We gave away 8000 meals this Christmas 😊 Here is the video ukposts.info/have/v-deo/r5RihaxueLCmo6s.htmlsi=VBwdhN2tbt-DSQvw

As a semi truck driver these talks make my 16hr day effortless

The winner is anyone who came away from the discussion having sharpened their thinking.

I wanted to watch this, but first I had to define what I meant by 'Watch' in a post visual hypothetical society. Once I had redefined the word to a point that I could recognise it's value in what was now a quasi religious experience, I discovered that I had rendered language devoid of any real meaning, and had to imagine what was said through a veil of treaties from modernistic idealogues of an imagined apocalypse.

Clarity is key to communication, a smart person knows that.

After carefully analysing both perspectives and most of the axioms upon which the ramifications of their arguments were constructed, I can accurately conclude that they were trying to call each other gay.

Imagine presidential candidates having debates on complex topics like this.

I so appreciate this conversation. I hear respectful listening and thoughtful response. What a concept! Thanks to whoever convened this and double thanks to whoever posted it.

Its awesome listening to 2 people that have vastly different opinions, even take little shots at eachother, but at the end of the day respect each other and their view. Refreshing to see ❤

When you're out with the boys and someone mentions the Bible

I had to rewatch this series of debates and listen to Peterson's lectures on Maps and Meaning and his biblical series before I could even attempt to comment, but here goes: I think the main point that Peterson was trying to convey to Harris was that religion appears to have developed organically over the course of human history as a way to preserve and communicate abstract ideas and concepts that can reduce suffering and promote success in life in those who act them out. He tends to define these ideas and concepts as values (e.g. fairplay, honesty, etc), which we use in our daily lives as a moral compass for our actions. As a personal example, I train jiu jitsu every morning at 6 AM because I value physical fitness, fairplay, and strategy, which I hope will ultimately help me in my endeavor to live a meaningful life. The act of doing something we value is in Peterson's definition, religious. Therefore, he assets that even atheists tend to live a religious life because they act on values that they hold dear to their person. Harris seems to assert that we as humans, have the ability to extract the same values that Peterson defined without the need for interpretation of the stories in religious texts like the bible. On top of that, he cites that dogmatic and literal interpretation of some stories has shown to be disastrous throughout history-responsible for war and death. There are plenty of examples such as the Inquisition, the anabaptist revolt in Muenster, the Buddhist/Hindu civil war in Sri Lanka, and ISIS. Therefore, I believe Harris concludes that if we can assume that humans can synthesize the "good" values in life without the need for religion, we should- the risk is otherwise too great. Peterson's counter claim is that it is likely impossible for humans to be able to do away with religion and synthesize our own values. He's cited Nietzsche and post modernists like Derrida or Foucault often, claiming that social systems such as communism fail to address human impulsive tendencies and propensities for evil, which are not values, per se, but are addressed as vital and fundamental parts of most ( I say most because I'm not qualified to assert all) of the world's religions. Therefore, Peterson concludes that there remains significant value in respecting and acting out religious logos because they also help to recognize and reduce acts of malice. So they're talking past each other, in some sense. I think the real question is: Assuming Peterson and Harris are correct, how can we implement religions without devolving into literal interpretations? I think they found the answer when they agreed to it at the beginning- free and frank speech. I wonder if anyone will read this....

Twenty minutes in and I already love this....oh my goodnes, I have found a true treasure!

Jordan had Sam on the ropes when he said he was doing his mom. But that comeback with "my dad can beat up your dad!" from Sam was S tier.

The winner in this debate is every viewer who learned something from both parties.

I always wondered what English sounds like to non-English speakers, so I just watched this video.

Pangburn always puts together the best debates. Im so tired of the opening statement, rebuttal form of debate and this is so much more interesting

I loved this. Thank you so much for making it available to me. I love Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. I especially love that you’ve made this available for me to learn from and grasp new ideas and perspectives to work through my life with. Thank you. And thank you for freedom of speech so I could have access to this.

Ben stiller really evolved into a well read intellectual.

I think the tendency to pick sides between these two is a mistake. Harris is correct that religious fundamentalism carries the potential for serious danger and must be kept in check. Peterson is right that pure, unadulterated logic is not a sufficient ground for establishing universal ethics. The proper takeaway isn't to choose a side here, in my opinion. The proper takeaway is to be grateful that these two men are able to discuss these things in a rational, intelligent manner and that we are all lucky enough to learn from it. The world needs both of these men.

I miss this Sam, what a legend!

This is how we should have a discussion or debate. People on the opposite sides should learn more about each other.

You know the moderator is good when you forget that he's there

I don't like it when the audience mistakes an intellectual discussion with a rap battle.

Idk why but I found Sam to be especially hilarious in this one. 😂

"We don't want anyone else to record this and post it on UKposts because we plan on playing ads on our video every three minutes, mid-sentence or not, and we don't want viewers to be able to go anywhere else to see this discussion."

