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

a reply to: Theosist

so can we make the argument that atheism is just the 'spiritual' aspect of materialism, lol?


"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."

but there is no fundamental imperative above survival (of genes [potential]). in this context, right = continued life, wrong = dead.
a moral context (within an ism) has to have at least two people for this to happen so the dynamic can form, mutual advantage can be found simply in laissez faire, initially.

doesnt the biological basis for morals and the biological demand for expediency supercede the social basis simply because there will be a feedback loop into the enviroment hence the biological origin for the moral.
might not be meaningful to the artificial system within the natural system but it will be to whatever part of the natural system has to suck up the consequences, which in turn places demands on the enviroment of the artificial system through the agency of the beings who live in the ism?
unitary systems?
feel like i should read jungs chapter on the archaic mind.

Frankly, Joran whatever-his-name-is misses the mark. If one needs the threat of an omnipotent creature's wrath to keep them from being violent, then they're only a breath away from justifying it anyway. Atheists don't need the threat of otherworldly wrath to behave, being a decent person to others to be treated decently in return is it's OWN reward.

The fact that the religious do need that threat to stay in line speaks volumes for how thin the religious self-control veil truly is. Just my opinion.

a reply to: Nyiah

"Atheists don't need the threat of otherworldly wrath to behave"
so we dont have secular law?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Rationalize all you wish.

The fact remains, a claim of moral superiority based on a belief in Christ has no validity.

While your statement is true in technicality....there is an argument for the opposite. I am coming on to this thread phage, to pick up some slack on the oppositions end and clarify some things many who posted here has wrong about what they think they know....sooon.

I promise to keep this as on topic as possible, but I need you to understand that I only decided to intervene because user 70 somethings intelligence has gotten me excited to challenge his point of view, I plan to engage him, but as the creator of this thread I would like your permission to engage as an opponent. normally I dont waste my time arguing belief and pros, cons or what have you, but almost all the posters here are ignorant, christian and atheist, and their emotional and dumbed down arguments are a disgrace to their own credibility to speak on these matters and weak in defense of their own ideals.

and mister 74 is who I plan to engage, with your permission, I bet I could really liven this thread up. I promise you will find it invigorating and all will be allowed their chance to challenge me here, and get alot of pent up vexation out of their system.

I of course will engage no. 74 in a moment, to warn that I am coming, but I would feel alot better if you ok'ed it, and I would encourage the atheists on board to brace themselves, for after I give my introduction to how I "Perceive" the universe, and my own place in it, I wont be holding any punches for religion or atheism. its gonna leave a bruise with all I have already prepared to strike down .74's philosophy of control.

but it will set you in your position against me as well, and I promise I wont make or take it personal is all I can offer.

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Nyiah

"Atheists don't need the threat of otherworldly wrath to behave"
so we dont have secular law?

Secular law is "otherworldly"?

And lest ye forget, the good bible thumpers make up the majority of jailbirds. So they nether obey their book's laws, nor our secular ones. Now, who's naughtier again?

originally posted by: username74
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

lol, actions have consequences? do they now?
I am really impressed with your intellectual outlook on these matters, you truly have the most sense of anyone here so far, yet I can still detect a certain confirmation bias in between the lines. I would like to engage your viewpoint as you seem like you could be a challenge to test my weaponized mind against. I of course first will want to address some things said on this board by others, in order to clarify a few things, not just about the ignorance of their statements but also to show who I really am.

Yes you have gotten my attention with your thesis, I was going to avoid posting because there was too much incorrect info being thrown around by all and it was all because for some reason Atheists and Christians always get emotional when they bicker like children over nothing they understand.

I of course after my next post plan to start dropping some serious hurt using cited sources, so even though I have most my material prepared I wanted to give you a heads up, to prepare your own counters.

Im gonna start slow, but by the end of my interest in this we will both know the power of eachothers chess game.


Sooon. by tomorrow at the latest, until then, have fun. btw, I thought it was hilarious how your intellect sent Fyre into a silent sulk. that outburst of your sources made me laugh.


