ComplexPlane This comment deserves more love

its called a "postural echo"......

This comment tugs at the innards of my soul...

Hahahahaha that’s insane

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”

true 😍🤩:(

Me too... i need new friends..

People have to be ready for these types of convos. That's gonna be a birthday that's light on people.

@@bibaolaitan5189 I need "a" friend at all 😂

@@hanskraut2018 don't feel bad. I have like just 2 friends.

Why "behind and in front of debates???

It is being called a discussion not a debate, but it is pretty much a debate.

Me too. I need Sam to calm me down.

Addictive

Why did they say the same sentences they said in the past debate almost verbatim? Like they were reading a script?

Lucky

I wish I would meet someone that would love to attend these kinda events

Oh. Ao it was your wife who stripped later on stage P

How much did the event cost

Me a guy who jerks off with his feet: hey I like your comment.

Ah yes, a fellow viewer of the acclaimed Adult Swim television program "Richard and Mortimer"

This is funnier than will ever be appreciated. @@2FadeMusic

Who's Harrison?

Joe Coyle I’m curious, what does he mean

Andy Robertson meaning is everything.

Lol. And thats why Jordan wins

@@Noname-lk2ol It depends what on what you mean by "wins"

Ludus Music try to live your life without meaning. And if you haven’t found meaning or if you don’t know what it is...I wouldn’t question what it is. It’s too much of a question for you. I also wouldn’t make fun of modern day philosophers. It doesn’t help you in any way. At all. And it shows too much of your level cap for intelligence.

@@nicholasnajibi3082 "Making fun of Jordan Peterson makes you stupid" - Completely unbiased youtube commenter who is clearly eons ahead of the rest of us in terms of intelligence

🫥

🎉

Second time✋

Oh yeah, this is my 4th time relistening to every session 😅

🫡

Sam is a puke. Jordan is a great guy.

@@quickplaya fanboy

harris is hilarious

I agree.

Nothing he said was funny, he’s just trying to win the crowd and make himself seem smart. He’s hardly explained any of his ideas in my opinion he just sounds like another butt hurt atheist. I don’t think he’s as well versed in religion as he acts.

Are you hypocrite?

Not that hard for me to decide which side wins. Harris dominates in every aspect.

This is really fascinating because they both make solid points. The irony is that they don't necessarily conflict as much as the fanboys think they do

Wes Guill I mean I don’t hate either side but only one can be right.

Zachary Dickey that’s not really the case. Both sides have been right and wrong about different things throughout all three phases of this discussion, dating back to Vancouver.

It's a damn shame they dismissed the position of moderator. Perhaps this is enacting the archetype of schizophrenia, and Weinstein or another needs to be reappointed as Sherif, or corpus callosum, or "mere moderator"

...while your corpus callosum keeps a foot in both camps.

Mattie147 good one 😂😂😂

Eusebius Thunked 😂

Mattie147 Well said!

For someone whose career is platformed by being a postmodern critic, his language is just as, if not more, ambiguous, verbose, and frankly exhausting with that of a postmodernist.

@@schvyleryep.

Everyone has probably said that same thing throughout human history post language.

@@dallasonfire604 Or not.

dallasonfire604 well I doubt there were UKposts audience sized masses gathered at the library to read Plato or Aristotle’s texts all at once, the internet and its ability to convey information is unmatched

That tech will likely bring down humanity through the sheer amount of BS it can spread

I was just thinking the same thing. This is more valuable than gold and it is free!

John Dunlap dude, right? And it’s not even like a wannabe case here that people steelman these people to have been doing, it’s an actual productive and meaningful use of the words that we can see with these people. Both of them.

It‘s beautiful though that you can learn new words through these discussions in a very accessible way, because it‘s very contextual.

Revelatory? Got me to dude

Yeah man using multi window on mobile with a dictionary in the other

You are probably in the top 1% of the population

@@charlesgill1177 Isn’t it Douglas who asks them both and they both fail?

Ha not according to my earlier comment I guess! Need to rewatch these, they’re so brilliant.

Steel Manning in a meaningful and effective manner takes a great deal of honesty with both people in the discussion. Jordan is a stark example of its failure. He steel man’s the exact same way that he engages in debate with. He meticulously picks and chooses words that muddle and distort the other persons meat and potato argument, and even redefining terminology of words that are universally understood to mean something different that what he proposes. A person with a good argument doesn’t and shouldn’t have to do this. I love how this issue was passively brought up directly after Peterson’s opening steel man with Murray introducing the concept of “Jesus smuggling”, which Peterson just finished doing. It would have been wonderful of Murray to have then brought up the concept of linguistic gerrymandering. I swear to GOD, everything that comes out of Peterson’s mouth in areas of religion, economics, and politics would be completely obliterated if somebody were to take a solid 10 minutes explaining why it’s wrong, dishonest, arrogant, and unproductive to define important words in a way that you like, because it helps your argument…. Like WOW, YEAH, OF COURSE your argument will be made more feasible if you’re given license to lie and make words mean whatever the hell you want to. It speaks volumes to the intellectual illiteracy of our generation that so many young people look to this man as some sort of thought leader, or as somebody who has cracked some ancient code that makes their archaic religious beliefs hold sway in the face of modern science and rationality. God help us fam😬😬

