Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Interesting insights

wwi9Q9apHGI

Originally posted by Stigma
Interesting insights

wwi9Q9apHGI

That guy is right. nice video.

That guy sucks. I've seen videos with him and heard him speak.

He even appeared on Sam Harris' podcast and he's really not that great. He got hung up on things not being true if they cause problems for humanity. He's really quite fundamentally flawed.

He's sorta decent, raises some interesting points, but I don't think he's the be-all, end-all.

I really think he's flat out wrong about some of his major points...

He sounds like he might be intelligent and convincing, but he's really just using the same old tired arguments like "there's no morality without God," and his premises are way off. For example his claim that there's no rational argument against being a psychopath in the world? That makes no damn sense at all. That's now how we evolved. We evolved by making the best of our relationships with other people and making this world more pleasant because this existence is all there is that we know of. He's completely confused at a fundamental level.

Jordan Peterson actually reminds me of this guy from an old recurring sketch on In Living Colour...



O7dPprbzNSc

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I really think he's flat out wrong about some of his major points...

He sounds like he might be intelligent and convincing, but he's really just using the same old tired arguments like "there's no morality without God," and his premises are way off. For example his claim that there's no rational argument against being a psychopath in the world? That makes no damn sense at all. That's now how we evolved. We evolved by making the best of our relationships with other people and making this world more pleasant because this existence is all there is that we know of. He's completely confused at a fundamental level.

Jordan Peterson actually reminds me of this guy from an old recurring sketch on In Living Colour...



O7dPprbzNSc

There is no morality without a God....

Its proven that our concept of morality was driven from the idea of a supreme being.

Many of the laws today in the world are derived from Religion and the concept of God.

^ No it isn't proven.

We've had a similar moral compass since early in mankind's evolution, and long before any religion known. Anthropologists have seen similar family/villager setups that we see today. Really, there are only a handful of laws that I can think of that are universally spread throughout the religions which are the basics accepted by humanity. All other religious "laws" are completely culturally influenced.

If there was a one true god, or even a crew of gods who were hell bent on our morality, why wouldn't we all agree on the same morality whether we followed it or not?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
There is no morality without a God....

NKzcMjmlP_o

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
NKzcMjmlP_o

It's something Atheists will always hate. Knowing that their own behaviors are influenced by what they don't believe

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I really think he's flat out wrong about some of his major points.
I see.

On Rubin Report Peterson elaborates on why New Atheists are wrong.

jjYQ48t4C8U

Originally posted by socool8520
^ No it isn't proven.

We've had a similar moral compass since early in mankind's evolution, and long before any religion known. Anthropologists have seen similar family/villager setups that we see today. Really, there are only a handful of laws that I can think of that are universally spread throughout the religions which are the basics accepted by humanity. All other religious "laws" are completely culturally influenced.

If there was a one true god, or even a crew of gods who were hell bent on our morality, why wouldn't we all agree on the same morality whether we followed it or not?

Oh really? You refer to the Cave men?

If i don't remember wrongly such humans would steal, rape, and kill other humans without being heavy hearted.

Furthermore, If morality is something "natural"/"Non-Religious" I don't understand then why animals don't have morality.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
It's something Atheists will always hate. Knowing that their own behaviors are influenced by what they don't believe


Ummm..if we don't believe in god then we also don't believe said god would influence our behavior. Think about it.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Oh really? You refer to the Cave men?

If i don't remember wrongly such humans would steal, rape, and kill other humans without being heavy hearted.

Furthermore, If morality is something "natural"/"Non-Religious" I don't understand then why animals don't have morality.

I refer to several thousand years in between, unless you think we went from caves to Jesus in a day or so.

Really? You don't understand how animals that lack critical thinking skills also lack morality? Okay, I don't know what to tell you then.

Originally posted by socool8520
Ummm..if we don't believe in god then we also don't believe said god would influence our behavior. Think about it.

If you don't believe in God, then basically you don't believe in Good and Evil! LOL.

You see, ALL CIVILIZATIONS (Egyptians/Greeks/Romans/Mayas/Aztecs/Chineese etc.) based their "morals" on a Supreme Being (Not necessarily the Christian/Jewish Religion).