P.S.
I noticed in your hierarchy of Bull# that you by technicality listed Religion at the top and Atheism(among other "isms'" a whole TIER below it. I dont know if any of you caught that but you kinda just stated in a funny fashion that Religious people DO hold the higher moral authority, because since they are at the top of the BULL# chain they control the narrative! lol. oh hah, haha, hehaheeee.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Nyiah

"Atheists don't need the threat of otherworldly wrath to behave"
so we dont have secular law?

Secular law is "otherworldly"?

And lest ye forget, the good bible thumpers make up the majority of jailbirds. So they nether obey their book's laws, nor our secular ones. Now, who's naughtier again?

most those bible thumpers in prison? became so AFTER they spent a year or more there for their crimes.

you better get ready cause Im about to drop the hammer on every atheist here. those uneducated christians you have been arguing with so far are not worthy of speaking up for their beliefs as they have failed to destroy many of the simplest untrue and misleading statements made about them so far.

you ready to ride this train with someone who can prove to you there is a god? just say choo choo

SOON...

a reply to: AutisticEvo

My my, somebody's got a hell of an ego. Remind me which part of the ever so good book of yours says not to judge again? And the requirements necessary for being able to do so?

You have fun playing with yourself in the corner.

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: AutisticEvo

My my, somebody's got a hell of an ego. Remind me which part of the ever so good book of yours says not to judge again? And the requirements necessary for being able to do so?

You have fun playing with yourself in the corner.

once more an atheist making an overreach with their assumptions. what makes you think I am christian?
Also there was no requirements listed for judging others.
It warns that one will be judged according to how they judge others, nothing more.

you presume in stance of argumentum ad ignorantiam sir.
I dont see you faring well at all once phage gives me the go ahead.

do yourself a favor, focus on the ideals you believe, because you just shot your own foot twice. and your not my chosen opponent, you are not worthy of my time as you lack the wisdom to engage within the limits of that knowledge you do possess as you just showcased

"He who tries to Show Off will be Shown Up in a Show Down" ~a fortune cookie I once opened

a reply to: AutisticEvo

before anyone questions my ego again, let me introduce you to a song that explains my position.

www.youtube.com...


"I made the mistake of playing this at the office. Now everyone has a beard, a tankard is at every desk and our weekly meetings have changed into weekly war councils"


but lets not forget my true roots. www.youtube.com...

and more to come my sweet delectable ats. You know you want a Touch of Evil. I want every christian and atheist or whatever you call yourselves here for this, I am gonna show all of you how to hold a REAL RELIGIOUS DEBATE!. I not only will deny both sides ignorance, Im gonna nuke your pathetic arguments with facts, science and TRUTH.
I raked the atheist twitter community's face through the coals and gravel...and I did it all without animosity, but you would be surprised how scientific FACTS are not the ally of doubters, but on the side of believers. welcome to THUNDERDOME!

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Nyiah

"Atheists don't need the threat of otherworldly wrath to behave"
so we dont have secular law?

I know right! LMAO. Because atheists are all
the purest of souls (Opps sorry). Totally
civilized immune to worthless emotions,
jealousy, hate, greed. Bunch a purified Mr.
Spocks parading around in higher intelligence
and logic than the rest of us. Because they
refuse the truth of the past.

Barf bag please

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Nyiah

"Atheists don't need the threat of otherworldly wrath to behave"
so we dont have secular law?

I know right! LMAO. Because atheists are all
the purest of souls (Opps sorry). Totally
civilized immune to worthless emotions,
jealousy, hate, greed. Bunch a purified Mr.
Spocks parading around in higher intelligence
and logic than the rest of us. Because they
refuse the truth of the past.

Barf bag please

thank you for your contribution," tomorrow night, we shall dine in the gardens of Troy"

a reply to: AutisticEvo

Will any atheists be there? And what about
my hair?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: AutisticEvo

Will any atheists be there? And what about
my hair?

