normal audiences. Note* listener are more likely to be mesmerized by simple ideas because they dont want to listen to complex statement which if taken seriously has deeper meaning. 2. Sam is not focused on understanding Jordan and he is rigidly grounded on his beliefs and inconsiderate of other's belief

@@karmasonam2252 Explain in a simple way does not mean the contents are not based on fundamentals. It means understanding what you're talking about and having the ability to verbalise in an easier way.

@@TheDigiDojo if you could try to connect every assertions Sam made, you would notice that his claims are nothing short of a series of unrelated analogies with simple word play which are quite confusing if integrated and really does contradicts one another. It seems audiences are merely focusing on his individual assertions he made at one go and since it makes sense they believe it to be practical which is not really practical with regards to their core discussion carried out which is why Jordan is trying his best to make Sam come to the convergence of his claim rather than diverging. Believe me I have watched it 4 times now.

​@@karmasonam2252 Spot on, reached the same conclusion as you. It actually took me around 3.5 hours out of this 2-hour video just because it demands an 'average' viewer more time and thinking to process what is being said in order to really understand what is being argumented and where the arguments are not coherent.

I don't think Sam argues that we should dismiss those ancient stories, but that we should throw the divine aspect of them in the trash and accept that they all come from humans.Then there is room for discussion and doubt because people are not subscribed to a dogma. P.S. : Sorry or my english!! I assure you, I'm better at understanding them than speaking and writting them😂😂

Nice post! Can I ask you which person you tend to agree more?

Well said!

ya thats what I got from it as well. Pretty bob on summary.

really well written :) do you have a reddit or something? would follow

But he doesn't, though. I'm by no means a Sam Harris fangirl, I disagree with him on a lot of stuff, including a couple of points he made here, but Jordan's entire premise is fundamentally nuts, and all his fancy talk around definitions and minutia is only there to keep you from taking a good hard look at what he's ultimately trying to defend. Without the fancy terminology and clever tangents, you might notice that. Jordan is basically painting a masterpiece with shit. Impressive brush work. Still stinks.

Austenhead I’ve actually never seen someone say vague nothings while also using the metaphor of a poop painting? I guess you deserve some sort of award for that.

@@cheetahinireland18 i think she herself did the same thing she was complaining about

Austenhead I think that both sides are actually arguing the core source, and JP is trying to identify the black box being a black box, and Sam Harris is trying to say his Black Box is truth. The problem is that they are arguing about something different. JP isn’t crazy at all. He’s debating and trying to get to the bottom of a fundamental issue.

Gourav Thappa except you understand exactly what they’re saying, how are they guilty of Peterson’s rambling while saying nothing.

I don't know why this comment lacks in likes, I think this is the most accurate. Jordan argues that maybe Sam has a point when it comes to evolving out of religion but all Jordan is saying is that we don't know how to do so at the moment and Sam was unable to respond to this argument. I do feel like religion in some sense is limited but its a very powerful force that is undeniably a influence to many people in terms of morality. There both right in there own sense. Although if I were Jordan I would argue that having to compass to life has the risk of nihilism and that could also be damaging.

the Lost Q okay so how then, which is what Jordan is basically saying, do we define what is universally morally good and evil, which is what Sam claimed but is having problem defining. He used as an example if we were to touch fire on a stove we would immediately rationalize not to touch it again because of the pain we felt from touching it. But then that doesn’t explain (this is what I’m not understanding from Harris view) why raping a child bad? Why incest is wrong? What makes a murderer who kills children wrong and so on? We can’t only depend on only our feelings or rationality to decide these things because the one’s who are doing all these things have rationalize in their minds that these things are all okay to put it in simplistic terms and get pleasure out of doing these atrocious acts. Sam is blaming religion and Jordan is saying along the lines that no and not denying that some religions do have bad ethics but that this stuff that evil people do have been happening long before religion came since he believes in evolution. The questions is how then do we define what is morally right or wrong and that’s where things get complicated...