*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

You mean the guy that says the bible is more true than truth, because words don't mean anything anymore?
I'm glad this debate happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDbAR0CoRno
This is the first time I've heard someone properly critique the absurd semantics of JP. If you're not convinced that JP is a fraud whose only objective is to monetize the anti-SJW movement, then this is worth your time.

I never understood why anyone would take such a big issue on faith. Every single religious person is completely level-headed when it comes to every other religion, but when it comes to their own, rational thought goes out the window. If you have a good argument for the existence of god, or why one should believe even if there is none, we can make a thread about that because that discussion is an endless source of entertainment.

That's not very nice of you oskar, dare I say it you're almost being a bigot? If they were talking to Allah, then your mockery would be a hate crime.

There are levels of stupidity. Islam is probably the most stupid of all the religions currently, but they all share the same massive problem that they have to make faith a virtue. Not only is it not a virtue, it is the greatest source of suffering in the world. Believing things that are demonstrably true should be a virtue. Faith should be ridiculed.

[BananaStand]

You mean the guy that says the bible is more true than truth,

Yeah that guy. It means that a story about a snake is more than a story about a snake. Get it?

JP is a fraud whose only objective is to monetize the anti-SJW movement,

Pretty sure JP said that as a joke...

[oskar]

Yeah that guy. It means that a story about a snake is more than a story about a snake. Get it?

He likes to redefine words like truth or reality to mean something entirely different than the dictionary definition. That's what I was getting at.

I'm pretty sure everyone still active on here is an atheist. Except maybe wuf if you count Trump as a deity. So if you want to make a case for why it makes sense to believe in a god, I'd love to ridicule it. HEAR IT
I'd love to hear it.

[BananaStand]

He likes to redefine words like truth or reality to mean something entirely different than the dictionary definition. That's what I was getting at.

The dictionary defines the meaning of words. What book exists that definitively explains concepts? If you want to insist that "truth" is a word and that's it, then you're a dick. Truth can be discussed as a concept.

For example. You can ask, "is it true that everyone matters?". And then you can look at differences between societies that are oppressive and unfair, and societies that treat everyone like they matter. And if we see that throughout time, the societies who treat people like they matter do better...then perhaps we can assume that the concept of "everyone matters" is TRUE

You might think you're telling the truth when you say you love your wife. Then the next day you find out she is plowing the mailman. Well, you didn't really love your wife. That was un-true. You were in love with a person that you imagined. The real person is a bitch.

I'm pretty sure everyone still active on here is an atheist. Except maybe wuf if you count Trump as a deity. So if you want to make a case for why it makes sense to believe in a god, I'd love to ridicule it. HEAR IT
I'd love to hear it

JP's got hundreds of hours on the psychological significance of the bible. I've only sampled a tiny fraction, but it seems that the point is that it's fine to recognize the "truth" (lol) that there was never a flood so bad that all life on earth had to be saved by riding out the storm in a 1000 foot wooden boat built by a 500 year old man. Like, a snake never fed a dumb bitch an apple, but that's not the point.

The snake represents something. The flood represents something. Cain and Able represent something. They represent the acting out of "truths". In the new testament, the representations of truth are made through an axiomatic individual.

You can have "faith" in those truths. You can "believe" in the moral value of biblical stories. You don't have to accept that water can actually be turned into wine, or that a dead man can be resurrected from the grave. But you can celebrate, practice, worship those traditions as the almighty end all guide for existence.

If you're gonna rant about "transubstantiation" and people who take shit literally, fine. go ahead. I really believe that those people make up 20% at most of Christianity. Can't say for other religions, but those are fucked up bullshit. So I'm with you when it comes to mocking the "literalists". But there is definitely value in acting out the proposition that it's all real. And people gathering around the source of their morality, and making up a community around "acting out" the proposition of religion is something that I think is immensely valuable.

[wufwugy]

For all we know, believing something makes it true.

A serious person takes a step back and says these two things: we know virtually nothing about what existence really is, and the idea that the Universe is an original, spontaneous happening isn't any less ridiculous than the idea that the Universe was made by something preexisting.

[wufwugy]

You mean the guy that says the bible is more true than truth, because words don't mean anything anymore?
I'm glad this debate happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDbAR0CoRno

Thanks for posting this. Some thoughts as I watch it:

1. Peterson's introduction is correct. The idea of God is not taken seriously by challengers. This appears to me to be due to the common conflation of the idea of a god with a specific god. Also due to conflating science with metaphysics.

2. Peterson's explanation about legitimacy of the idea of the existence of God is good. If, however, he were to imply that the evidence is for the existence of God, that would probably not be correct. There isn't much that can be evidence for the existence of God since the existence of God is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

Furthermore, the best logic I've come across implies that God does in fact exist (from the simulation hypothesis); we just have no idea what God is and peoples' religions could have nothing to do with the real God (i.e. the origin of the Universe).

3. I'm not a fan of Peterson's discussion of truth. He seems to jump to conclusions, or just not fully explain his steps. On the flip side, those who think they know what is true because they *cough* use science *cough* actually don't know.

