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

a reply to: username74

and i will say it again, none of this excludes anyones spiritual indivduality. their perception.
only recognise that actions have consequences

Some lady shot a giraffe, now some think morally it's bankrupt, others think it's fine

It seems she may even be a christian hunter
Is there anything wrong with killing animals, African game, this isn't even related to biblical morals and it divides people.

Peterson states people have subjective morals, this is a great indication of these subjective morals on a different level

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Annee

an atheist is an individual. Each individual can believe whatever they want (except belief in a god/deity). That is called the Atheist's Philosophy (personal belief).

So they are allowed to lie to each other . Steal from each other . Actually sounds like they could break any and all conceivable moral codes and laws and their Atheistic Philosophy is maintained . But if they contemplate or decide to believe in a god/deity then they are out of the club . Wow pretty tight ship you run there . must be wonderful .

WTF???? Where is this come from? Where do you find that athiests are allowed to lie, steal and cheat? Come on - where?

I don't think anyone is being malicious, well I hope not

You ask the question " where do you find atheists are allowed to" but another question is where do you find atheists are not allowed to?
Society always breaks down, every system always crumbles

originally posted by: CB328

In an atheist society who decides what is moral?

The majority.

In a religious society rulers and priests decide what is moral, for their own benefit.

Wow, I wouldn't live in the society you live in, leave where you are
If the majority don't have a say, can't vote, get out
Even I as a Christian don't want to live in a human theocracy,,please get out of where you are

Can you show me what societies have rulers and priests making up the morales

a reply to: username74

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: coomba98

Natural selection was internalized as human intelligence, which was then applied to the most important selection pressures, which were other groups of people. Hence, the history of warfare, as what made and maintained Globalized Neolithic Civilization.
After life exists, then the death controls direct the evolution of that life. In the case of human beings and civilization, those natural selection pressures have driven the death control systems to become most socially successful by becoming as deceitful and treacherous as possible. Hence, it has been rather routine for wars to be started and escalated by staging various false flag attacks.

so thats where "ism's" come in.
the hierarchy-
>the ism/the myth/the fantasy
>the sociopathic leaders
>the sociopathic hierarchy
>the true believers
>the dumbasses (enlightened or not)

result= bull# flows downwards, power flows upwards. this is religion.
and it s all psychology!

I normally use the common usages of the word being:

'ism
* a distinctive practice;
* system; or
* philosophy.
Typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.'

Theism comes under all three, Atheism would only be the third point and thats stretching it as Atheism is only one stance to one question, and that is do god or gods exist. All other philosophy is something else.

Coomba98

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: FyreByrd

thats delicate. i am using quotes but its someone who has a much better expression of my conclusions and i have this conclusion from a diverse number of influences such as jungs chapter on the archaic mind, some conclusions from polish psychologists learning in the transition from nazism to communism, survivability study on the basis of neuropsychology ancient history primary and secondary sources, anthropology...it goes on.
but the guy i tend to quote never wrote a paper or book but did have political platform in canada for a while.
he pops up here and there so i didnt want to publicise him cos hes not a spring chicken and i am sure if he wanted to push his position i am sure he could. also his nom du plume (pen name) could violate the t/c conditions on this site.
the point being he was able to unpack these concepts into language which i cannot do nearly as well.
you should find him with those clues

So why no attribution? If your post was a "better expression of 'my' conclusions, then give credit where credit is due.

Don't hedge . What you did was plagiarism.

So you are, in fact, lying, cheating and stealing, to make your points about morality/ethics.

a reply to: FyreByrd

lol.
which bit is upsetting you?
are you religious?

i am a liar , a cheat and a thief in your eyes ?
for contributing to a discussion?
whats ruffled your feathers so?
what moral points was i making?

a reply to: coomba98

"I normally use the common usages of the word being:

'ism
* a distinctive practice;
* system; or
* philosophy.
Typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.'"

language is your conceptual toolbox its how we pass and develop ideas and concepts
would you prefer to ring fence ideas?
Theism implies the view that all limited or finite things are dependent in some way on one supreme or ultimate reality of which one may also speak in personal terms.

a reply to: Raggedyman

eh europe circa 1200 - 1400 and in the UK still up to this day to a certain degree !

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Raggedyman

eh europe circa 1200 - 1400 and in the UK still up to this day to a certain degree !

