Full discussion here: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/f3WXao5kfauWrqM.html JOIN US IN NYC ON JUNE 1st for ALEX O'CONNOR vs DINESH D'SOUZA on "IS THE BIBLE TRUE?" Tickets available here: www.pang-burn.com/tickets

"Dr Peterson, what's your favorite color?" "Well that depends what you mean by favorite, and it also depends what you mean by color. This is also a very complex question. One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate, which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertant dismissal of Jung's archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnutude of neo-Marxist existential nihilism..."

I took notes on these entire debates - several hours in a couple parts. They occured just a few years ago. It's interesting to go back and review the notes now & then.

Jordan Peterson is the type of person who would debate for 7 hours why he picked a specific chair at a restaurant

I once had a more senior coworker try to say I went out of my scope of practice when I fixed a patient that he couldn’t. His ego was so hurt that he made it seem like I was causing harm to the patient. Peterson sounds like he is just upset that someone is doing what he does, but better and in a different arena.

I think Mr Peterson could debate himself for days.

If you look deeply at any ancient religious text you can interpret it to support whatever you want. Therefore one has to conclude that adhering to these texts is subjective and therefore not the command of a supernatural being.

Jesuit priest taught me, learn to distinguish when ppl challenge you vs insult you. In faith and ideas. Keep an open mind. Same teacher was a Philosophy professor and fan of the Greeks.

I think it was the munk debates I can say Peterson genuinely did well. Him and Stephen Fry crushed the other side. The other side did exactly what Peterson did here. Peterson isnt stupid but debates like this shows when he debates a genuine academic he's way out of his league. He tries to cover it by using so many elegant words you forget he didn't answer the question at all.

Thanks 👍

One thing is certain: both of them love hearing themselves talk.

Peterson doesn't listen; he interrupts to lecture about his POV.

“In the biblical narrative . . the sacrificial notion becomes increasingly psychologised as the story progresses . . to be more abstract”. I’m not a Christian or anything but I’m fairly sure there’s an important non-abstract blood sacrifice quite near the end of the biblical narrative.

Okay now let's go to the comments and listen to the experts😄

12:30 "most old ideas are stupid and dangerous as well" that is only because the were once new ideas

An experience in which someone becomes a better person might unleash psychotic behavior in another.

Audio is WAY too quiet on this one. Can barely even make out what they're saying at max volume.

I have a serious question. Why does the creator of the universe want me to read leviticus? Assuming I can read and ignoring people who can't read.

Jordan strikes me as the quintessential anti-Occam's razor.

Consciousness is not deeper than morality, Sam.

Peterson is an absolute charlotten.....he just waffles on and on and on

10:42 honestly I don't see how the rational approach could fail to be the best strategy. When I ask the questions, "how could it not be the best strategy? How could another strategy be better?" well if you have a conclusive, evidence-based answer to that, guess what? That's the rational approach. You've shown with evidence it's best, so now it's the rational approach. Therefore it must optimize well-being best to approach the topic rationally. No better strategy is possible.

Peterson was trying to make the claim that religion isn't the best solution due to the subsisting percarious dynamic between the persistence of dogma and the willingness to update traditions, but its not a bad solution nonetheless, because we can't properly perceive the world and hence live in it without a priori dogma.

Structure grows and developes The Bible is claimed absolute. Structure is not necessarily dogmatic.

It sounds like the only real benefit to dogmatism (most religions) is the ability to control people. Religion is used as a political weapon, and its adherents as physical weaponry to affect those politics. That it can be used to control people and direct their energy to your needs, it is beneficial to you. That's the whole game. And the only just argument is about whether or not that is of value anymore to hold such sway over populations using myth. There clearly are conflicts between competing religions which cause great harm. But would that harm have come from some other alliances? We can see religion being used during the major conflicts of the 20th Century, but the two world wars were geopolitical competitions, not holy wars. As an individual I will subscribe to religious beliefs, until and unless they become convincing.

What language are these guys speaking? 👀😂 Somebody get me a thesaurus. 😅

Lol, it wasnt a stupid idea, it was very smart she knew he will get a new wife quickly and made sure her kids are protected. Good job mom

I imagine that when Peterson is talking sam is thinking "this guy is effing crazy".

Jordan "it's not that simple!" Peterson arrogantly doubling down on his embarrassingly transparent compulsion to overcomplicate the simplest ideas. The degree to which anyone might be impressed with this strategy as a sign of intelligence is inversely proportionate to their own intelligence.