Dye it some sexy colour and cut it to the visual pleasure of our audience. And yes they will be here. And bring your friends. This is gonna be so good it's gonna have nuts in it!

a reply to: Southern Guardian

well no one replied so I am just going to post the counter and say the psychologist might have a point, seems atheism has a mess of issues they are in denial about. *cracks knuckles* lets roll. I edited my thesis to make this as soft a blow as possible.




atheism as well as most self declared atheist have a at best "hollywood" definition of religion, with little to no actual study of theology, which is why all the false narratives they push
but more importantly atheists tend to claim that they have a scientific outlook, even though their put forth ideas and beliefs about "Scientific fact" fall short of scientific reasoning and evidence science currently has on hand, more often than not pushing decades old and as of yet Proven theories forward as facts, they not only showcase their belief as more emotional than reasonable, they also disgrace the REAL SCIENTIFIC Community as a whole when they shout out their claims without due research. a community that has ALWAYS been made of up both religious and non religious individuals, who actually research and use scientific skepticism in order to obtain the facts, not just some biased so called "truth". below I have compiled some critisisms to showcase that lack of reason based on the words of Major Contributors to education and Science:

"Various contemporary agnostics like Carl Sagan[1] and theists such as Dinesh D'Souza[2] have criticised atheism for being an unscientific position." en.wikipedia.org...

"Analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame, argues that a failure of theistic arguments might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism; and points to the observation of an apparently "fine-tuned Universe" as more likely to be explained by theism than atheism. Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox holds that atheism is an inferior world view to that of theism and attributes to C.S. Lewis the best formulation of merton's thesis that science sits more comfortably with theistic notions on the basis that Men became scientific in Western Europe in the 16th and 17th century "ecause they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.' In other words, it was belief in God that was the motor that drove modern science". American geneticist Francis Collins also cites Lewis as persuasive in convincing him that theism is the more rational world view than atheism."

"The advocacy of atheism by some of the more violent exponents of the French Revolution, the subsequent militancy of Marxist–Leninist atheism and prominence of atheism in totalitarian states formed in the 20th century is often cited in critical assessments of the implications of atheism. In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke railed against "atheistical fanaticism".

"The 1937 papal encyclical Divini Redemptoris denounced the atheism of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, which was later influential in the establishment of state atheism across Eastern Europe and elsewhere, including Mao Zedong's China, Kim's North Korea and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Critics of atheism often associate the actions of 20th-century state atheism with broader atheism in their critiques. Various poets, novelists and lay theologians, among them G. K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis, have also criticized atheism. For example, Chesterton holds that "[h]e who does not believe in God will believe in anything".[4]

also "The agnostic Analytic Philosopher Anthony Kenny rejected the presumption of atheism on any definition of atheism arguing that "the true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism" adding "a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated, ignorance need only be confessed"

"University of Notre Dame philosopher Ralph McInerny goes further than Plantinga, arguing that belief in God reasonably follows from our observations of the natural order and the law-like character of natural events. McInerny argues that the extent of this natural order is so pervasive as to be almost innate, providing a prima facie argument against atheism. McInerny's position goes further than Plantinga's, arguing that theism is evidenced and that the burden of proof rests on the atheist, not on the theist.[31][38]"

[S]uch an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that "There is no God" is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that "There is a God." Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God's existence"

"In A Letter Concerning Toleration, the influential English philosopher John Locke wrote: "Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all".[50] Although Locke was believed to be an advocate of tolerance, he urged the authorities not to tolerate atheism because the denial of God's existence would undermine the social order and lead to chaos.[51] According to Dinesh D'Souza, Locke, like Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky after him, argued that "when God is excluded, then it is not surprising when morality itself is sacrificed in the process and chaos and horror is unleashed on the world".[52]"
Now lets talk about who killed more, religion or atheists in power

furthermore The Reign of Terror of the French Revolution established a state which was anti-Roman Catholicism/Christian in nature [8] (anti-clerical deism and anti-religious atheism during the Enlightenment played a significant role in the French Revolution[9][10]), with the official ideology being the Cult of Reason; during this time thousands of believers were suppressed and executed by the guillotine.[11] Although Communism is one of the most well-known cases of atheism's ties to mass murder, the French Revolution and subsequent Reign of Terror, inspired by the works of Diderot, Voltaire, Sade, and Rousseau, managed to commit similar persecutions and exterminations of religious people and promote secularism and militant atheism. Official numbers indicate that 300,000 Frenchmen died during Robespierre's Reign of Terror, 297,000 of which were of middle-class or low-class.[12] Of the amount murdered via the guillotine, only 8% had been of the aristocratic class, with over 30% being from the peasant class.[13]