Morality was founded on the concept of Good and Evil! Where as if we are Good! Then we are accepted/rewarded in some sort of way by this Supreme Being or entity, whereas if we are BAD then we are going to get this punishment.

Our current laws are founded on the Religious Concept of Good and Evil.

So if you don't believe in God/Religion then there is no reason for you to be moral.

I mean Morality and Religion are bound together!

If there is NO GOD, then there is no JUDGE/ARBITRARY to dictate what i CAN DO OR CAN'T DO.

Why should then i be moral if i don't believe in a God?

Originally posted by socool8520
Ummm..if we don't believe in god then we also don't believe said god would influence our behavior. Think about it.
This is explained by Peterson in the clip.

The fact that you don't believe in God does not undermine the fact that our morality is predicated on the notion of transcendence.

BTW he is not even arguing for the existence of God per se. He argues that the ideal that some would call God (Logos) is the prerequisite for morality.

I recommend watching the second clip I posted. He gives a lucid explanation there.

Originally posted by Stigma
This is explained by Peterson in the clip.

The fact that you don't believe in God does not undermine the fact that our morality is predicated on the notion of transcendence.

BTW he is not even arguing for the existence of God per se. He argues that the ideal that some would call God (Logos) is the prerequisite for morality.

I recommend watching the second clip I posted. He gives a lucid explanation there.

I agree that a notion of the afterlife at least, has been with us for awhile, but I don't think it has ultimately shaped our morality. It has been an influence, but I think survival and having to stick together influenced our cooperation, and ultimately, forced us to treat each other better. just my opinion though.

Originally posted by Stigma
This is explained by Peterson in the clip.

The fact that you don't believe in God does not undermine the fact that our morality is predicated on the notion of transcendence.

BTW he is not even arguing for the existence of God per se. He argues that the ideal that some would call God (Logos) is the prerequisite for morality.

I recommend watching the second clip I posted. He gives a lucid explanation there.

I Know. It's something i've always found funny.

Atheists deny God however they still behave like if under God's influence.

Atheists refuse to believe in God yet somehow they share the morality instructed by God.

Originally posted by socool8520
I agree that a notion of the afterlife at least, has been with us for awhile, but I don't think it has ultimately shaped our morality. It has been an influence, but I think survival and having to stick together influenced our cooperation, and ultimately, forced us to treat each other better. just my opinion though.
This does not refer to the notion of afterlife, however.

This refers to the fact that morality is our way to try to attain an ideal that is a transcendent notion in itself.

Peterson is right

Originally posted by socool8520
I agree that a notion of the afterlife at least, has been with us for awhile, but I don't think it has ultimately shaped our morality. It has been an influence, but I think survival and having to stick together influenced our cooperation, and ultimately, forced us to treat each other better. just my opinion though.

Socool, if you don't believe in God (You are Atheist) then what is your notion of Humanity?

What is humanity exactly?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Socool, if you don't believe in God (You are Atheist) then what is your notion of Humanity?

What is humanity exactly?

We are a species put on this planet to survive and progress just like everything else. We have basic laws of morality and behavior that we all share for a mutual benefit. The fact that we are capable of critical thinking allows us to modify our morality slightly given our surroundings. Nothing supernatural about it. I don't need anything more nor do i see evidence of it.

Originally posted by Stigma
This does not refer to the notion of afterlife, however.

This refers to the fact that morality is our way to try to attain an ideal that is a transcendent notion in itself.

Peterson is right

That doesn't mean that god has to bring you there or it the influence of a god. It could just as easily be for cooperation's sake. The mutual benefit of working together to progress. no God needed.

Originally posted by socool8520
That doesn't mean that god has to bring you there or it the influence of a god. It could just as easily be for cooperation's sake. The mutual benefit of working together to progress. no God needed.
Still, that is not the claim made.

Cooperation is the way in which the ideal may have been realized. Say, for thousands of years by trial and error humanity got better and they reached a certain moral system.

It may be the case, sure.