It's weird that you make that complaint because Peterson steelmans Harris on night 2 of the Vancouver discussion, part of the exercise for both interlocutors was doing so to the satisfaction of the other party, and he does so successfully.

thanks I need that quote

True beauty.

Absolutely beautiful wisdom.

rhetoric and certainly not poetry

@@stegemme Your opinion.

But without actually answering the question

too bad he can't actually back them up

Haha by changing the subject?

I can understand everything sam says but it's not the case with JP. JP unnecessarily make things complicated.

​@@andrewjordan2511 Well that's JP for me. Goes round and round and never gives any concrete idea.

@piip: LOL! Because being a genius and reading books are mutually exclusive...smh Well, we know with certainty that *you* are no genius.

@NRM no, he isn't a genius He just seems like one to weak children and some undergrads who need a good grade.

ObscurityIsBest They do not need to be mutually exclusive, they only need be not equivalent.

Well it depends on what you mean by nice, and what you mean by good

@NRM lol Peterson a genius??? ROFLMAO!

*Ba-bow*

you win.

The Tube it depends precisely what theoretical boundaries you are accepting as the definitive parameters of the term “chair”. It’s like., do you mean the apparent physical structure of the chair? Or are you adding in the supposition that gravity and its effect as relates to your own weight and body composition as it engages with the structure ?” You see., we need to understand the terms we are using before we can arrive at any logical conclusion or agreement...,

AHAHHAHA

Chris Clark Its like ..what is aquard ? If you typed anywhere close to the correct spelling your auto correct should have worked?

Hope you are doing well now, and enjoying your life, Farbod :)

@@AdA-kx5ig Ooooh, fuck you! :)

​@@AdA-kx5ig What is this? Autism? Dementia? A perfect combination of pitifulness and lack of intelligence?

Alejandro Daniel Acuña breath in and breath out bro

@@nathanielace7534 i knok u ou boya sit down foo. Try me. Where u at.

@Francisco NievesI was actually just expressing my gratitude. I think maybe the real difference is that you don't have anything better to do than go online and troll others people's comments. Why spread the hate? You're better than that. You really are. Go read a book or do something productive. Try to think positive thoughts towards others. It might change your perspective. You can do it. I believe in you.

Paul Steer you’re such a discoverer, you’re making us all proud. Sincerely yours, troll.

@Chris Clark himself obviously hes a richer person but nobody wise but person wise

I'm the same poor, however much wiser.

@@josem.sanchez6452 lol

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”

May you are not so atheist in the end? )

@@Artistofun Agnostic

Youre not atheist

@@jom9320 yep

Same here, if you agree with me religion can be one of the tools that can connect facts with rationally even tho many outcomes can be irrational. Just like instincts can be both rational and irrational. I can say the same with the new religion of manifestation(placebo effect) and also zodiac signs. Etc There are many tolls and we shouldn’t just fall on one because many people need different tools to aim towards a future instead of being stuck like the movie version of being omish

God knows they don’t spend it on sound quality

@Iblis Shaitan I wonder how that became a positive expression, overtime

MTV | Politics | Pied Piper | Battle for hearts & minds ..Ω. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/knR9qnqhZJ-Fy30.html

@Iblis König what kind of chairs? Where can I get similar?

@@yerhing6406 sounds very good to me

It would include 700.000 words :D

“It would take me 50 hours to write that review” -Jordan Peterson prob

"Sam does not contend seriously or deeply enough with the human condition." - Jordan Peterson in a much more gracious way

Yes! :)

Set your own moral standards so they can propagate that's how change begins . God is not dead!

We could also ask what motivates people to be politicians or thinkers.

Traversy Media That is, of course, a good question. The answer probably isn't as easy as we'd like it to be, for people in groups encourage each other to act instead of think, short-circuiting the process the Enlightenment held up as the Rational Way, so to speak, and the Founders built into our republic. We had better candidates in the last campaign, but somehow the voters of New Hampshire decided on a pair of lesser stars who then had the stage, and the media did the rest. In a representative democracy, we get the leaders we vote for. Even if we wake up the next day, hold our head and ask, 'What did I do?' we still do it because we felt like it. A democracy requires a rational, educated citizenry. We don't always act like it, however, so we get the leaders we have. Before the draft in World War 2, Marines --- a volunteer force -- could always quiet a complainer with, 'Shut up. You asked for it!' We are not drafted into voting for a candidate, so 'We asked for it,' I'm afraid.