Jordan looks uncomfortable

Jordan peterson seems to talk very quickly and use lots of big words to ensure others lose track and make it harder to debate with him

Fantastic, and you need to admire Sam for responding patiently and respectfully, to JP's incomprehensible blah blah.

Jordan Patterson. The world champion in intellectual word salad without any substance 😂

🆚

Child sacrifice was at some point in time demanded by the Christian God?

Summary of this entire debate- of Jordan basic position: there isn’t sufficient evidence of god’s existence, but the bible says some profound things so maybe god is real. If god isn’t real we should still act as though he was. I respectfully think Jordan needs to work on better articulating his ideas and opinions in a way that doesn’t require every viewer to have memorised the entire dictionary. This was just my good-faith interpretation of his side of the debate.

Thanks for honoring my freedom of speech. The Problem with the both Catholic and Protestant bibles ... is that Jews already were convinced that they were G-d's CHOSEN FEW. And being Jewish in ethnicity AND religion ... had Jesus existed ... he never would have preach any doctrine other THAN Judaism. Christianity always was ... and IS ... an anti-Semitic religion. Maimonides was a Jewish Rabbi who lived in the Middle-ages and because he told the Jews what they wanted to hear … he was extremely popular. And he was right … that if Jesus gave up on preaching Judaism as his one and only truth … which was his birth-right … to in turn preach ANY Christian doctrine … Jesus WOULD have been a heretic and OF COURSE hated by the Jews. Just as the Catholic popes wanted the Jews and Protestants to be put to death for heresy … the Jews wanted Jesus to be put to death for heresy against them. I agree with the words of the now-dead Christopher Hitchens … “Religion poisons everything.” From the book … god is not GREAT … How Religion Poisons Everything … Christopher Hitchens … “Maimonides described the punishment of the detestable Nazarene heretic as one of the greatest achievements of the Jewish elders, insisted that the name Jesus never be mentioned except when accompanied by a curse, and announced that his punishment was to be boiled in excrement for all eternity. What a good Catholic Maimonides would have made!”

?

I'll bet if peterson could stop himself from overcomplicating responses by trying to fit in every large word he has knowledge of he might actually have better luck in these debates.

More word salad nonsense from Peterson. Sam dunks on him repeatedly.

I dont understand why God is so set on testing his people when he already is God and knows the outcome. Why test Abrahams ability to sacrifice his son when you are God and know that he would. It doesnt really make much sense. All it did was pointlessly traumatize Isaac and lead to a pointless, permanent record of child sacrifice being put in your "holy book". Wouldnt the most moral God make a lesson saying DONT sacrifice your children to me, i am a loving God and want all of you to be well? Why is God so obsessed with the loyalty of his creation to him it makes no sense at all, if he actually wanted loyal people he should have just created a loyal creation. He seems to try over and over again to strive towards making people perfect, to the point where he threatens permanent torture if you dont do what he says, but he literally created you to be imperfect when he could have done otherwise, quite effortlessly, given that he is God.

My take on Jordan Peterson is: Q. Do you believe in God? JP. That depends on what you mean by "do" and "you" and "believe" and "in" and "God"! He really shows the 'value' of philosophy!

If God was a ice cream flavor, what flavor would god be?

This is tea time with Alice

I admit to being biased, but I cannot see how Jordan Peterson can have a voice in any debate, to me he is nothing more than a word salad master.

Geez Pangurn, cant believe youre still milking clips from these events years later, after you botched it so bad that all of these guys said theyd never work with you again

GPT Jordan Peterson 😂 "Newton's Third Law-every action has an equal and opposite reaction-isn't just a physical principle; it's a profound metaphysical statement about the nature of reality. Heraclitus once said, 'Conflict is the father of all things.' This ancient insight mirrors the dynamic interplay of forces described by Newton. Every push against the universe results in the universe pushing back against us. This is not merely physics; it’s a fundamental aspect of being. Similarly, Søren Kierkegaard's reflection that 'Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards' captures the essence of living within this law. We see the effects of our actions only after we have made them, which inherently ties our past decisions to our future possibilities. Immanuel Kant also touched upon this, though in a moral context, with his categorical imperative. Every action we take should be considered as if it were to become a universal law of nature. This resonates with Newton's law, suggesting that our every deed sends ripples through the fabric of reality, affecting the world and, in turn, affecting us. This interconnectivity, this metaphysical substrate that Newton taps into, suggests that our very existence is tied not just to our actions but to the reactions they invoke. This is the profound lesson of Newton's Third Law-it's about physics, ethics, and metaphysics, all woven into the very fabric of reality."