What is said though, is that a moral ideal was a faundation for the process of developing that morality. Thus, this ideal is transcendent in itself.

Again, Peterson does not argue for the existence of God. He basically says that you can call this ideal transcendence, or an ideal in a Platonian sense, or God, or gods.

I would simply call it ideal brought about by necessity of survival.

Even what Peterson is describing then doesn't really point to a fault in Atheism. At least I don't see how it does.

I'd say it's moreso a fault in the idea that religious influence needs to be eradicated from our culture than the idea that there is no God.

Originally posted by socool8520
I would simply call it ideal brought about by necessity of survival.
Oh, I know.

He also points out that this must have occured at the very edge of when an ape became human. So cannot be attributed to animalistic tendencies, at least not entirely.

Originally posted by socool8520
Even what Peterson is describing then doesn't really point to a fault in Atheism. At least I don't see how it does.
It does. New Atheism operates under the illusion, Peterson says, that once you remove transcendence, then the structure based on the notion of transcendece remains intact. Not so.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'd say it's moreso a fault in the idea that religious influence needs to be eradicated from our culture than the idea that there is no God.
That too.

I'm for religious freedom whether I think it rubbish or not. Outside of it's moral guidelines (at least the basics), I think it's unnecessary especially given basic morality is already generally accepted anyway.

Originally posted by socool8520
I'm for religious freedom whether I think it rubbish or not. Outside of it's moral guidelines (at least the basics), I think it's unnecessary especially given basic morality is already generally accepted anyway.
Basi morality is basically morality that stems from a form of idealism. Just like religion.


TBH there is a very good case to be made that in pre-historic times morality and religion grew together.

Or from necessity/cooperation. Some give and take to benefit the majority.

Maybe, but I think morality came first and Religion came second to reinforce it.

Originally posted by socool8520
We are a species put on this planet to survive and progress just like everything else. We have basic laws of morality and behavior that we all share for a mutual benefit. The fact that we are capable of critical thinking allows us to modify our morality slightly given our surroundings. Nothing supernatural about it. I don't need anything more nor do i see evidence of it.

You used the term "put on this planet", who put us?

You also claim "basic laws of morality" as if it was something predeterminated in every organism.

I ask you now. If we are but an outcome of nature, why should we then act different from it?

For instance killing. Killing is considered immoral, yet there is nothing unnatural about murdering!

If there is no God. If we are but outcomes of nature! Beings whose sole purpose is to find the best way of survival, in such aspect a thing like killing would be okay.

Let's say I have a store, and this other guy also has a store. He is a direct competence of me! Nature would say that i get rid of my competence in order to increase my possibilites of survival (Just like a Lion would kill any other Lion who represents a threat/burden to his survival).

Again you realize morality isn't a natural thing! It isn't something we possess but something WE OBTAIN THROUGH OUR IDEOLOGIES! Morality could even be considered an Ideology!

Religion is an Ideology! Morality was founded on the Ideology of Religion.

Originally posted by Stigma
Oh, I know.

He also points out that this must have occured at the very edge of when an ape became human. So cannot be attributed to animalistic tendencies, at least not entirely.


It does. New Atheism operates under the illusion, Peterson says, that once you remove transcendence, then the structure based on the notion of transcendece remains intact. Not so.

I don't think anyone has argued that have they? From the debate between Harris and Peterson I watched in the other thread, all Harris argued is that morality exists without religion. Any other argument Peterson is debating would be one he made up himself.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
You used the term "put on this planet", who put us?

You also claim "basic laws of morality" as if it was something predeterminated in every organism.

Let's not play word games okay or I'll have to point out that "predeterminated" isn't even a real word. Whether it was microbes placed on Earth by an asteroid at least know that I don't mean god.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I ask you now. If we are but an outcome of nature, why should we then act different from it?
For instance killing. Killing is considered immoral, yet there is nothing unnatural about murdering!
If there is no God. If we are but outcomes of nature! Beings whose sole purpose is to find the best way of survival, in such aspect a thing like killing would be okay.
Let's say I have a store, and this other guy also has a store. He is a direct competence of me! Nature would say that i get rid of my competence in order to increase my possibilites of survival (Just like a Lion would kill any other Lion who represents a threat/burden to his survival).