That's answerable by Peterson's thesis: stupid people (majority) prefer/need stupid things (religion/Trump/Clinton) to lead them.

@@waranghira Perhaps you could make your statement a bit more nuanced? I don't think that 'the majority' are 'stupid,' it's just that we think we have goals, but generally our goals are just wrong. we are too short-sighted, too impatient. The left has told us for decades that all is political and all politics is power. The result of this relentless teaching is what we see, and more politics won't cure it any more than the hair of the dog cures a hangover or rabies. Politics is a means to an end, not the end itself. The preambles to the Declaration of Independence and to the Constitution tell what our goals were and still ought to be, and Washington's Farewell Address warned us of the dangers of political parties. We no longer think about any of those. We're not stupid. We simply are not thinking. That's why we such things as 'stupid people need...' That's not an answer, it's just a gripe, and gripes get us nowhere.

Because people like this don't run for politics - and even if they did, their views are so polarising, that the question could be asked - would the be electable? I think it takes a certain kind of person to run for politics. It's a terrible job - who would want it? You're monitored 24 hours a day (like the Truman Show) and everything that you say and do, is recorded and spliced together in a way to serve someone else's agenda. Really, really good leaders, are few and far between. It's the same in the corporate world as it is in politics. There's a small set of candidates to choose from to begin with. Given the polarisation of the media and given the disregard with which most people show towards the running of our countries, it's unsurprising to me that we end up with the leaders that we do. Ultimately, it's our fault that we have the leaders that we do. We don't demand more from them, we don't hold them to the same standards on both sides of politics, we lap up the crap that the MSM feeds us (by "we" and "us" I mean the public in general) and in the end, we vote for the person that our ideology tells us to. Some of us have thought about that decision and given it the gravity that it deserves - many have not. Many donkey-vote, vote to make a point, protest vote, or simply don't vote at all. Things will only change when our culture says - no, we aren't doing this anymore.

I'm surprised. I'd have thought such a venerable philosophy would want to prove what's best, rather than what's wrong (worst)

@therainman777 well, yes, that's the scientific method, in part :-) I would prefer that in a dialogue between two authentic thinkers, the aim would be to combine with a positive outcome, a synergy of thought and spirit. I don't want to make a sceptic wrong for believeing that homoeopathy is bogus, for example. I want to be able to share my view, that homoeopathy can be scientifically beneficial - by considering the virtues of the placebo effect. There are bogus elements to H, and there are real elements. That sort of thing. Apply the same technique to whether religion is good or bad, or democracy, and so on.

@therainman777 agreed 100% :-) I would add that if I were right that H was effective in a significant number of cases due to the Placebo effect, then the question becomes: " how can a member of the public avail him/herself of this benefit?" Some GPs can deliver the placebo effect for sure, but it's highly idiosyncratic. Whereas if you want to be reasonably certain, then go to a homoeopath and ignore his rationale, unless it helps :-) ( I can imagine some patients might be awed by the bible-thumping).

@therainman777 of course :-) but where would I find a practitioner that listens to my woes and dispenses this pill? My GP cannot do that. Nor can my Pharmacy AFAIK. The Placebo Effect requires that the patient has some level of belief. THBS, even when patients are told that the pill is made of sugar and nothing else, there is still a measurable effect, provided they are also told that this (unmasked) pill has had a positive effet on other patients.. Wierd stuff, huh?

@therainman777 ''That Having Been Said'

these audiences that irk us so are the gatherings bringing these great minds together. You take them out and their irritating clapping and you have no meeting and no debate to watch on UKposts when you should be working.

@@chrisv.noire.6388 Perfect answer, thank you.

👏👏👏👏 Oh wait....

Yep, it's the equivalent to something false garnering tons of upvotes on Reddit.

I don't know if they instructed the audience to hold their applause until the end, but if they didn't then they should've.

Yeah in the vancouver events Harris called the audience out for applauding when Peterson didn't even make much of a point. They clap based on inflection and who they're a fan of. I'm a bigger Harris fan, but even the live events that don't have as much of a competitive feel as the Harris/Peterson ones have so much inane applause about inconsequential points.

Mutantcy1992 seems a lot is going right over your head. You'll catch up.

Yes yes yes ..jeez with the preteen fanboying ..on another note these would have been unbearable and unfocused without Harris ..I believe in Jesus btw

Lol perfect

I knoow riiight 😂😂😂 good one

BC*

@@zzzzz77771 BCE is fine it means before common era

@@zzzzz77771 no

no we don't dickhead because they're not actually saying anything.

SpaceOrbison Dickhead? Grow up you loser! You hide behind a keyboard, you probably don’t have the balls to say that to people’s face.