I was thinking of doing a step by step on the video but I'll just stop here because it's better that way.

I never understood why anyone would take such a big issue on faith. Every single religious person is completely level-headed when it comes to every other religion, but when it comes to their own, rational thought goes out the window. If you have a good argument for the existence of god, or why one should believe even if there is none, we can make a thread about that because that discussion is an endless source of entertainment.

Humans are adapted to survive rather than to this expressed mode of rationality. It can be the case that populations that hold religious beliefs and rituals survive better than ones that don't. The dumb position could be the one that tries to eschew that which most benefits fitness.


Also, I'd like to note that atheism is an experiment. Religion, not as much. Religion has survived, it seems to work. But atheism, nobody knows if it don't know if it works over long periods of time, and there is reason to believe that it might not work.

[oskar]

Thanks for posting this. Some thoughts as I watch it:

1. Peterson's introduction is correct. The idea of God is not taken seriously by challengers. This appears to me to be due to the common conflation of the idea of a god with a specific god. Also due to conflating science with metaphysics.

2. Peterson's explanation about legitimacy of the idea of the existence of God is good. If, however, he were to imply that the evidence is for the existence of God, that would probably not be correct. There isn't much that can be evidence for the existence of God since the existence of God is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

Furthermore, the best logic I've come across implies that God does in fact exist (from the simulation hypothesis); we just have no idea what God is and peoples' religions could have nothing to do with the real God (i.e. the origin of the Universe).

3. I'm not a fan of Peterson's discussion of truth. He seems to jump to conclusions, or just not fully explain his steps. On the flip side, those who think they know what is true because they *cough* use science *cough* actually don't know.

I was thinking of doing a step by step on the video but I'll just stop here because it's better that way.





Humans are adapted to survive rather than to this expressed mode of rationality. It can be the case that populations that hold religious beliefs and rituals survive better than ones that don't. The dumb position could be the one that tries to eschew that which most benefits fitness.


Also, I'd like to note that atheism is an experiment. Religion, not as much. Religion has survived, it seems to work. But atheism, nobody knows if it don't know if it works over long periods of time, and there is reason to believe that it might not work.

1 - Most people who believe in a god believe in a specific god and the attributes they assign to a specific or non-specific god can vary greatly, so it's good to start off by defining the properties of the god you're trying to argue for. I'm perfectly happy to argue against either.

2 - Again, depends on your definition of god. A creator god is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. A god that intervenes through natural disasters, answers prayers and hands out miracles to cancer patients is a scientific hypothesis and is testable.
If you want in to hand in the simulation hypothesis as evidence for a god, I really need you to define the word god.

3 - "I don't know." Is a possible answer. I don't say that any god hypothesis is demonstrably false, my position is that they are untestable. If you say you believe in a god, you should have a good reason why you think it is true, rather than defaulting to "I don't know".

I have answered this in length before, but in short I think religion is a vestigial meme that originates from our ability to recognize patterns and look for explanations even if we don't have one yet. Religion is the earliest attempt at science and deserves credit for that, but virtually all scientific explanations you get from religion have been demonstrated to be false - from the origin of the world, celestial mechanics to dietary guidance. The little that remains are some shaky metaphysical arguments for a prime mover.

[wufwugy]

2 - Again, depends on your definition of god. A creator god is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. A god that intervenes through natural disasters, answers prayers and hands out miracles to cancer patients is a scientific hypothesis and is testable.

I'd say these can be testable, but aren't necessarily. A god could organize components of reality that we don't detect that impact components we do detect.

If you want in to hand in the simulation hypothesis as evidence for a god, I really need you to define the word god.

Both the simulation hypothesis as well as the "big bang was the beginning" allows for the existence of an entity (for lack of a better term) that created this reality.

I bring this up because it is close to the god Peterson discusses. The leap Peterson makes isn't about the idea that god could exist, but about the idea that human experience signifies god. It could, and it could not. Who knows?

I have answered this in length before, but in short I think religion is a vestigial meme that originates from our ability to recognize patterns and look for explanations even if we don't have one yet. Religion is the earliest attempt at science and deserves credit for that, but virtually all scientific explanations you get from religion have been demonstrated to be false - from the origin of the world, celestial mechanics to dietary guidance. The little that remains are some shaky metaphysical arguments for a prime mover.

This is very close to what Peterson has claimed, and he discussed it in that debate.

What I think is going on is that fundamentalists have their specific interpretation and atheists counter that, then everybody walks away thinking they discussed the entire set of "god." Yet it was just one small bit. Here's an example:

An interpretation of religious dietary laws is "something something health something something." Maybe that claim doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. But here's a much smarter interpretation: religious dietary laws exist because the populations that espouse them survived. Did the laws make those populations physically healthier? Probably not. But did the laws do things like keep the Jewish community together over generations and across continents since the laws made it so that they would not dine with non-Jews? Could be.

[BananaStand]

JP is a fraud whose only objective is to monetize the anti-SJW movement,

One more thought on this....

The SJW's brought the fight to him