Criticism of Jordan Peterson and His Opponent, Sharing Dialogue with Quentin

Atheist BBC Journalist Challenges Jordan Peterson, gets SCHOOLED Instantly!
Modern Wisdom, 5 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSMy0RfLssg

0:50 Sorry, but comparing the narrative parts of the Bible to movies and literature as sole criterium of them being true, rather than to history is to miss it.

Quentin

Why that ? Nowadays most people choose to believe. If it was just a stupid tradition I don't think religions would have survived, people believe mostly because they find truth in it.
But maybe I miss your point.
Sorry for my english I'm french

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Quentin Perhaps you should have taken that into account for your reading comprehension.

"as sole criterium for them being true"

[La comparaison à des films et des romans qui ont de la vérité morale] comme seul critère comme quoi elles sont vraies [elles = les parties narratives de la Bible].

Is this more comprehensible now?

Quentin

@Hans-Georg Lundahl yes, it seem to me like a detail but I understand

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Quentin "a detail" more if you like

Suppose the Bible is historically true, and Adam was created full grown with no ancestry and with language competence given fully developed into a native language, miraculously given by God.

Or suppose, on the other hand, that men evolved from apes with no human language.

Which of them reflects better on the goodness of God?

Quentin

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't really believe in good or bad, there's no such thing in the nature. I prefer to say that there are actions who benefit us and other who destroy us.
The history of religions don't matter to me because I don't entirely believe in them, only in their message, which I believe is essential to live in society. And I think that every people who blindly believe in everything written in sacred books are fanatics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Quentin Well, if you don't really believe in good or bad, that means you are not Christian.
If you only believe the message of religions, but not the history, then you don't believe the message of religions.

You have the same problem as Jordan Peterson.

"And I think that every people who blindly believe in everything written in sacred books are fanatics."

And this kind of demonising your opposite is a very good way of covering up your own shortcoming.

Quentin

@Hans-Georg Lundahl well it seem you know better than me what I believe in lol. If you want I'm not a perfect Christian, I wonder if such thing exist. And you don't need to know the history of a religion to believe in it, you have to experience it. I start to believe in god when I was 13, because of what I feel when I was praying with group of protestant and I start to understand the real meaning of the religions. And I'm not demonizing people it's just a fact, I said "believe blindly", you can believe in the bible or interpret it in a way that match your belief but not the opposite (believe in it just because it has been written in a sacred book)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Quentin "it seem you know better than me what I believe in lol."

SeemS. Verbs have S in the singular of the present tense, nouns don't have tenses and have it in the plural.

No, I don't. I just know what it means to believe the message of a religion. The different religions usually don't contradict in the history (creation stories and eschatology being possible exceptions), but do contradict very much in their messages.

"because of what I feel when I was praying with group of protestant"

Of Protestants. S at the end, since nouns have it in the plural. Capital P, since religions like nationalities are proper names in English.

"And I'm not demonizing people it's just a fact, I said "believe blindly", you can believe in the bible or interpret it in a way that match your belief but not the opposite (believe in it just because it has been written in a sacred book)"

If you are a Catholic Christian, you have to believe things because they are in the Bible, at least if you know that fact.

If I said "Abraham had his second son aged 100 years" you are free to say you don't believe it, but if I show it it is in Genesis, you are no longer free to not believe it.

The statement about "blind belief" is a classic example of being derogatory instead of dealing with the arguments.

Quentin

@Hans-Georg Lundahl thank you for the corrections.
I'm not an expert in all religions, but the message of peace of mind and love/respect to each other seem to be share in most of them.
I hope if it was indicate in some passage of the bible to not eat vegetable you wouldn't have do it lol, or worse if it was indicate that everyone who don't believe in the bible have to die.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Quentin The Bible doesn't contain that kind of stuff, so, there is no risk of that kind involved.

"the message of peace of mind and love/respect to each other seem to be share in most of them."

ShareD. Just because "partager" and "partagé" are homophones in French, doesn't make share and shared homophones in English.

That's not much of a message, since religions differ vastly on when one can or even should be upset and whom one can in any way, and what way, not respect.

It's like saying Euclid and Cantor have the same maths, because both agree 2 + 2 = 4.

Quentin

@Hans-Georg Lundahl we won't convince each other so keep your belief in sacred books I keep mine in feelings.
Have a good day

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Quentin I'm having it, thank you the same to you.

Would you mind our dialogue getting to a blog of mine?

Quentin

@Hans-Georg Lundahl not at all

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Quentin Merci beaucoup!

1:17 His 12 rules for life, perhaps 5 of them are genuinely Christian.

2:48 Secular ethics have been mainly wedded to Totalitarianism since the 18th C.

Voltaire leads to Beccaria leads to Robespierre.

BOTH as wanting to replace death penalty with life time forced labour and ignomy AND as voting death penalty for a man whom reactionaries could rally to AND as voting death penalties for more and more men who would support him, and for less and less support actually still getting them killed.

If you ask me, this is my theory of Göbekli Tepe being Babel, and with Josephus' views on Nimrod's motivation, Nimrod had a hairbrained and unnecessary scheme for saving humanity from the next Flood, and he persecuted shirkers and collected their heads after letting their bodies lie out in the open for vultures to feast on. Collected them and put them on display. The ultimate secular ethics are basically a mixture of Conan the Conqueror and Thulsa Doom - verging more and more to the latter.

2:52 Kant lead to Totalitarianism in Prussia and hence also the Soviet Union.
Bentham lead to Capitalism, which has its own somewhat different Totalitarianism.

Holodomor in Ukraine is basically the Soviet genocide. Hence Kant's genocide.
Irish so called potato famine, is basically pushing contract clauses over survival of farm labour, who grew wheat enough to survive if they had been given what they had grown, and is the Capitalist genocide, so Bentham's genocide.

3:49 Jordan Peterson is best known for practising the superstition called psychology, and he pretends to be an "evolutionary biologist" ... perhaps there is a real marriage between the one and the other of these superstitions.

4:03 Change can have two roots.

• Applying Christianity in a new way.
• Getting rid of Christianity as applied in an already old way.

Those two are not equivalent, but opposite, and "change" is not an absolute, as it's normal everyday concept implies. Switching the light on or off is not changing the definitions of light or darkness.

7:09 "or you have something to say to people that you haven't been saying"

What about 3 or you have been saying sth to people that they have on purpose avoided hearing?

[separate comment]

Scandinavia ... there is a problem when women are being told, they are better off as health workers or in helping to educate other people's children, than looking after their own kin, giving birth and educating their own children.

A woman who "realises herself" or "realises her potential" by putting off children and treating others' children as hers or other grown people as children, that's feminism's parody of the alpha male.