@@spaceorbison. Another dipshit that doesn't understand words and will not find out!

We need more comments like this.

Sam is pretty brilliant, I'd probably let Jordan carry that crown too. But Douglas isn't brilliant lol stop being so easily impressed.

Please just stop.

This was copied and pasted from the first Harris-peterson video

the thread on the original comment was quite brilliant. they captured both sams and jordans dialectic idiosyncricies quite perfectly. this is just wishful thinking. lightning rarely strikes the same place twice.

Haha brilliant

😂

What he means is that for Jordan P and his supporters, they carry the spirit of Nazism and its evils within themselves. They want the jack boots and swastikas, but they haven't figured out the modern equivalents of burning Reichstags and Beer Hall Putsches sufficient to take the power they feel in their narcissism they deserve.

marsjacobvolta Hahahhah🤣😂 You are right. It’s interesting how people can be so full of themselves. The Me Me movement.

@@pallchin what on earth are you on about? Fascism is clearly only demonstrable through Nazism, yes. Because nothing else akin to totalitarianism can be seen in history. Left wing or liberal politicians are inherently good of course. The Clintons for example, such symbols of goodness.

Phillip neither can Liberalism. I think the Alt left has proved they are just as capable of facism as the alt right. This is why we have a system of checks and balances. You were supposed to have grasped this concept in High School..

@@immortalmusic88 Bring back Monarchies, Democracy divides by definition.

How

I think that putting onto vvords that God might or might not exist in those exact vvords might have helped.

I am officially jealous. Would love to see these great minds in real life, as such.

@@kimburgess2897 it was as amazing as you would imagine it to be Kim. I was buzzing for days afterwards. I have pics with Sam and Jordan.

Sam is one of the few public debaters to have over 20 years of mindfulness meditation experience, and he's also very actively involved in that community. There are a few other, lesser known public speakers with similar experience, and they all exhibit similar levels of composure during extended discussions.

This comment is beautiful. Thank you.

Yes, although I think part of the reason Sam is so zen is because he has decades if experience of meditation and is in a kind if perpetually mindful state

Wow! Love this comment!

@Vampiresoap I disagree. Peterson has always been very animated with his body language even in his college lectures.

What happens after you die is not a joke.

@@fordhamdonnington2738 Yeah, the underworld is not a joke. Hades will judge you there.

@@fordhamdonnington2738 Many things still happen after you die. Some of them are jokes. Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is.

@@seanbirch9663 I’m sorry too

@@fordhamdonnington2738 well, thanks for not clearing it up. I guess it's not important

He is actually.

That’s how intelectual act out

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”

get his meditation app! its helped with my anxiety so much. if you cant afford it you can email them and get a year free btw

Yes that's essentially how it's supposed to work once you've been meditating long enough

Sam Harris is the only one with any sense on that stage.

Yes ,Peterson just argues, what is bad define bad,who is defining bad. Etc....

@@frankmaitland2569 It's a discussion not an agreement

He looks nervous af

@@TheOlzee and you wouldn't be?

When i read this laughed as i immediately pictured a self entitled brat

There are infinite degrees to volume and all are valid, at least that's what I assume the sound guy believes.

Sounds more like they hired a pre-modernist..

good one 😂😂

MTV | Politics | Pied Piper | Battle for hearts & minds ..Ω. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/knR9qnqhZJ-Fy30.html

Some meal must have been

Sam: Is your steak good? Jordan: It would take me 40 hours to answer that question. Sam: ... check, please.

😂😂😂

Is that all you could come up with? Wow...Congratulations?

I love it when these two get together . They both are amazing.

Zachary James Short Canadians built the Canadarm that’s in the shuttles building the space station. Don’t mess with Canadian arms...you will lose!

Actually, has Peterson ever said what his view of homosexual relationships are?

“Well that depends on what you mean by assault, this is a very complex issue”

2020 has joined the chat

@@frankjeager9043 lol

Do you still have faith?

Jonathan Martin what does that metaphor mean? "Social-leaders grinding their axes". I've never heard that before.

Your assessment is dead on! 👍👍👍 I think Peterson is truly trying so hard to explore a layer deeper than what most of people can understand, which is why he gets mocked all the time and Harrison is so popular.

JevvoBruv No that’s not fair... well maybe you’re just a troll

JevvoBruv just listen from 1:09:33 to 1:14:08 and tell me what’s woo about it

Peterson reads deeply into everything, and examining the roots of religion in such way is extraordinary.. on the other hand, Harris thinks that religions are mostly a sum of bad dellusional ideas that we need to grow out of.. they both give strong arguments though, i respect them both very much

Maps of meaning is 26 hours of lecture alone. I would take a month.