1200 to 1400, that's relevant

Anyway, what is happening today, what am I missing
Are you suggesting that today priests and rulers?, whatever rulers are, make moral policy or that you live in a religious theocracy today

You should consider moving to a country with a democracy or democracy based system
Dictators make policy, Christianity doesn't encourage dictators it encourages servants

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: FyreByrd

lol.
which bit is upsetting you?
are you religious?

i am a liar , a cheat and a thief in your eyes ?
for contributing to a discussion?
whats ruffled your feathers so?
what moral points was i making?

I feel annoyed because you tried to pass off something someone else had written (or someones) as your own.

I feel annoyed because you don't want to say who actually said these things 'you believe' which implies that those who read your unattributed quotes will judge you based on your attribution.

I feel frustrated because I'd like to know who wrote this stuff.

I feel irritated by your uses of distraction and personal attach to avoid an obviously uncomfortable truth about this post.

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: coomba98

"I normally use the common usages of the word being:

'ism
* a distinctive practice;
* system; or
* philosophy.
Typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.'"

language is your conceptual toolbox its how we pass and develop ideas and concepts
would you prefer to ring fence ideas?
Theism implies the view that all limited or finite things are dependent in some way on one supreme or ultimate reality of which one may also speak in personal terms.

Another quote without attribution.

It's not that hard, one more "copy and paste" is all that is required.

a reply to: FyreByrd

you seem to feel alot.
try thinking.
take some weight off your emotional system.
in fact try reading the thread.
there is nothing to refer to because the guy used to expound his theory on a comments section and gave up because he got ttired of presenting pearls to swine.
and the ism stuff is not from him but from another source.
do you want me to list every book i ever read?
whats the issue with the source anyway?
the information is not involving events, its a discussion.
what is the uncomfortable truth i am hiding?
is your head a peanut?

a reply to: username74
Is your caps key broken?

a reply to: Phage

sometimes. its an old toshiba. i have a cat.

a reply to: Phage

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Southern Guardian

if anyones still interested, this linky is very relevant to the op

tapnewswire.com...

I suppose (and I am presuming here) that religionists don't question the morality handed to them, so why should an atheist have to question there's? Could it be due to the probability that religionists want to be the sole arbiters of morality and thereby giving their morality a transcendent cause for it?

If morality has a transcendent cause and not a corporeal one, does it not prop up the self-feeding belief that there 'must' be a God? Thus, the argument must be that there can be no morality, no inner moral compass, no external moral act unless God is present in the universe. A position that lends itself to the Contingency Argument...which was quite well debunked by Russell.

All religionists want to evangelise their belief, not simply to the converted, but more importantly to the non-converted. For the non-converted are the goal of their belief. Spread the message however you can. It does not matter if the non-converted accept it, just as long as you can evangelise and give the message.

In the film Contact, Joss asks Arroway to prove that she loved her father. Arroway should have asked Joss to prove that he loved God, and however he demonstrated his love, Arroway could use the same examples to prove her love for her father, that is to suggest, if either case of examples could be classed as incontrovertible proof? Fact is, you can't prove a negative, or anything subjective, because they are relative, having no solid foundation.

No 'ology' or 'ism' causes a person to kill another. People adopt certain beliefs and understandings that resonate with their own inner being and express that inner being through the belief and understanding they adopt. 'Ologies' and 'ism's' are merely mediums through which people act and react to others.

Atheism isn't a theory, it is a stance, a malleable one that is predicated on evidence. Stalin did not kill millions because he was an atheist, but because he felt it conducive for his own political survival and ideology. Same goes for Pol Pot, or even Mao. There are plenty of pope-ish and priest-ish characters down through history who did the same thing, claiming God commanded it. The only difference between them all is the medium through which they expressed themselves which led to the killing and suffering of millions.

My point is, of course, that it isn't the 'ology' or the 'ism' that drives one to kill, but one's own innate disposition.

a reply to: elysiumfire
"I suppose (and I am presuming here) that religionists don't question the morality handed to them"
well you cant its the first rule of the ism.
voltaire -"if you want to know who controls you, ask who you are not allowed to criticize"

so the leader is judged and promoted on the quality of his bull#.
the ism is the style of bull#

e.g. fear+bull#=conservative
hope+bull#=liberal
govt+bull#=politics
morals+bull#=religion

so heres the hierarchy

deities/mythology > priests/leaders > sycophants > true believers > the converted(and unconverted)
to
the ism (fantasy/myth) > sociopathic leaders > sociopathic sycophants > the true believers > the dumbasses(enlightened dumbasses)

"My point is, of course, that it isn't the 'ology' or the 'ism' that drives one to kill, but one's own innate disposition."

sorry, i have to contest that.
enviromental drivers decide your potential actions , including social structure, which will be overlaid to make up your behavioural options.
then theres the 4 Fs, fear, fighting, food, sex.
these are natural selection pressures that have always existed.
After any life form exists, then due to the inherent nature of that existance, there are chronic problems which emerge, and which are resolved by the death control conditions that direct the evolution of that life.
In the case of the human species, those were internalized to become human intelligence, and then, human intelligence was applied to the most important selection pressures, which were from other human beings.