All of this boils down to critical thinking. Something you are clearly are not doing. It is actually quite natural for organisms to come together and cooperate for a mutual benefit. It's why the majority of us don't kill each other. We are not just walking murders without religion. Watch a documentary every once in a while.

Killing each other is considered immoral and in a lot of species, is not done without some cause (bloodline dominance, territory, etc.) Hey, that kind of sounds like us except with our critical thinking, and thanks to religion, we found another reason to kill each other.

Lions don't think critically. Do you not get that? It actually makes more sense to band together for survival then it does to kill each other.


Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Again you realize morality isn't a natural thing! It isn't something we possess but something WE OBTAIN THROUGH OUR IDEOLOGIES! Morality could even be considered an Ideology!

Yes it is. It is natural for us as social creatures to find a way to work together for a mutual benefit. Basic morality plays in to this quite well.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Religion is an Ideology! Morality was founded on the Ideology of Religion.

Saying it with exclamation points and all caps doesn't make your point any more valid. It makes you seem radical and obnoxious.

I just wanna say...whenever I see a video of Jordan I just think that we are never truly going to have the people who should be running for office actually running.

Originally posted by Surtur
I just wanna say...whenever I see a video of Jordan I just think that we are never truly going to have the people who should be running for office actually running.
Yeah, woudn't it be nice.

I mean, imagine if Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and the like were MPs or Prime Ministers. Seriously, a world would be a better place with calm, collected and highly intelligent people in charge.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
If you don't believe in God, then basically you don't believe in Good and Evil! LOL.

Right.

Originally posted by Stigma
Yeah, woudn't it be nice.

I mean, imagine if Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and the like were MPs or Prime Ministers. Seriously, a world would be a better place with calm, collected and highly intelligent people in charge.


I could agree to that. As long as they didn't push their religious or anti-religious beliefs onto others as policy.

Originally posted by Stigma
Yeah, woudn't it be nice.

I mean, imagine if Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and the like were MPs or Prime Ministers. Seriously, a world would be a better place with calm, collected and highly intelligent people in charge.


I'd love to see Jordan Peterson in an actual position of power in Canada. Seems they need that the way their legislation is going.

Originally posted by socool8520
Let's not play word games okay or I'll have to point out that "predeterminated" isn't even a real word. Whether it was microbes placed on Earth by an asteroid at least know that I don't mean god.



All of this boils down to critical thinking. Something you are clearly are not doing. It is actually quite natural for organisms to come together and cooperate for a mutual benefit. It's why the majority of us don't kill each other. We are not just walking murders without religion. Watch a documentary every once in a while.

Killing each other is considered immoral and in a lot of species, is not done without some cause (bloodline dominance, territory, etc.) Hey, that kind of sounds like us except with our critical thinking, and thanks to religion, we found another reason to kill each other.

Lions don't think critically. Do you not get that? It actually makes more sense to band together for survival then it does to kill each other.




Yes it is. It is natural for us as social creatures to find a way to work together for a mutual benefit. Basic morality plays in to this quite well.



Saying it with exclamation points and all caps doesn't make your point any more valid. It makes you seem radical and obnoxious.

So you are attributing our existence to a natural process.

It only makes sense so long it works.

Let's say i go and speak with the other guy! I tell him to band together, yet he disagrees. Then what? What stops me to follow survival of the fittest instinct?

We are humans and have critical thinking! However as YOU YOUSELF CLAIMED we are outcomes of Nature! Therefore CRITICAL THINKING would dictate that if i can't get what i want (The guy won't join me) I have to follow the best route for success.

Not really. If it was "NATURAL" for us to work together (band together in perfect communion) there would be no crime in the world. So you realize Morality doesn't exist without Religion.

What prevents me from following the best way to success? Nothing.

Morality can't exist without Religion. If there is NO GOD then WHAT HOLDS ME FROM DOING WHAT I WANT? It is that simple.

Sorry, i just tend to capitalize the things i want to highlight.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
So you are attributing our existence to a natural process.