@@merlin4real more like 30

Donald Trump uses the same words over and over. So does Peterson. The only difference between Trump and Peterson is the number of words they use over and over and over and over. But in the end, they both speak gobblygoop.

@@janglandis773 the fact that you even compared the two just tells everyone how little effort you have put into trying to understand that Peterson has been saying or even what Harris and Peterson has been discussing. Even Harris himself doesn't take that stance even the slightest, that's how much he actually respects and understands Peterson's point of view despite disagreeing with him and vise versa. Don't stay ignorant for too long.

​@@janglandis773 That is extremely dismissive. Sure, there are overarching concepts which Peterson refers to often. But just because you don't understand these concepts doesn't make it all "gobblypoop". Jordan Peterson is very admirative of Carl Jung, and his archetypes. I have a similar level of admiration for Jung. And so Dr. Peterson will often refer to these archetypes. And an archetype, in short, is "the ideal version of that specific concept". And by "ideal", we don't mean morally good. Rather, it's the best version of that. For example, hell is the best version of what the worst experience imaginable can be. Therefore, hell is the archetype of the worst experience. When he says "something approximating heaven", he means something like the best possible experience. When you understand that his speech is about archetypal representations of reality and potentiality, you understand that he doesn't speak purely from a religiously fundamentalist standpoint, but rather a representational point of view. If you think about what he speaks for longer than what you would think of Trump, you would see value in what he says. Now he uses complicated words, which in a sense makes it easier to dismiss his words as "gobblypoop". But non-understanding doesn't warrant dismission. It just warrants further attention and learning.

Chance of the gaps worshiping religion of atheism has all the magical unicorn powers necessary to create a universe, galaxies, planets, stars, self-replication, ribosomes, eyes, ears, brains, intelligence and consciousness. You better believe it, else you’re just a “dumb religious person”.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,.,

you are reasoning with inductive logic instead of deductive logic, without realizing it(i assume), that's why people might call you "dumb". And they MIGHT be right.

Jordan Flower - It sounds as though there wasn't an actual sound engineer involved.

because it's very important.

"Chance of the gaps" A P. LOL. What a silly crock of old bollocks. Who did you hear that from, Hovind or some other idiotic apologist? Not to mention you are attempting to straw man atheists, as if to bring them down to your level, as you appear to imagine it. It is a complete misinterpretation, a rather dishonest one. You do realise you are essentially attempting, rather clumsily, to argue a classic argument from incredulity. All the things you mention are natural occurrences, that we have either a reasonable understanding of, or a quite incredible understanding of. Sadly you may not yourself be aware of it. They are all however demonstrable and many are actual observations. We only have ever had examples of or evidence of, or been demonstrable of natural phenomena. We have zero evidence of or examples of anything NON natural. It is YOU if asserting the supernatural who are attempting to use an argument of the gaps argument. Which an argument from incredulity is a subset of. However, I kind of suspect you have little interest in reality or being intellectually honest. You appear intent on spreading your emotionally based ideology. The posting of such nonsense, on a thread about something else entirely would suggest you didn't even bother to read the original post to begin with. It is kind of laughable; in a rather sad kind of way, that you imagine what you merely asserted, totally baselessly, as being important.

I rarely find the questions posed in the Q&A sections worth while. It's usually something already covered in the discussion already, or someone giving their dissertation before asking a question that was already covered in the discussion already. For me, I'd most likely always vote for more discussion.

4

Chance of the gaps worshiping religion of atheism has all the magical unicorn powers necessary to create a universe, galaxies, planets, stars, self-replication, ribosomes, eyes, ears, brains, intelligence and consciousness. You better believe it, else you’re just a “dumb religious person”.,,,,,,.,.,.,.

​@Ruben O. I disagree that Biblical narratives cannot be shown to be objectively true. But regardless, Harris is dangerously dismissive of those narratives in any case. He - and the rest of the new atheists - has this fanciful idea that the elimination of religious values would produce some kind of pure rationality and a solid moral structure. Humans don't work that way and Harris would be wise to recognize this. It might be _nice_ if that were the case, but it just doesn't happen.