I’m blown away that we can watch this for free..

One of the few talks where the moderator is as intelligent as the interviewees and where he is truly able to summarize the positions of both in a common context. Compliments!

Both of these guys are great. I appreciate both. Having followed the four horsemen for years and being a fanboy of Christopher Hitchens, Sam cut his teeth with that great man albeit no one will ever hold a candle to Hitch. Jordan Petersons invocation of religion to explain his points were lost on me and were jarring due to being an atheist, but I am starting to understand that he more sees it as a framework from which truths and values can be arrived at. From this point of view I am starting to appreciate the view point. From a growth mindset point of view, I absolutely love JPs work. I think you all need to check your biases and understand they are both explaining worthwhile content and both can in many ways be true at the same time. Listen.

Sam Harris is so effective that he even inspires Jordan Peterson sufficiently that he starts to become comprehensible.

Everybody gangsta till Jordan Peeterson starts holding an invisible egg.

conversation does not require applause

Sam: made a good point Jordan: i agree with you, but... Sam: made a good point Jordan: i agree with you, but... Jordan's urge to make everything more complicated than it is, is an attrition tactic on his part.

If Jordan were applying his religious method as an astrophysicist, his method for discovering time travel would be to start by saying time travel is real, and then working his way backward through fictional texts to it's discovery

Whoever put this together, recorded it and released it... helped more people than they realize.

and you thought you were having deep, well articulated conversations with your friends, drunk at 5am

I can watch this 100 times

Gosh, we are so lucky to live in an age where we can access stuff like this so easily.

Weinsteins instinct to spot logical inconsistencies is really useful here.

Having enough knowledge to sustain a debate like this for hours on end must be an intellectual goal of life. There are a very few select number of people alive who can do it. By 'it' i mean debating on philosophically deep ideologies and notions. Here i am, on my bed, trying to write this comment with as much literary flair as possible, waiting for my noodles to cook.

As great as the debate was, Bret was a greater moderator

I do love the conversation. I do wish our politicians would discuss issues this deeply and thoughtfully.

The interviewer was asking the right questions at the right moments, i enjoyed his eloquence

I've never watched a debate between two intellectuals and thought...Thank god the moderator is here to provide an interpretation.

Jordan explained very well how god selects which sports team will win the league, and Sam explained very well that one sports team will win the league whether god exists or not

Best discussion I’ve heard. Loved the moderator, I didn’t know about him before. Absolutely loved and agree w Sam and I’m glad to see Jordan being more clear than ever maybe. Thank you for a great experience ❤😊

The audience made it sound like a damn sitcom

Brett: "You've got two minutes." Jordan: "Well it depends on what you mean by minutes."

A wonderful demonstration of the art of conversation that is so rare between differing points of view.

“Worrying about the fact that their child is gay, and that the creator of the universe doesn’t approve of that” That’s one helluva line 👏🏻

never have i seen a moderator grab our attention so much while just doing his job. that man is a legend.

I think Ben Stiller made some good points.

Jordan Peterson is delightful and his style of debate is playful and not too serious. He gave Sam credit where credit was due and agreed when appropriate. He's a gentleman debater, nice bow to Sam Harris to end the debate. Thoroughly enjoyed this.

What an opening! Like Rockstars 😊

JP: "What's all the applause about?!" Crowd: *Applause*

Other than how phenomenal this discourse is, it's so nice to see intellectual, even-tempered people in the comments. It's a very rare thing on the internet.

I think I’m starting to comprehend more deeply the idea that “God made us into his own image” much more of a self defining roadmap to eliminating/diminishing personal suffering. Sam seems to accept there’s perfectly logical psychological truths in the text but also argues that the roads in which the texts are paved on manifest malevolence, which is also true. Jordan’s literary background, as well as psychological background, make for this discussion with Sam so fruitful.

THIS is what an honest discussion looks like. Nobody falling back on bad faith arguments or trying to smear the other persons character. Honesty, integrity, compassion and respect.

This debate should have been held now, with covid-19 restrictions taking the audience away...

I realized that I've never really had a conversation.

Thank you two Gentlemen for the thought-provoking discussion. The difference between Mr. Peterson and Mr. Harris is: I like how Mr. Peterson says things, and I like Mr. Harris for what he has to say.

The amount of applause after almost every statement really takes away from the discussion.

This is "so what you're saying" done right. Not used to attack but used to understand the position of the person you are having a conversation with.

This kind of debate only happens when both parties have the skill and intellect to debate and present ideas clearly and with respect. Too many times one side doesnt have the required skill or persuasiveness and often resorts to repeating the same argument or insulting the other side. Sam and Jordan are modern day titans, a joy to watch

I love this. If only more people engaged in this type of discourse…

I learned like 10 new words listening to this

the fact that i'm not a native speaker of english but yet able to enjoy this conversation. learning the language is one of the best things I've ever done in my life.

