After watching a Jordan Peterson I've feel compelled to be an atheist again

[Duke_Leto]

Everyone just went along with it because they actually had a clue. If you don't know why communism is bad try reading Richard Wurmbrand's book; Tortured for Christ. All communists can really do is say "It's not real communism". We've heard that for years. But it's the no true Scotsman's fallacy.

Cognitive dissonance is just what you have to have in order to believe anything is good about communism.

Out of curiosity, how many do you suppose capitalism's killed?

It's complicated, but basically Sam Harris was religious.
Here is a link to a better explanation that I could give, its not too long...
The definition of God that Jordan Peterson provided Sam Harris during their first Vancouver talk : samharris

That's the most garrulous crock of air I've seen in a while. I suspect the reason he has any followers at all is because they don't have the attention span necessary to follow spiels like that, and assume he's saying something profound.

 

[Revoltingest]

so .....I got as far as three minutes into it......and shut it off

thanks anyway

Seeing the comments in this thread, I avoided those 3 minutes.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm trying to understand why there has been so much criticisms of what is being taught in Universities. I've been trying to understand what is postmodernism and recent criticisms of it. I've been trying understand why the right as been so critical of postmodernism. And also, why anyone who suggests government has a role in addressing social injustice or economic inequality is instantly labeled a communist and is trying to promote genocide of the downtrodden.

So I've watched a number of Jordan Peterson's videos but I think this one best summarizes his way of thinking:

What's really amazing about his video is how the people in the audience gobble it up. Essentially what Peterson is saying is there is only one absolute truth. And that truth is his truth. And any other interpretation or way of thinking is wrong if it somehow questions his authority about what is absolute truth. This kind of bothered me but I could not really put my finger on it perfectly because a lot of what Peterson spews is fancy word salad with really large pieces of lettuce. So I then spent some time looking for criticisms of his way of thinking. This is one of the best video I found criticizing what Peterson is saying:

Even with the video, I'm still trying to wrap my head around all his words salads. But as far as I can tell any criticisms he makes of postmodernism and socialism equally apply to his own way of thinking. He also doesn't seem to appreciate correlation doesn't always prove causation. Having power corrupts right wing politicians equally as much as left wing politicians. Theists and atheists are probably exhibiting immoral behaviors in equal proportions. But who am I to argue with absolute truth when someone as prestigious as Jordan Peterson is pretending to speak for God?

So I find myself having feelings of becoming more anti-Christian because I simple cannot stand people like Jordan Peterson. I think he's a fancy televangelist fleecing right wingers in some kind of delusional made up absolute truth. I'm beginning to see my atheist friends way of thinking about Christianity has having more sense.

Yeah, he nas a following, but I’m not among them. He can get rather nonsensical. I don’t know that he intends to.

 

[crossfire]

Yeah, he nas a following, but I’m not among them. He can get rather nonsensical. I don’t know that he intends to.

He intends to make lots of money.

 

[LuisDantas]

Have you read about "Pascal's Wager"? The Wikipedia entry I referenced has more about it than I care to read. But if not, it's apparently about believing in God as a means to get into heaven if God exists with no downside. I write "apparently" because that article goes into a lot of detail about the meaning of the "wager".

Do you see any validity in the wager?

 

[crossfire]

Have you read about "Pascal's Wager"? The Wikipedia entry I referenced has more about it than I care to read. But if not, it's apparently about believing in God as a means to get into heaven if God exists with no downside. I write "apparently" because that article goes into a lot of detail about the meaning of the "wager".

But outside of that, I agree that there is no objective reason that I know of. Some are taught belief as children and never question it. Others look for something comforting and seize on religion to calm their fears. Others have different motivations.

Some have a dramatic experience that convinces them that there is something beyond the physical and an ultimate reality to which they give the name "God".

Others find themselves interested in the question of meaning and purpose to life beyond mere physical existence. This can lead to using the word "God" to describe what they feel must be true.

Non-theistic version of Pascal's Wager (and much clearer, as well) can be found in verse 17 of the Kalama Sutta.

 

[sun rise]

Non-theistic version of Pascal's Wager (and much clearer, as well) can be found in verse 17 of the Kalama Sutta.

I like this formulation:

"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.

"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe Christianity is not the right label. What I meant is the people who applaud what Peterson is saying as some objective absolute truth is what I have issue with. Do you label the people or the way they believe. I'm sure there good people but I do like the way they judge other people as if they speak for God. As far as I can tell nobody I have ever heard speaks for God. I'm sure there is some speech divinely inspired but I will take your word for it. I can't see it. All all seems like people trying to interpret their experiences through the lens of the their cultural history (including bias, prejudice, or bigotry).

. . . again?!?

 

[Shad]

Peterson and Dusty in one thread. Too much stupid for me. I'm out.