It only makes sense so long it works.

Let's say i go and speak with the other guy! I tell him to band together, yet he disagrees. Then what? What stops me to follow survival of the fittest instinct?

Yes.

Critical thinking stops you from murder Josh. Come on man. That's not hard to follow. Also, banding together falls in line with survival of the fittest. Get the best group you can to be dominant. If that person doesn't want to follow, then find another person. You don't automatically go to murder. maybe you need god to make the call for you, but I can make that decision for myself.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
We are humans and have critical thinking! However as YOU YOUSELF CLAIMED we are outcomes of Nature! Therefore CRITICAL THINKING would dictate that if i can't get what i want (The guy won't join me) I have to follow the best route for success.

LOl. Your misconception of critical thinking is what leads you to this assumption. If you really are thinking critically, you can find many better alternatives than murder. Your if/then conclusions are ridiculous.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Not really. If it was "NATURAL" for us to work together (band together in perfect communion) there would be no crime in the world. So you realize Morality doesn't exist without Religion.

Nothing is perfect. who made that claim. This is another one of your outlandish if/then scenarios. They're getting pretty bad. Just because we gather in large groups doesn't mean there are no wrinkles. Even the religious have killed each other. Nothing you have stated lends credence to no morality without religion.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
What prevents me from following the best way to success? Nothing.

Morality can't exist without Religion. If there is NO GOD then WHAT HOLDS ME FROM DOING WHAT I WANT? It is that simple.

Good grief man. Your basic morality and critical thought give you the tools necessary to reason that you shouldn't do whatever you want. If that's not enough, there's the law.

Originally posted by socool8520
Yes.

Critical thinking stops you from murder Josh. Come on man. That's not hard to follow. Also, banding together falls in line with survival of the fittest. Get the best group you can to be dominant. If that person doesn't want to follow, then find another person. You don't automatically go to murder. maybe you need god to make the call for you, but I can make that decision for myself.



LOl. Your misconception of critical thinking is what leads you to this assumption. If you really are thinking critically, you can find many better alternatives than murder. Your if/then conclusions are ridiculous.



Nothing is perfect. who made that claim. This is another one of your outlandish if/then scenarios. They're getting pretty bad. Just because we gather in large groups doesn't mean there are no wrinkles. Even the religious have killed each other. Nothing you have stated lends credence to no morality without religion.



Good grief man. Your basic morality and critical thought give you the tools necessary to reason that you shouldn't do whatever you want. If that's not enough, there's the law.

And what is critical thinking according to you? Thinking critically has nothing to do with morality Socool. Thinking Critically would be to realize that my attempts to socialize and negociate have failed. My business is suffering from economical problems. I have a familly to feed. Before I would earn $1000 now I earn $500 dollars and don't have enought to pay my daughter's school. What then? I am in problems, Critical Thinking points that I have to do something to survive. Since there is no God, then who prevents me from taking care of the problem?

Critical Thinking Definition:the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.

It has nothing to do with being moral.

Okay so what prevent us from "fixing the wrinkles" (Getting rid of the problem).

Except the Law was based on the Religious concept of morality. If i don't believe in God then I shouldn't believe in his commandments/doctrines!

In that aspect, the Law is but the way of thinking of other persons. What prevents me to follow MY OWN way of thinking?

Let me ask you another hypothetical question

Your wife is pregnant, however when your baby is born then you realize he is abnormal. Let's say he has a mental problem.

You know your son will NEVER be a normal person. You realize that you will have to mantain your baby for the rest of his life and that he won't be able to become independent. (As you can see this has nothing to do with banding together, it's a different concept).

What prevents you from sacrificing/killing your baby or abandoning him?

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Right.

Morality is but the outcome of the ideologies of Religion.

Morality are the rules stablished by Religion. If you don't believe in Religion, you shouldn't believe in it's rules neither.

Animals aren't immoral! They are the perfect example of an Atheist (Since they don't believe in Religion because they can't).

P.D. Don't take offense for saying Animals are good Atheists. I mean no offense.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Morality is but the outcome of the ideologies of Religion.