​@Ruben O. **Sam's position is this. We don't need bull---t to be good.** I would agree with that. But that is not the point. The point is that we need to be able to ground moral duties in something meaningful. Without doing that, anything is permitted, and you devolve into moral nihilism. JP was trying to show Harris that atheism cannot provide a grounding for moral duties whatsoever, and so Harris's moral landscape is moot. **We can be good for good's sake.** Of course we can. But the question is this - _ought_ we be good for good's sake on atheism? **We shouldn't kill people.** Why not? **Religion says because "god" says so.** **If you kill you are punished with hell.** **If you don't kill you are rewarded with heaven.** No. Christianity, at least, says this: _All_ made in the image of God. Murder violates the value of another person who is made in the image of God, and so you violate God himself through harming another. Jesus said this - ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did (good or evil) to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ If you violate God, and you never try to seek Him, He will not force you to be in His presence. You will be separated from Him forever. That's hell. Even if you _do_ violate God, but you still seek Him, He will welcome you into His presence with open arms. That's heaven. So the only rational thing to do is to seek the greatest good. You have a moral ideal to follow. It all depends on you. This is why I loathe Harris's caricature of religion so much. He barely understands it. **Those are bad reasons because:** **1) They aren't even proven to be true** I disagree. I believe that there is a wealth of evidence both that God exists and that Christianity is true. But even if it _wasn't_ proven to be true, it still provides a meaningful grounding for moral duties. **2) It is fear based** No. It is love-based. God gives societal standards for our own sake. **Sam would say we shouldn't kill because killing is immoral.** And that is quite possibly the weakest reason he could give. It is analogous to saying "don't kill just because." It has no practical use or application in an objective sense. **Immoral is defined as a counter to well-being.** That is not the definition - that is a major feature. **Immoral for religion is defined as "god said bad".** And because God is the very essence of good, what He calls bad is truly bad. This provides a meaningful grounding for moral duties. **Anyways. Saying religion is useful or does good in a community does not prove those religious beliefs are true be that an "afterlife", a "god", "reincarnation"...ect.** Of course not. In saying that religion is beneficial, no one is trying to prove that a religion is true. **Nor does it prove religion is the best way to produce the desired effect.** It very well might. **Now Jordan Peterson claims something very ridiculous.** Does he now? **J.P. claims usefulness = truth** Not at all. Peterson is saying that religion has developed naturally as a way to preserve, codify, and communicate abstract ideas and concepts that can provide a meaningful grounding of morality for those who act them out. Peterson was defining these ideas and concepts as values (e.g. fair play, honesty, respect for authority, etc), which we use in our daily lives as a moral compass for our actions. Peterson's claim is that it is likely impossible for humans to be able to eradicate religion and synthesize our own values because you cannot have values as such - they need to be grounded in something meaningful. Consider this: Let's say I have two guitars. Assume that they are identical, but that one of them once belonged to Elvis Presley. Peterson's point is that you must derive value from something else, something meaningful. There is nothing inherently more valuable about Presley's guitar, but once you realize the fact that it belonged to Presley, you can derive value from it. Essentially, Peterson is claiming that values don't just float in space, and if you do away with the only meaningful foundation for them, your entire system will crumble. As much as Harris wants to claim "We can be good without God," the point remains - yes, you can be good, but without a grounding for duties, your moral framework is moot. **That is very wrong on some many levels.** It would be if that is what he meant. **Do you agree with him?** I agree with his position. But I don't agree with what you thought his position is.

