It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rising conservative star Jordan Peterson in debate: "Athiesm leads to murder"

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Jordan Peterson has been a rising star in the rightwing sphere because of his academic background and his vocal stances on controversial issues as demographics and IQ, gender and migration. For those of you who don't know him, Jordan is a Clinical Psychologist and Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto and there's quite a good amount of information on him out there. I've largely stayed clear of Jordan Peterson as I'm still learning about him at the moment but while watching him in a debate with Matt Dillahunty, a popular Athiest activist from Texas, earlier this year, one comment of Jordan's left me a tad bit speechless:

1hr 27minutes 49 seconds:


Audience member: What in your view would a genuine Athiest be like?

Peterson: He'd be like Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment. You see.. Raskolvnikov built himself up to the murder in part by laying out the rational case but also by saying.... "well there's no God.... there's no metaphysical reason from stopping me committing this act"


This isn't an 'isolated comment' from Jordan Peterson. This has been one of the major talking points on his position against Athiesm and he's made these arguments before. This idea that you can't really be Athiest because then there'd be nothing holding you back from following the rule of society and law. Jordan Peterson is a self proclaimed Christian evangelical and a believer in the Bible and it's benefits to society. He's been questioned over the validity of Christianity, the bible and a lot of his responses have been, well, personal reflections at best. With that said, his view on Athiesm is well for lack of a better word, horse manure:



Being an Athiest, a believer that there is no God, or no Gods at all is totally independent of being a moral being. The two aren't intertwined. Jordan Peterson's example of Raskolnikov is a rather weak attempt to paint Athiests with a broadbrush. Not much until like this idea that because George W Bush supported the Iraq war and was Christian, all Christians supported the Iraq war. It's a rather weak way to make an argument and one I feel Jordan Peterson is smart enough to know himself, but as a ways to get one over his avid followers. I'd like to see what other ATSers think about Jordan's position?

Have I misconstrued his argument? Did I get it wrong? Or if I got it right, what's the alternative justification?

Jordan of course has also made the argument that there are very little 'true' Athiests out there and that those who proclaim themselves Athiests believe in God deep down hence they abide by laws and do not commit crimes. This was a rather good debate by the way, I'd recommend ATSers take some time to view it in the link above dated April 14th 2018.



+2 more 
posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

And here we have it. Complete cultist fruitcake.



Jordan Peterson is a self proclaimed Christian evangelical and a believer in the Bible and it's benefits to society.


It's safe to say that watching daytime TV is more likely to lead to murder than atheism ever could.

Personally I wouldn't give the bloke the time of day.


edit on 30 6 2018 by myselfaswell because: whateva



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   
First off how are you defining your atheism?

Secondly, what is the basis for a principled approach to right and wrong as an atheist?

Is the difference between right and wrong for an atheist dependent on the circumstance or is the a higher set of defined values that you base your moral judgement on and where did that defined set of values come from?


+5 more 
posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

The golden rule is a quite logical approach. And it requires no god.
It is, of course, quite simplistic. But it makes a very good starting point.

edit on 6/30/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I find it funny that you used the golden rule as an example... otherwise known as

resear chgate.net



Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."[14][15] This proverb embodies the do ut des principle.[16] A Late Period (c. 664–323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."[17]


Funny that origin of this saying comes from various religions. Is it possible that this exploration of morality is the basis for the origins of religion?


+10 more 
posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Is it possible that religion is a construct to facilitate society while giving power to a priesthood?
edit on 6/30/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I don't think this is about religion I think it's about the belief in a higher power.

How about this...

Is morality inherently a form of spiritualism?



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin and Bret Weinstein’s are all fame whores who through pity party’s over the fact they got heat on the internet from random nobodies. Then pretended like it was proof of some sestemic problem the left has with free speech.


They are all 3 jokes and the more they talk the dumber they make themselves look.

It is sad the rightwing media propagandists have to look so hard for celebrity conservatives..



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults




Is morality inherently a form of spiritualism?

Nope.
It is inherently a form of pragmatism. The rules of morality are what are required for humans to coexist as a society. And they all stem from the golden rule. Logical. Be nice to me and I'll be nice to you.



edit on 6/30/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: myselfaswell

Jordanpeterson is a fame whore that figured out if he pretended to be a conservative Christian who got mean comments from the internet, he could be famous..


edit on 30-6-2018 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I believe, as with any subject, you should read more.
Peterson has many views that challenge some of these "modern" narratives, ideals, beings, and constructions. He has went on to challenge many things that I actually see as worth challenging. I would even go as far to say that at least he is fighting back against some things that need to be battled with.

He is entitled to his opinion.
Just like you.






posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Mao was an atheist, he is on to something.



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So you're sense of morality stems from




The rules of morality are what are required for humans to coexist as a society


There's no good or bad in actions and situations??? There isn't good actions and bad actions? Just what is needed to make society work?

What if we need to kill 10,000 people to make society work is that good or bad?



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults




What if we need to kill 10,000 people to make society work is that good or bad?

That would not make a society work. Though it might help keep the priesthood in power.

Fear seems to be a good motivator.

Fear of dying. Fear of damnation.

Fear of "them."

edit on 6/30/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)


+10 more 
posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Peterson is not a Christian, is CERTAINLY NOT a Christian evangelical, your premise is just staggeringly stupid

m.youtube.com...

Your assumption and argument is a complete fallacy and hence a complete failure
By Petersons own definition he is an agnostic. See the YouTube interview above before making such naive comments

Peterson does read and evaluate the bible, because he sees many interesting psychological relevant issues contained in it
A very clever well spoken man with a very concise understanding of people
To describe Peterson as a Christian evangelical, that's just dumb and completely wrong

A self confessed agnostic, Peterson does not argue as a Christian

How can you define a whole thread and argument based on such a completely wrong premise, staggeringly stupid
edit on 30-6-2018 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I've observed that the leading cause of murder is being acquainted with Perry Mason or Jessica Fletcher. You may not commit the murder, but somebody is going to die, and you will be accused.


+4 more 
posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

BWAHAHAHA

HITLER WAS A CHRISTIAN!!

Christopher Columbus was a Christian..

Cortez was a Christian..

Vlad the impaled..Christian


Christians killed roughly all the aborigines ..

Christians killed roughly all the native Americans..

Christians enslaved most of Africa..

Christians killed hundreds of thousands of eskimos..
Christians killed countless pagans in the Middle Ages.. BRUTALLY..



I would love to play the “what religion has the most rapes and murders” game..


Atheism is relatively new..

We have a couple thousand years of Christian atrocities to tally..



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So there's no good and bad?



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults




So there's no good and bad?

Depends on your definition.
Is homosexuality a sin?



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You keep going back to religion.

Is there good and bad?

Simple question. If you want to define the answer that's fine but you first have to actually answer the question.




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join