I'm amazed Peterson didn't push back against Harris's point that religious texts differ from philosophical texts in that philosophical texts possess some inherent property that prevents their dogmatic capturing of individuals. Considering that Peterson's career first blew up because he was speaking out against people who had been dogmatically captured by philosophical texts, and a large portion of his time since has been dedicated to that end, I'd really expect him to not let that pass. I also find it odd that Harris would be naive enough to say that. Like, he can't have gone through life in his line of work without being aware of this millennia-long fad.

What the fuck is peterson on about

If Jordan Peterson was a code, he'd be a VIC-20 1600 line, if then, if then, if then.... on a datasette.

Jordan is for those who cannot transcend concept Harris is trying to help everyone get past it though so that the conversation can finally begin

"if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Einstein. In JP's case, he intentionally confuses subjects not realising the audience are actually annoyed with his transparent bullshit.

The scripture of sacrificial actions shouldn't be in example wise. If Jesus Christ died on a cross and if the bible happened in realism, then the fkn shit literally happened.

The Bible's PROBLEM is that it is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. That's why I choose Scrooge McDuck comic books as the guide for every aspect of my life. I can't be sure Mr. McDuck is real but He never killed nearly every human being in a Flood in any his comic books. Bible God on the other hand was a dick in his book.

Oh dear, the Emeritus Professor of Word Salad at Moose University comes up against Sam Harris. Embarrassing.

Jordan Peterson, the grandfather of word sallad.

JP is the definition of charlatan

Seems like, you don't really understand what GOD communicate to us in the Holy Scriptures, Main principle for understanding is NOT taking things out of context. The God of the Bible, (YHWH) Jehovah, does NOT change (Malachi 3:6-7, James 1:17) His words are for instruction not confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) Words, words and words, full of ideological and metaphysical ideas which tend to deviate the simple understanding of Bible words, GOD words.

sam should like this document bad faith It shows man's hands in religion

Sam wins. AGAIN!

JP the Canadian Cantinflas

No true. The bible has been re written many times, The bible grows with us. Its not Tolstoy, Frend, or Suess. Why do we always see things as being the way they, when we see them.

"You see that with Abraham and Isaac where child sacrifice is forbidden, though previously commanded by God." *So either God is either a former child killer who's trying to do better, or he is just superstition-lite crafted

Half of our brain is oriented to metaphor 11:49 Its hilarious how peterson just makes crap up like this all the time.

Theism and atheism and christianity and islam and gnostic and agnostic are not the truth . The truth is the unity in impartiality principle . Maturity . UKposts Jiddu Krishnamurti talks at the united nations New York 1985 . GREAT speech .

Boy they like to make simple thinking uselessly complicated. All living and “ conscious “ to a certain level being on the planet has this basic Instinct of survival. There are also behaviours dictated to keep the species alive. Like lions will fight each other to win the female but won’t try to seriously hurt their opponents. From an observer’s point of vue, this behaviour could be interpreted as a “ moral “ code. It’s not. It’s how the species survive. So are humans since the beginning of our existence. This principle of protecting your spouse and children has expanded to the families, then the tribe, then the whole village, and so on. When our villages were in conflict for a piece of land with another village, wars and battles with no such moral obligation appeared. Survival for their own, that what mattered. All our ethics, moral codes, religions are based on this initial survival behaviours. There is nothing intellectual about it, neither spiritual. Peterson wants it to be like that because he can’t accept that we still are relying on basic instincts for our evolution. Protecting the weaker was a close family responsibility. It’s very hard to motivate an entire society to do so when people do not relate to those we decided to protect.

Religions teach us to have faith and we dont need to think for ourselfs which creates control

These are all just ways of saying the same thing..JP just loves the sound of his own voice, which is amazing when you realize how whiny it is.

Peterson, when you try way way way too hard to sound intelligent, you just come off as a vexing pedantic. You'd do yourself a great service and pick up on how Sam Harris, who is incredibly intelligent, uses his intelligence tastefully and with plenty held in reserve to be released like an H - bomb in some rather mind blowing mike dropping moments.

I’m glad Sam is a genius. Because I have no idea what Peterson is talking about.

God bless Jordon Peterson, I mean that from the bottom of my heart, but I’m an atheist so it means nothing, even if I wasn’t an atheist it would mean nothing.

The Bible is just a book. Is there a lot of truth and wisdom in it? Yes. But it's just a book full of stories and should be treated like every other book and story out there.

I wonder if Peterson ever watches his own debates, interviews and presentations and then critically analyse his own body language and intonation. He would be a great subject to study.

Peterson is a middlebrow that's worked real hard at being really clever, didn't work.