​@Ruben O. **Please don't respond too quickly. You need to take time to read and process this information. The video below is very important.** Sure. Is this a good amount of time? **1) If you believe your "god" to exist the burden of proof is on you.** I know it is. **If you place your morals on a "god" but you can't prove your "god".... you have no foundation for your morals. ** What if objective morals _are_ evidence for God? **2) Morality is subjective as in the definition, the goal. However, once the subjective morality has been selected there are objective rules.** So it is objective. Those rules are the objective morals we speak of. Certainly, the goal varies, but that does not make it subjective. You must make a distinction between _absolute_ moral claims and _objective_ moral claims. And actually, there are times when the goal doesn't matter (e.g. torturing children for pleasure). **Let me explain.** Please do. **Chess is a game.** I fully agree with that. **The rules aren't objective, the rules were subjectively decided by humans.** But there _was_ an originator of the game who did, in fact, objectively determined what the rules would be. The rules are objective for _anyone_ playing the game called 'chess.' But you _require_ an originator who delivers objective injunctions in order to have rules in the first place. If everyone who played the game of chess chose their own rules, it would reduce to absurdity. **However, once the rules were chosen there are objectively "good" and "bad" plays.** Yes, and those rules cannot be altered by _anyone_ who plays the game of chess. They hold regardless of human opinion. **A "good" play follows the rules of the game to win while a "bad" play follows the rules of the game to lose.** Right. But that implies a goal. And if the rules are objective, there must be a common goal, which must be based on facts, not contingent human beings. **If you change the rules of the game... you aren't playing chess anymore.** Bingo. Now let me explain this analogy: Chess = Life Objective Rules of chess = Objective Morality Maker of the game = Rule-giver But on atheism, you are missing one key component - someone to set the rules. In the absence of that, the game becomes moot. **Sam defines morality as well-being.** Slight correction: he defines "good" as _"that which promotes the wellbeing of thinking creatures,"_ and "bad" as _"that which causes unjustified suffering to thinking creatures."_ But in any case, wellbeing is only a _component_ of morality, not the exhaustive definition. **Sure you can subjectively define morality differently such as following the rules of a "god" which can be ridiculous at times such as "don't eat that", "don't f--k the same sex", or "don't f--k until marriage" or else you burn in hell... 1. You are assuming God does not exist. That is an unjustified assumption. 2. Those "don't eat that" laws are not moral laws. They are covenantal laws. 3. The last two laws are incredibly wise, in regard to a healthy sexual life. They just don't make sense to you because of your postmodern mindset. 4. Do you understand the function of the Old Testament laws and the New Testament covenant? **For Sam morality is well-being.** You said that already. **Well-being has objective rules.** But with no one to set them, they have no prescriptive power. **If you define morality differently all we can do is ask you to play our game instead.** Wellbeing is certainly a major component of morality, but I disagree that it is the exhaustive definition. **You play checkers but we play chess. ** If the game is analogous to life, then you cannot play two different kinds of life. **You define morality as "what god says"** Because God is the essence of all that is good. That includes human wellbeing. **We define morality as "well-being" ** And I say that that also has a major part to play in Christian morality. **There are objective rules to subjective morality ** That makes no sense. Explain further. **3) You are actually wrong about Jordan Peterson's claim on truth. Jordan on many interviews has defined truth as that which is useful and or helps us survive. Don't believe me? The following link is my evidence** 1. Your evidence is a video from _Rationality Rules,_ who is somewhat of an atheist apologist and has quite a low level of sophistication when it comes to religious issues. And he's against Peterson's views, so he has an obvious bias. He also has this kind of worship of Harris, and often conveniently ignores the flaws in his arguments. Nevertheless, none of this discounts what he says in the video. 2. I was addressing the particular view Peterson was expressing _in this discussion._ I don't care about any of his past interviews right now. Especially not ones from 2015. 3.This wasn't evidence for anything. Unless I am much mistaken, never _once_ did Peterson claim that there was no such thing as realist truth. Not. Once. He was merely saying that it was not the only thing that can be called true. True, I don't agree with much of what Peterson said in those interviews, but I think that Peterson and Stephen Woodford were talking past each other in some sense. Peterson might have been describing something like this, for instance - color doesn't actually "exist" in the realist sense. It is entirely a creation of our brain, which has a complex system to interpret the different frequencies of visible light bouncing off objects and entering our eyes, then converted to electrochemical signals sent through the optic nerve into our brain where it is interpreted as an image of what we are looking at. It is, as Peterson would call it, a Darwinian truth. It helps us survive, and so we see color as truly existing, even though it does not truly exist. People live by metaphorical truths all the time, but they are not conflating two different types of truth - they are making a distinction between different ways of viewing reality or living life. Peterson seems to think that non-realist truth is more significant, but I would disagree with that.

