Jordan Peterson: Atheists Are Murderers

[Walker]

Why is the conversation now about a few blacks n the US tearing down some remaining symbols of their ancestors' humiliation and subjugation, which was news a year ago and is entirely unrelated to the thread topic?

You need a larger, personal, memory-based historical database through which to process incoming.

[Greta]

Do you personally need a moral basis not to commit murder?

Could it be that the repetitive, manifested need to discuss concepts rather than individuals also got swept up in the Dark Matter Hurricane, or did the capacity simply atrophy from disuse?

Murder is volitional, born of a choiceless need to destroy.

Life is non-volitional, born of a choiceless need to live.

Volition is the method by which choiceless need, manifests.

I supposed that is a yes. Thus, in your typically unhinged and distracted way, you are saying admitting to a "choiceless need" to would kill people if not for your Christianity. Given your obliquity, this seems the most reasonable interpretation of your poetry.

That seemingly makes you psychopathic, only kept in line by the strict boundaries that you need to avoid imploding your life. Don't feel bad. There are plenty of highly successful psychopaths who have achieved the highest honours as we speak.

Still, it must be hard to keep having to fight against your desire to kill. I don't have that at all. I don't want to kill anyone. I even feel lousy about killing insect invaders in my home. You no doubt would find that hard to relate to.

[Walker]

You're a nasty little piece of work, aren't you.

You confused yourself with your own question and your own twisted agenda.

Because life is non-volitional, no volition is required to not commit murder, therefore not committing murder is not a moral choice.

What you call "poetry" is merely expansion of the reasoning required to straighten out your loopy premise.

[Kayla]

what is the big deal with JP?

he is not interesting enough to even argue about. he offers old platitudes and weird rants about lobsters. a normal reaction would be on say 'meh' and move on.

and yet people really get worked up at the mere mention of his name. Even the otherwise placid Canadians go bonkers over him, they all either want to kill him or lick his butt wtf

[Greta]

Ok, so we have established that Walker need the boundaries of religion to keep him from killing people. He does not appreciate that others lack his blood lust. Just as well he's religious, eh? I suspect I'd be his next victim otherwise

Kayla, JP is not so easily cast aside. He is inconsistent, but he provides enough quality content to be considered highly credible by many people, and thus it's a concern when he includes olde worlde garbage like this in his material.

[Walker]

The cost/benefit ratio for your brand of silliness would need a lot of fudging to fake a semblance of rationality.

You know, fudging and tweaking like they do with Climatology.
Personally, I like how they added the -ology onto climate.
Get it? The -ology?

Can you believe the gullibility of some folks?
What I mean is, surely not anyone could really have such a lack of self-awareness.


Is a problem without a solution, actually a problem?

[Greta]

Walker, it's perhaps for the best that you remain incomprehensible and only capable of ad homs. Thus you remain a joke.

[Kayla]

Kayla, JP is not so easily cast aside. He is inconsistent, but he provides enough quality content to be considered highly credible by many people, and thus it's a concern when he includes olde worlde garbage like this in his material.

what quality content?

his youtube videos about 1950s dads are just stupid. his book about lobsters is even more stupid.

he is on record on trump-style lying about content of some canadian laws thta he finds objectionable

[Greta]

Kayla, JP is not so easily cast aside. He is inconsistent, but he provides enough quality content to be considered highly credible by many people, and thus it's a concern when he includes olde worlde garbage like this in his material.

what quality content?

his youtube videos about 1950s dads are just stupid. his book about lobsters is even more stupid.

he is on record on trump-style lying about content of some canadian laws thta he finds objectionable

I'm not much of a sucker for the halo effect or reverse halo effect. So if someone makes some missteps of holds odious political or religious beliefs (to me) I do not write off the rest of their work and assume that everything they say and do is negative. I have enjoyed plenty of his videos, and think the man has considerable intelligence, eloquence and insight. His fault lines lie in over-certainty regarding contentious situations, which probably stems back to his religious beliefs.

[gaffo]

Here is a video from 'Rationality Rules' who debunked

Atheists Are Murderers - Debunked (Jordan Peterson)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmrpiCsuv6w

JP thinks atheists are murderers because they do not have any God to tell not to murder.
That is very shallow and narrow thinking.

Here is one comment I agree with:

• Here's the issue with JP - despite his massive knowledge and IQ, he's absolutely obsessed with stories, archetypes and narratives, and how they allegedly shape how we think and behave.

I discovered Peterson last year - prior never heard of him.

generally i view him as smart, likeable etc/ and worthy of a listen.

and like you i noted his bias/this error - the one you mention above...........after 3 months of veiwing his lectures on YT/saw what you see here.

He's drive ideologically and seeks to prove at all costs that somehow we're all christians and christianity is behind every single psychological and social phenomenon. It's still baffling to me that such an accomplished intellectual can have such clouded vision.[/list]

I suspect it is more general than "christian" - but instead "beleiver" (is Peterson a christian? i've never heard him say so in the 50 or so vids of his/of him - so will assume he is not until he clarifies that he is a Christian.

He still full of shit in your particular (as I'm an Atheist, and know i have a conscience that is greater than many Christian - and that it would not be bigger nor smaller had i remained a Christian).


Peterson i have respect for within bounds i determine he knows about, outside of he is full of it. a good guy by nature overall however. no nazi in the least for sure, just full of it sometimes.

[fooloso4]

Kayla:

what is the big deal with JP?

The big deal is that he is has been influential. I do not know if he is a genuine sophist, but the extent to which he may believe what he says is secondary to the fact that he has a large devoted following that accepts his pronouncements without objective critical analysis. They are made to feel as if they are the thoughtful and insightful courageous few, when in fact they are merely followers echoing slogans.

He has become a hero, and as with all heroes, one may feel assured that they are on the “right side” as long as it’s the hero’s side. And, perhaps more importantly, the identity of the “wrong side” provides the target of blame and derision, and thus, vindication for personal resentment.

His claim that atheists are not atheists because they hold values that overlap those of “Judeo -Christian” religion is nonsense. Although it important to identify commonalities, ignoring differences is at best sloppy thinking and at worse duplicitous. It is worth considering whether the term “Judeo-Christian” is political correctness on a grand scale.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hello fooloso4, glad to see you here.

Any comments on this;
Plato Left the World of Senses ....
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25629
I know you will not agree with me [aka Spectrum] but there is an opportunity for a higher level philosophy discussion here.

It is novel as I have not come across any one transposing that into neural patterns and structure of the brain.

[fooloso4]

Hello Veritas Aequitas aka Spectrum.

I will take a look at that topic. As a general remark, I interpret Plato according to what Socrates says in the Phaedrus with regard to the problem of writing. The text must be taken as a whole and will say different things to different people. One must learn to read between the lines and make explicit connections that are implicit.