Jordan Peterson definition of God

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

I agree that “straight white males” are often portrayed as bad guys, especially by the Left, for whom it’s a term of abuse.  But that’s no reason to throw one’s toys out of the buggy.

Chivalry is there for a reason, and in my opinion it goes back to “part 2” of primate mate-guarding.  “Part 1” is secluding females away from other males, so I can get to mate with them.  Part 2 is protection and body-guarding, for very good reasons.  Females are at a physical disadvantage compared with males, and are often targeted for abuse by males.

If we really want some transfer of power you have to expect young non gender-fluid, straight white males are going to become disillusioned. They are being branded as video game playing, toxic rapists who exist in their tiny backyards drinking beer while ‘manning’ the BBQ.

Disillusioned?  Or sour grapes?  What’s wrong with transferring some power away from the haves to the have-nots?  Or rather, sharing power is even better, since we’re a cooperative species.  The fact is, men’s rights activists are constantly, deliberately provoking others into criticising and insulting them, and then complaining when it happens.  They don’t sound like very pleasant people, and seem to revel in it.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

2 cartoon squares from a recent Private Eye:

“Gap Year 1989” and mum and dad’s parting words to son exiting the house with backpack:

“Give us a call when you get there”.

“Gap Year 2019” and mum and dad’s parting words to son exiting the house with backpack:

“For God’s Sake ring us when you reach the bottom of the road”

[_Robert_Participant]

Disillusioned? Or sour grapes?…. They don’t sound like very pleasant people

Disillusioned AND sour grapes…If there is one thing history teaches it is that those in power don’t give it up easily.

“For God’s Sake ring us when you reach the bottom of the road”

LOL, and plus no vaccines for Lil Johnny, it causes autism you know.

 

Lets go back a little further

1960…. Here kid, put on these metal skates and hang onto the bumper of that truck.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by  _Robert_.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Disillusioned AND sour grapes…

If a lot of young men have lost their way, I can’t believe it’s because of a straightforward loss of power or enforced sharing of power.  Unless the “power” was really masking an immaturity that was already there.  I think it’s more because of a loss of their previous exclusive roles.  Maybe the patriarchy tells them to feel resentful and aggrieved about the situation which makes things worse, since the patriarchy tells men that they are the big “I am” to be obeyed at all times, and now they don’t know how to share power.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Unless the “power” was really masking an immaturity that was already there.

It was. Except it was called “privilege”. An assumed privilege, based on being born male. Maybe that is why many young men remain immature for longer than many young women do. Of course, in this case I am only talking about males that identify as men.

[_Robert_Participant]

I can picture hundreds of landing craft filled with thousands of ladies carrying M1 rifles. The heavy machine guns open up, sounding like buzz saws as the young girls get dumped into the surf and ripped to shreds by mortar shells and 30 caliber round moving at 2000 fps. The beach covered by entrails, long golden locks and arms and legs. Perhaps if women were heads of state it would not come to that. Not so sure.Equal privilege means equal civil responsibility. I am all for it. Western feminists need only to look to the Peshmerga as an example.

We really need to encourage our daughters to enter disgusting trades like sewage system maintenance and chemical tank clean-out and dangerous trades like high power line work, acetylene torch welding and heavy construction. If not, I guess I just do not understand gender equality and need to find a TED talk or something.

 

[Belle RoseParticipant]

I don’t think Jordan Peterson believes in the literal God. He doesn’t say that. He chooses his words carefully. You have to remember he’s a clinical psychologist. He means exactly what he says.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Sorry my new friend Ivy but I must disagree 🙂

JP may choose his words carefully when wearing his clinical psychologists’ hat. But when it comes to religion and a  workable definition of God he is very vague. He appeals to his own authority as a psychologist to give credence to what he says about religion. How very ultracrepidarian of him!

This is definition of “god” in his debate with Sam Harris:

“God is how we imaginatively and collectively represent the existence of an action of consciousness across time; as the most real aspects of existence manifest themselves across the longest of time-frames but are not necessarily apprehensible as objects in the here and now…So God is that which eternally dies and is reborn in the pursuit of higher being and truth. That’s a fundamental element of the hero mythology. God is the highest value in the hierarchy of values; that’s another way of looking at it. God is what calls and what responds in the eternal call to adventure. God is the voice of conscience. God is the source of judgment, mercy, and guilt. God is the future to which we make sacrifices and something akin to the transcendental repository of reputation. Here’s a cool one if you’re an evolutionary biologist. God is that which selects among men in the eternal hierarchy of men.”

I expect this waffle from an intelligent apologist. When I hear them use the words “consciousness” and “transcendental” I know I am listening to their own subjective BS.

What I dislike most about JP are his statements about atheists. He has claimed that we cannot be moral unless we have Judeo-Christian moral values and that atheism is the root cause of war crimes, the Nazis and all the other usual arguments used by apologists to denigrate atheists.

He may sound precise to his followers but to me he is precisely vague because his arguments about god have not been thought out properly in his own mind.

Jordan Peterson’s God is nobody else’s God.

 

• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer.

[Belle RoseParticipant]

So God is that which eternally dies and is reborn in the pursuit of higher being and truth.

What do you find so wrong about this explanation?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

I think he has a description of what God would be like if He existed, and corresponds this description to real-world ideas.  So, the “follower” of Peterson is free to choose either way.

@regthefronkeyfarmer – have you got examples of his negative statements about atheists?  I haven’t heard any of these.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

There is a kind of language of spirituality, and if you’re not used to the ideas, it tends to go straight over people’s heads.

Most of that excerpt from Jordan Peterson is highly intelligible to me; some of it isn’t.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Ivy wrote:

So God is that which eternally dies and is reborn in the pursuit of higher being and truth.

What do you find so wrong about this explanation?

An explanation that requires an explanation is not informative. That which “eternally dies” created the Universe? The God that “always was and always will be” somehow “eternally dies”.

It is just a deepity as Dan Dennett would say. It refers to a statement that is apparently profound but actually asserts a triviality on one level and something meaningless on another. You won’t find love in the dictionary.

It is a description of his subjective concept of what god is to him. But once again, (Dr. Bob), his concept of god is a concept and not a workable definition.

 

• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: qb fix

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Re the negative statements about atheists: There as some in the article linked at the end of the post above.

I think he has a description of what God would be like if He existed.
No JP is very clear that he believes “god” exists. It is just he will not give an intelligible definition of what he means by “god”.

There is a kind of language of spirituality, and if you’re not used to the ideas, it tends to go straight over people’s heads

Every time I criticize the paucity of someones subjective definition of God the term “spirituality” gets introduced.

No coherent idea goes over my head. What do you mean by “the language of spirituality” ? I don’t find it coherent. How would JP explain it?

• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer. Reason: clean up auto correct

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Maybe too many people believe in belief.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

See if you can figure out how JP is wrong in this video in his misrepresentation of the position of atheists like Harris and Dawkins. You may disagree with me and think that he does not but I firmly believe that he does. He is “all over the place”.

 

[Author]

Posts