​@Ruben O. **1) If you "know it" and the foundation for your morality is "god".... why haven't you proven your "god"? ** I have already told you - the existence of objective moral facts is evidence for God. Here's the syllogism: P1: Morality is a rational enterprise, in that it cannot be discovered empirically, just like laws of logic cannot be discovered empirically. P2: Moral realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist. P3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality. In other words, necessary prescriptive duties and facts cannot depend upon contingent beings such as human beings. P4: Moral facts and duties must be grounded in a personal, moral, rational source. C: That personal, moral, rational source is what we call God. **The burden of proof is on you. ** Again, I know that. **2) I said, from subjective morality we can get objective rules. Let me explain.** Please do. **Objective - "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."** Right. **Subjective - "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."** Agreed. **Do you now understand why the rules of chess aren't objective?** Not quite. It is a fact that the king can move exactly one square horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. This is true, regardless of my opinion. **"A rule giver" makes the rules... so it is subjective.** **If you are still confused, ask yourself:** **Does the "rule giver" decide the rules of chess? (Subjective) ** *or* **Are there rules of chess the "rule giver" discovered? (Objective) ** I think you're misunderstanding what we mean when we say objective morality - a proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the contingent person uttering it. A necessary prescriptive fact must be based on a necessary prescriber. So the statement "murder is wrong" is true for every human being because the "maker of the game" (God) is the foundation of all facts about reality. By the definition you gave, the fact that the earth is round is also subjective because the maker decided it. **Your perspective is the "rule giver" is a "god"... which once again you haven't met your burden of proof.** See the syllogism above. **Our perspective is we (humans) are the "rule givers". ** So they're not objective? **Morality is subjective as the goal can be defined in many ways however once we have a goal there are objective rules. ** I agree. Christian morality works in that way as well. But what if there _is_ an objective goal? **Chess is a game. ** Agreed. **The rules of chess weren't discovered. The rules of chess were invented aka subjective. However, there are good plays (good = closer to the goal) and bad plays (bad = further from the goal). ** Fair enough. But that is still an objective moral framework. A fact does not need to exist outside of that fact's originator in order to be objective. **The rules of chess were subjectively chosen.** But the rules themselves are objective. **There are objectively good and bad plays based on those rules.** Right, because those rules are themselves objective. **Morality is the same. ** But on atheism, _why_ should anyone follow the rules. What is the grounding for moral duties? **Once you define it (Subjective), there are ways to get closer or further from the goal (Objective).** Right, but in order for it to be objective, we cannot base our definitions on contingent human beings. **3) A lot of the debates between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are about truth. Every time Jordan will state in one way or another "usefulness = truth"... That's wrong.** What do you think Peterson means by that? **Truth may or may not be useful. ** True. **Now can you tell me how color isn't objectively real? ** **We can detect it.** **We can measure it.** **We can test the effects of different colored light on many different plants. ** According to The Physics Hypertextbook, _"Color is a function of the human visual system, and is not an intrinsic property. Objects don't have a color, they give off light that appears to be a color. Spectral power distributions exist in the physical world, but color exists only in the mind of the beholder. Our perception of color is not an objective measure of anything about the light that enters our eyes, but it correlates pretty well with objective reality. "_ For instance, the color green does not exist outside our perception of it. It is a perception of our own cognition. **If the plant is colored green... that means green colored light is reflected from the plant thus green light isn't effective on green colored plants. ** Not quite. According to the source I spoke of above: _"Color is determined first by frequency and then by how those frequencies are combined or mixed when they reach they eye. This is the physics part of the topic. Light falls on specialized receptor cells (called cones) at the back of the eye (called the retina) and a signal is sent to the brain along a neural pathway (called the optic nerve). This signal is processed by the part of the brain near the back of the skull (called the occipital lobe)...The eye is very much like a camera, but the brain is not at all like a video recorder. The brain is not like a computer with fixed hardware of transistors and capacitors executing some sort of software code. The neurons of the brain are probably best thought of as wetware - a fusion of hardware and software or maybe something completely different...Once the visual information leaves the eye, basic physics ends and neurocognition takes over. "_ **Is that not objectively true? We can measure the effects of colored light. We can detect it. Color is an objective fact.** Our _experience_ of color is objective - save perhaps those who are colorblind - but the phenomenon of color is strictly within our minds. Our brains were developed in order for us to be able to detect frequencies of visible light bouncing off objects and entering our eyes. It is useful for survival.

​@Ruben O. **I appreciate your response. ** Likewise. **I will stick with 1 problem at a time to make it easier for us.** Good idea. **You said "That personal, moral, rational source is what we call God"** Right. But remember, I didn't give God those attributes ad hoc - they followed necessarily from the previous premises. Also, I would add "transcendent" and "necessary" because necessary and objective facts must transcend human beings. **So you defined "god" as a personal, moral, and rational source but didn't demonstrate it.... and you thought that was evidence? ** What do you mean I didn't demonstrate it? That is what the argument was for. God is the title for any personal, moral, rational, necessary, and transcendent source of objective moral facts. Can you find another entity with these attributes? **What if I defined my "magical pet turtle" as a personal, moral, and rational source?** You would need to provide an argument for that. The definition alone means nothing. **The fact you state a claim and define your "god" to fit isn't evidence. ** You're right. It wouldn't be if that were the case. But in my case, the argument was the evidence from which the conclusion followed. If your trouble is with the name "God," that's fine, but it does not affect the argument. Remember, this is a deductive argument. If the premises are true, then the conclusion _must_ be true. I did not merely make claims. You are welcome to challenge any of the premises, but you cannot yet challenge the conclusion. **Your argument proves anything which is defined as a personal, moral, and rational source not demonstrated.** Anything personal, moral, rational, necessary, and transcendent. Those are the other essential attributes the source would need to possess. **You defined "god" to be a personal, moral, and rational source... you didn't demonstrate it. ** Again, the argument was the demonstration. You can't just skip over the premises and criticize the conclusion. What do you think I mean by God? **I can just as easily define my "magical pet turtle" to be a personal, moral, and rational source and without a demonstration ... the definition isn't proof.** You're right. The argument would be the proof.

Oh it’s real. My tarot said so.

You think that's crazy. I once saw this guy slide his thumb off his hand using his other hand. Isthisamessiah.jpeg

a very nice way to say Pangburn was stupid and will probably fail as a brand due to this paywall

They fail A LOT with all things related to UKposts strategy IMO

You people bitching and whining should just stfu and be thankful these events ever happened and that they are available online.

Isn't it strange that those people paid a lot to see it live, while you saw it for free?

i think clarity specifically is the bigger issue. one might consider differently whether they know beforehand if they miss the live event they'll never be able to watch it later.

Isaac Mathews (HTES) that is the key , so much talk and not enough listening,