it gets worse see post 2

END POST 1

a reply to: AutisticEvo

Continued from post 1

One of the most well known cases of mass murder during the French Revolution was the genocide at Vendée, which has yet to be officially recognized as genocide. Some estimates indicated that Robespierre and the Jacobins planned to massacre well over 15,000,000 Frenchmen,[12] and that he also intended to commit genocide against the Alsace region of France due to their German-speaking populace.[13] Besides the guillotine, the French Revolution also resulted in various other deaths, including trampling children with horses, burning people in ovens, "Republican Marriages" (which involved stripping people naked, tying them together to a log in a suggestive fashion, and then putting them into the water to drown. In the event that there wasn't enough people of both sexes, they also resorted to "tying the knot" in a homosexual manner), cutting recently raped girls in half after tying them to a tree, crushing pregnant women under wine pressers, cutting up pregnant women and using bayonets to stab the fetus inside before leaving her to die, "catching" infants thrown from a balcony with their bayonets, and using shotguns to ensure people bled out to death.[13]
end quote

thats more than 18 times the death toll from the holocaust, and more than double what any religion caused. the more I research the more it seems that the OP might be on to something that doesnt look good on atheists in power. but their problems dont end there, we also got the mental issues that atheists tend to go through. read below.



www.huffingtonpost.com...

ABC News reported:

“ ...the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.
Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."[6]

In 2009, Pew Research Forum reported that a comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.[3][4] The study revealed that forty percent of worship service attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.[3][4] Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%)


...a pollster at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, found that adults who profess a belief in God are significantly more likely than atheists to say that forgiveness, patience, generosity and a concern for others are "very important." In fact, the poll found that on 11 of 12 values, there was a double-digit gap between theists and atheists, with theists more likely to label each value "very important."
The survey by sociologist and pollster Reginald Bibby examined the beliefs of 1,600 Canadians, 82 percent who said they believed in "God or a higher power" and 18 percent who said they did not.[13]


www.conservapedia.com...

"From a metaphysical, moral and spiritual perspective, atheists have an inability to satisfactorily explain the existence of love" Dr. Taylor Marshall

Scott Simon, NPR: "But I do wonder, am I just not seeing the world correctly to see large numbers of well-motivated atheists lending their lives to trying to better the world? Or they're - if I might put it this way, are they more concerned about just being right intellectually?"

"Doing overseas evangelism/outreaches often requires significant hardships/persecution and Western atheists have been unwilling to endure such hardships in order to spread atheistic ideology"

Two atheist nonprofit scandals which received some publicity were the organizations Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and the We Are Atheism organization.

Historically, the secular left has been dominant within the atheist community (see: Atheism and politics).

Progressive values according to leading progressive websites
According to leading progressive/leftists websites, progressive values include: caring and responsibility, carried out with strength; freedom; opportunity; responsibility; cooperation/community; protection/fairness; and honesty and open communication.[31][32]

The atheist population has fallen short of the above-mentioned values (See: Atheism and social justice and Atheist hypocrisy).

The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults"



heres a link to your god richard dawkins charity webpage. givingaid.richarddawkins.net...

funny, it doesnt seem to work as a link, guess the donations were so low he couldnt maintain the website lol.


one last quote here, it directly correlates how I feel whenever I see atheists engaging in an argument with christians
"In his essay Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance for the World Union of Deists, Peter Murphy wrote: "The dogmatic atheist like the dogmatic theist is obsessed with conformity and will spew a tirade of angry words against anyone who does not conform to their own particular world view".[62] The Times arts and entertainment writer Ian Johns described the 2006 British documentary The Trouble with Atheism as "reiterating the point that the dogmatic intensity of atheists is the secular equivalent of the blinkered zeal of fanatical mullahs and biblical fundamentalists"."