Religion was the next social organisation after tribes, and at that point it will have been controlled by sociopaths, because they recognise that isms are needed by the brain to reconcile reality with a fantasy the brain desires, conciously or not,
thus bringing us to the funding (resource accumulation) of the political/religious process (ism) which was always the essential aspect of the established systems, which provided the maximum leverage to accumulate more social power over time.
Following the money leads us through the dark places where the murder system backs up the money system, which operates the heart of darkness, whereby the murder systems are paid for, to maintain the money systems in return.
People were conditioned to be adverse to understanding and participating in the money and taxation systems because those actually depend on murder systems.
There are no morals in maths, and entropy must be served, hence, the history of warfare, which was organized crime on larger and larger scales.
Governments were basically military organizations, or operated as organized crime gangs which were most successful by being as deceitful and treacherous as they could be, and those which were most successful overall were also able to control their apparent opposition.
The results are that the vast majority of people take almost completely for granted various dualities presented in public as false fundamental dichotomies, and their related impossible ideals. Those manifest just as much through the controlled opposition that surrounds the core of organized crime, as they do within that core of organized crime.
Controlled opposition to those systems similarly promotes the same sets of false fundamental dichotomies, and related impossible ideals. Therefore, in the public spaces there are matching bookends that bracket the basic problems that there must necessary exist some combined money/murder systems.
A civilization built on enormous lies, which people are fooled into believing, and/or forced to accept. Therefore, they can not effectively resist.
Most fail to ever understand the social facts enough to be able transform the real rates of social robberies, that have become runaway insanities. Despite those destroying the lives of the vast majority of people, and their children’s, citizens do not understand that they are actually already members of an organized crime gang, enough, to more effectively participate.
how innate is your disposition?
stalin,hitler and mau and all the rest did because the system of the world, the heart of darkness, demanded it of them.
and as sociopaths they had no choice but to respond.
or perhaps no will to resist is better.


i just watched that video again and its just a hatchet job on peterson, really.
what these "athiests" fail to recognise is that they come from a society that historically was christendom.
"the age of enlightenment" fell across europe and cultural exchange ran in both directions across the atlantic.
in america there was a great emphasis upon liberty, republicanism and religious tolerance and there was no respect for monarchy or inherited political power. Deists reconciled science and religion by rejecting prophecies, miracles and Biblical theology this began to expose society to extremely heterogeneous cultures, leading to the breaking down of barriers between cultural systems and religious divides.
the moral structure survived. the nice people push the sociopaths in the direction of niceness and the sociopaths evolve their tactics.
so as peterson points out when one guy claims to be "not a christian"
"but you think like one"
so peterson sees it too. if you've no ism its all about self interest.
but these atheists have atheism
humanism - came from renaissance humanism in the earlyish church.
shall we say.... the ego( fear)+bull# = humanism

I don’t know about atheism leading to murder, but any atheist who denies the conclusion that if he is correct all morality is a subjective concept and that humans beings have absolutely no objective value, is either an idiot or intellectually dishonest.

It doesn’t matter if the moral impetus has a biological basis as a product of evolution or if particular moral law is a mere social construct, and if you arbitrarily define “right” and “wrong” in terms of a fundamental imperative like “survival” to make your claims meaningful. The fact remains that the result is ontologically indistinguishable from a subjective drive like thirst or a mere taste like that for sweet food, which may have a function geared toward some end, and may be rationally understood, but remains relative in value and subjective in its existence, so that it is not only not binding on the person in any sense but can rationally be broken whenever the estimated outcome of doing so is deemed to be more desirable than following the law.

That, and accidental products of evolution from glorified pond slime on a cosmically insignificant rock hurtling through space have no objective value.

No, the typical atheist nowadays is no more going to go out and murder people than the religious, since he has a conscience, whatever it’s origin, but there is no rational reason whatsoever for him not to do so if it can be deemed expedient to some desired outcome whose importance transcends that of any potential negative results of murder.