Wrong.



No, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in any rules. Hell, I could come up with my own rules, and it would still be a moral code, religion or no.



Right.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Wrong.



No, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in any rules. Hell, I could come up with my own rules, and it would still be a moral code, religion or no.



Right.

Eh....yeah. However the current laws are based on the Moral concept of Religion.

If you dont believe in God then you can create your own moral rules.

"god is the moral foundation of our culture"

No, he isn't.

Our culture has become more ethical as we've seperated ourselves from god. The West's 'ethics" have been based on a gradual seperation of the church and a state.

And religion isn't "transcendent", it's based on very fallible human beings' perceptions.

Aitheism is simply a lack of belief in god, it doesn't remotely preclude you from creating your meaning to base your virtues off. As we are naturally social beings, it's natural we would opt to cooperate rather than kill each other.

Religion did not create morality, the morals religion instills were morals that existed well before the religions existed. The morals of a religion are based on the morals of the people who create the religion, not the concept of god itself.

There simply isn't anything morally off about athiesim. And as society has shifted away from reliance on religion, we've become better more tolerant and moral people.

Not to mention that the whole, "do good and you get rewarded or do bad and get punished" is just as shallow as any material based morality.

Religious people have no business preaching to atheists about morality.

My personal point of view is that there's a special type of religious regressivism and a special type of atheist regressivism, and certain specific benefits accrued to the best members of both groups. The idea that if everyone was religious or everyone was atheist we'd live in a noticeably better world is absolute nonsense IMO, and I think it'd get worse either of those ways tbh.

morality can't be attributed to religion as morality exists with or without it. The use of reason and logic to better society can outright be attributed to athieism as it was unsubstatiated religious beliefs that was replaced by the use of logic and reason.

Society has become more tolerant and more advanced as religion has had less and less of an influence recently.

Stands to reason that as religion has less and less of an influence on sh!t, society will get better.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
morality can't be attributed to religion as morality exists with or without it. It seems that to me that you, unknowingly I suppose, opened up a path to refute this point by using Peterson's reasoning. (which I share to some degree.)

I will address some points made in this thread soon.

In the meantime I must say I see a few necessary correctives concering some anthropological claims.

Originally posted by socool8520
I agree that a notion of the afterlife at least, has been with us for awhile, but I don't think it has ultimately shaped our morality. It has been an influence, but I think survival and having to stick together influenced our cooperation, and ultimately, forced us to treat each other better. just my opinion though. Originally posted by socool8520
That doesn't mean that god has to bring you there or it the influence of a god. It could just as easily be for cooperation's sake. The mutual benefit of working together to progress. no God needed.

Exactly. It's not just your opinion. It's really... fact. lol

And Peterson claims to be rooted in evolutionary theory and he totally misses this point. It's baffling.

Originally posted by Stigma
Still, that is not the claim made.

Cooperation is the way in which the ideal may have been realized. Say, for thousands of years by trial and error humanity got better and they reached a certain moral system.

It may be the case, sure.

What is said though, is that a moral ideal was a faundation for the process of developing that morality. Thus, this ideal is transcendent in itself.

Then he's making the claim that morality existed before everything else, just like God supposedly did. It's another unprovable claim and is therefore moot.

Is that why the Bible and Koran advocate rape and slavery? It's rooted in our evolutionary past for sure.. heh

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Our culture has become more ethical as we've seperated ourselves from god. The West's 'ethics" have been based on a gradual seperation of the church and a state.

And religion isn't "transcendent", it's based on very fallible human beings' perceptions.

Yeah, in fact, with secular meditations atheism is far more capable of 'transcendence' than any fundamental religion. Anthropomorphized gods are obstacles to transcendence.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Religion did not create morality, the morals religion instills were morals that existed well before the religions existed. The morals of a religion are based on the morals of the people who create the religion, not the concept of god itself.

...

Religious people have no business preaching to atheists about morality.



If there's a problem with atheism Jordan Peterson has not found it or at least has not articulated it effectively.

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/sites/default/files/MEME_MoralityNaturalPhenomenon_Churchland.jpg