also this " Francis Bacon criticized the dispositions towards atheism as being "contrary to wisdom and moral gravity" and being associated with fearing government or public affairs.[74] He also stated that knowing a little science may lead one to atheism, but knowing more science will lead one to religion.[74] In another work called The Advancement of Learning, Bacon stated that superficial knowledge of philosophy inclines one to atheism while more knowledge of philosophy inclines one toward religion"

to which I also agree. I had alot more to hammer this thread with but I think this should suffice, and in the future I will make a thread that goes more in depth about the false scientific narrative that atheists use as a Rosary to cling to their psuedo scientific dogma.

given all the information I just listed, I think its safe to say that any other group, belief or deistic society hell even the cat next door has
"MORAL AUTHORITY"
when compared to the history and present day dogma of atheism.

you just cant beat the facts and the math here. sorry guys and gals. but dont worry, those religious nuts will never fail to make a joke of themselves when they try to debate.

a reply to: AutisticEvo

on a final note I would like to say that I do not, despite the quoting posts above, actually believe atheism leads to murder, as that would be illogical to human nature, I believe we are all inclined to murder, and that we rise above our natural impulses due to either objective morals that lead to subjective stance, or subjective morality that leads to an objective "golden rule". my current best friend is one of the most challenging intellectual atheists I have ever known, and hes not cruel at all, unless you ask the girls he refuses the advances of lol.

but we are besties because we both know that belief, or lack thereof, does not entitle one to cold logic, we are bff because we both have a cold reasoning logic, and we laugh together over peoples simple outlooks like devias devils ourselves, as we are honest with our natures and do not restrain ourselves over some "Objective" sense of morality.

many of you here have a theist reasons for believing wrong. at least as far as I go, I have studied and found correlation with many cores of all belief systems, I have no judgement for those that disagree, quite the contrary, I give the minimum of 50% at the least that your arguments could be the right one, due to lack of solid evidence involving the universe.

what should amaze you is that despite my beliefs that lead to "objective" morality, is I still follow my own laws and rules, not subject to man, and in a lot of ways not subject to a god. and yes by the "Atypical" system that means I should "go to hell" if there is such a place, but my personal opinion and knowledge has shown me that if there is such a place, it is not ruled by an all powerful, and I have no intention of submitting to some "Fallen" loser should I find myself there, rather, I plan to rely on my WILL alone to dominate and take over if thats the case. just look at those old paintings people...

hell is undestaffed and overpopulated. a coup should be simple enough given the right amount of determination.

to simplify, I am a believer, but I wont hesitate to go even further than any EVIL to achieve my own ends. I dont hold my faith as a security blanket, or for some comfort, I have faced the reality of DEATH since I was a lad, and come to accept one ABSOLUTE TRUTH... Its not dying that should scare you, for it is quite natural.
Its HOW you die, and no I dont mean slow or fast, or by fire or by drowning.
I mean you should die or try to die in a manner acceptable, like fighting for your loved ones, or for honor, or for love, and by protecting and insuring those you care about and fight for.
Leave your children an inheritance, Do not go down in the face of those who would murder or rape your loved ones after they finish you off, take them with you instead.
Die a "Good Death", and it wont matter what you believe, Victory WILL BE YOURS!!!

also, I never try to convert my friend, point in fact, if I was made THEOCRATIC ruler of the WORLD tomorrow, I would want him to be the Jafar to my Sultan, the Advisor in my Ear, the Speaker of Doubt to my Certainty. because that is what I would consider balance.

You as Atheists and Agnostics do have a grand purpose, and that is to challenge those whose decisions towards beliefs are not well thought out or paired with KNOWLEDGE.

remember that my beloved doubters and faithful, without eachother to question what we believe, how are we ever to evolve and build stronger foundations for what we believe based on new insights and knowledge, without those things being put to the question?

I and you have a PURPOSE... but it wasnt declared by some "Divine Decree". it is, and always has been, what you CHOOSE....until next time my ATS Family... until next time.

With much LOVE ~Mattius