Huge fan of Sam Harris ❤ But could you imagine Christopher Hitchens va Jordan Peterson or Christopher Hitchens vs Ben Shapiro. Christopher would have the audience laughing their butts off the whole time 😂

it's crazy how much I love the type of communication sam and jordan manage to achieve.. so much understanding of the other, respectful teasing, the ability to go in and out of various types of metaphors / wordings.. the *best*

The most constructive moderator I've ever seen; Without him, everybody including the debate parties would have been lost within the first 30 minutes.

I enjoyed hearing both Harris' and Peterson's points of view. But I was really impressed with Brett Weinstein's ability as a moderator here.

As a teacher, a father and a theologian fascinated by humanities phycological desire for theology and also humanities desire to move beyond theology and God. I thank Jordan and Sam for celebrating the power of 'the dialectic'. This is a celebration of what we are capable off, what we should strive towards, respectful discorce, respectful argument and the desire to gracefully move forward rational debate and provide our children the ability it find there voice and start there journey towards there own debate, there own 'dialectal' journey.

No matter what your beliefs are, and who you support; we all are (if good faith and honesty mean something) capable to recognize that they are both prime examples of respectful, heartfelt and honest intellectuals.

These sorts of discussions are so profound, that I can happily blame my procrastination on them

The fact that a video like this has 3.1 million views (July 2020), actually makes me very happy and hopeful about today’s modern society and admiration for genuine hunger towards truth.

Jordan has a slight amount of "angst" when the crowd admonishes Sam's points while Sam does not react to Jordans admonishment.

The moderator is amazing. After one hour of back and forth discussion he just steps in and in 5 minutes makes everyone agree.

How dare they hold these philosophical discussions without Kanye.

loved this discussion. I think I am more of a Spiritual believer than focused on God although I have often been on my knees praying to a Higher Being many times. It's hard to defend the Bible. However I look at society and we cant agree on so many issues. I think it's a good thing or at least beneficial to hold oneself accountable to a higher being or maybe some would call it a conscience.

Jordan spent three minutes describing steelmanning. He could have also called it Augustinian argument. The reference he made was typically an over-complication of a simple idea.

It doesn’t matter “who won” what matters is that these topics are being conversed in a healthy, mature and intellectual way like so.

Sam harris: Own it Audience: Claps Jordan Peterson: Why are you clapping Audience: *Claps*

There are simple truths, unfortunately when they are over complicated, everything becomes complicated!

This is the greatest discussion I’ve ever heard.

Man this is the first time I saw JP actually getting excited talking to someone and challenged! Love to see

I spilled alfredo sauce on my shirt while watching this. I’ve never felt more stupid than in that precise moment.

Wow. That introduction. It tells us exactly what this is about.

These are so brilliant man

This is fantastic. We are so lucky to be able to hear this type of higher level thinking discussed openly an made available on UKposts. Long live long form dialogue via Podcasts, UKposts, etc. The death of biased CNN and FoxNews is near and we will all become smarter as a result.

a two hour lecture/discussion between top scholars with over 2million views. that's wonderful! we're not all lost after all

Imagine being a sound engineer at an event only requires 3 microphones... and screwing it up! 😳

It's obvious these are two men who LOVE to hear the sound of their own voice. Not caring much for this format, thought there was something wonky going on with the speaking times and went back and watched a second time (which made me question my sanity by the end). Peterson interrupted Seder's speaking time quite nearly every single time, thus managing to consume a full 75%+ of the total time. There should have been a 5 minute buzzer for each speaker and no interruptions allowed.

These guys must've burned many calories by thinking so deeply and articulating their (very complex) thoughts so eloquently. Truly amazing..

my brain feels like it's benching 350 watching these two dig into it. so thankful for all of this.

2:05:15 First time in about a decade of study that I have heard someone accurately explain the intuitive essence of existence properly

Bro they need a whole weekend of debate/ discussion to fully understand each other on every point

I don’t like the applause. I just want to listen to these men have an intelligent conversation.

I really hate this format of debate with cheering crowd like it’s a sporting event

I think it says something profound about the quality of all involved here when you hear such applause when they establish points of agreement.

Their conflict could've easily been mended: Sam was fundamentally saying that people blindly believing their own interpretation of religious dogmas is not a good thing. Jordan felt as though Sam thus did not attribute any deeper meaning to the scriptures as a whole, and started defending their perhaps deeper psychological significance. Which Sam, as stated by them in the argument, also subscribes to. So they really didn't have conflicting ideas, they we're simply discussing the idea within different contexts. Jordan choosing the context of psychological significance and Sam choosing the context of unavoidable mass-misinterpretation.

these are the kind of conversations me and my friends would have in high school when we would get high and go to Denny's, except we thought we were much smarter then we really we're