If there is a good god I feel sorry for it cause this is a nightmare of bunk complexity.

Peterson drives me mad, but sam 'everyone should get jabbed and if not you should be sent to the gulag' can never be taken seriously again in my opinion. Peterson was exactly the same

Sam clearly has developed a super-human capacity for tolerating bullshit. Nothing could be more challenging than listening to Jordan Peterson's endless, nauseating nonsense.

Describing the color blue with an a priori structure of the metaphysical substrate of the underpinnings of the universally axiomatic compound blah blah blah… Using confusing language is not a reasonable substitute for cogent, logical reasoning, Jordan.

Poor Sam.. that is so defensive of his nothingness.

Sam’s point is so plainly obviously that people who argue against it are doing a performance. Most of the time in real life we don’t struggle to know good from bad when given all the facts.

“the problem with the bible?” It's out of date.

Not a single comment giving JP any respect. Lol comments are just an echo chamber I guess 😵‍💫

Peterson has nothing of value to say. Also he sounds like he's on speed.

Sam acknowledges he is making a wager. Behind door number one is either nothing or eternal Hell. Behind door number two is eternal life with a loving God. He chooses number one. That doesn't seem real rational if you are concerned about wellbeing.

Jordan Peterson talks a lot but says very little. He's one of those guys who thinks that if you put together enough words, people will find you intelligent.

Peterson is the type of person that achieved all his potential growth, because he cannot or is incapable of learning something new .

Bla bla bla on both sides

Back then when Bret Weinstein was respected...

The problem with the bible. Let me list the ways.

Ultimately, the problem is as follows: “- The Bible Is True! - How can you be so sure about that? - Because the Bible says that it is true”

For me, debating religion is pointless. Why can't everybody just worship whoever and whatever they want to worship and let those who don't, rock whichever way they wish? The basic moral code of 90% of humans is the same. Whichever religion you choose or choose not to follow to facilitate that moral code does not really matter.

Ive never seen anyone say so much without saying anything . Jordan Petersen is the King Bullshit Artist.

Jordan Peterson just spits word salad and everyone nods and pretends he is making sense. Really we can't toss out the dogma because we need a framework to understand morality? Give me a break.

JP Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah what a dork

Jordan Peterson word spaghetti.

Sam does not want to understand the truth of Jesus.. There is no way for him to understand… Jordan wants Sam to understand but there is no way for someone to understand the navigation problem… Sam, you can’t argue for Jesus! There is no way for you to know the spiritual… you cannot make sense of Jesus… there is no way that you can understand what God provided. you need to look at near death experiences. You need to look into those whom have experienced demonic possession. You need to take all of yourselves out of your intellectual realm. There is no way to intellectually understand the spiritual realm. Sam can not understand and Jordan can not understand. There is no way for these intellectually brilliant minds to understand the spiritual realm. They have no idea and they can not! It would be nice if these folks can find a way to discard their intellectual realm. But they will not. Jesus came to help the ones who didn’t need all of this intellectual bullshit. And religious doctrinal bull shit! Jordan tries to meet Sam there… but they are both missing the point…

We have to preserve Spinoza's work. Nobody understood the importance and value of Spinoza's knowledge, and he died at a premature age sadly before achieving his goal of ending atheism and religion to create a better world. We are living in a social media era and the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy is censored when only to overcome a censorship the information that is prohibited has to be shared to be known. The truth is God exists and our existence is eternal and your only life is forever. I am talking about reality, substance, nature, I am not talking about religion. Pantheism is like atheism but bearing in mind the universe was created from an eternal intelligent entity from self because from nothing can not be created something. Reality is created from reality. God decided to create the universe for a reason, for a perfect reason. To understand reality you have to answer rationally and correctly why Time created life. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Does "answering rationally" mean the same as "answering correctly"? Time is running out and is eternal. The true God is Spinoza's God and my God, we agree fundamentally on how we understand reality. He was a good and rational person, like i am. Spinoza's greatest achievement for me was to overcome the censorship with the few means he had, the society he lived in was poor and he had to work. My life is like Spinoza's life. Is not to prove God exists what humanity want? Spinoza did it and i did it a few centuries later. I have explained a deception. Thank you.

peterson is the great twister of meanings until they point in the direction he wants. he incrementally nudges the definition of words so he can replace that word with another that has the opposite meaning. he is a crook.

Peterson isn't a rational man. A good man. A very intelligent man. But, irrational.

Sam: the problem is that its a book that people say and believe is the word of G*d and thats not helpfu... Jordan: Yeh but blah blah blah blah