The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[chs140]

My personal approach to members of the trans community is the compassionate approach I learned from geriatric doctors after my grandfather had his stroke - and thought he had to go out and lock the barn doors at night so the horses wouldn't get loose - something he had done as a boy, living on a farm.

We agreed with my grandfather and said we would go outside, make sure all the horses were in, and lock the barn door.

Are you obviously a middle-aged male wearing a wig, a skirt and make-up? You will be "ma'am" to me. No problem.

Like my grandpa, you obviously have enough dysfunction in your life without me adding to it with a confrontational attempt to correct your misapprehension of reality.

Which is fantastic until you legally mandate it with no rigid parameters.

 

[unimackpass]

You need to watch Peterson's lectures on phenomenology (and possibly existentialism) to understand what is meant by the idea that material reality might not be the truest form of reality. In the west we're used to think of material reality as the ultimate reality. To understand the phenomenological point of view you need to, as a thought experiment, flip your entire framework of reference to imagine that meaning is real, and dead matter is subordinate. And that might be true.

It's funny, you think you're edgy by posting your gotcha video... in reality you don't even understand the psychological and philosophical concepts involved in the conservation. "Derp derp Christinity is stupid," jesus dude.

That's what the fundamentalism of the new atheists will do for you. Turns someone into a trained parrot.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Extended: Excerpts from secretly recorded meeting between Wilfrid Laurier University grad student and faculty



- "I remained neutral."

- "Well that's actually part of the problem..."

I didn't know JP was doxing students so that they could get death threats.

Kind of sounds like bullshit to me.

I think the root of the problem is universities fear being sued.

 

[hillelslovak87]

That's what the fundamentalism of the new atheists will do for you. Turns someone into a trained parrot.

How can an atheist be fundamentalist, when atheism has no fundamentals to be followed in the first place?

 

[unimackpass]

How can an atheist be fundamentalist, when atheism has no fundamentals to be followed in the first place?

Really?

http://www.academia.edu/191087/Fundamentalist_Atheism_and_its_Intellectual_Failures


Ironically, while atheist fundamentalists revere the Enlightenment legacy of love of reason and critical thought, they have forsakenthe Enlightenment’s call to disdain blind-prejudice and fanaticism.
n recent years, a new breed of atheism has emerged which seeks to obliteratereligion. It differs, however, from more mainstream atheism....
1
This kind of atheism can be described asfundamentalist atheism.Fundamentalist atheism is crystallized in the best-selling works of biologistRichard Dawkins (
The God Delusion
2006), writer Christopher Hitchens (
God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
2007), and philosopher Sam Harris(
The End of Faith
2004). In this paper I document fundamentalist atheism’ssalient characteristics, specifically its tendency to narrowly define and stereotypereligion to bolster its claim that religion is civilization’s greatest threat.Furthermore, I argue that, because its apocalyptical view of religion is based onfaulty reasoning, fundamentalist atheism, although a response to fundamentalistreligion, constitutes a dangerous intellectual failure within the ranks of atheism.Indeed, fundamentalist atheism results in an illogical fanaticism that pits itself against pluralism and tolerance.

 

[unimackpass]

More from link above.

.....Fundamentalist atheismmarks a turning point in the history of the atheist movement because it seeks togo beyond actively rejecting belief in God.Fundamentalist atheism seeks to
eradicate religion and anoint atheism
as theonly respectable position on the question of religion for three reasons. First, theemerging crusade is built upon an intellectual failure to accurately examinereligious belief and a tunnel vision assessment that sees religion as the principalimpetus for violence in the world. Fundamentalist atheism stereotypes religion asinherently violent, and averse to critical debate, scientific development,tolerance, and social advancement. Secondly, having treated the most extreme,dogmatic, regressive, and fundamentalist forms of religion as the ideal and/or eventual manifestation of all religious belief, fundamentalist atheists developedthe apocalyptical belief that world peace cannot occur so long as religion, theroot of human evil in this view, is not first eradicated. Finally, fundamentalistatheists prescribe intellectual
intolerance
toward religious thought and belief.Indeed, some fundamentalist atheists have called for an actual war on Islam and,more specifically, an attack on Iran. These claims, however, are based on anarrow analysis of the variety of religious beliefs and history of religiousviolence.Despite the incredible diversity of religious thought, even within individualreligions, fundamentalist atheists have undertaken a kind of fallaciousintellectual carpet-bombing of religion. Ignoring or dismissing countercurrents,they base their definition of religion on the behavior and beliefs of a limitednumber of believers who fit their stereotype-ridden model. As if trapped in a timewarp, they actively stereotype modern religious belief as if it had undergone nochange over the last 200 years. One objection fundamentalist atheists have toreligion is what they view as its eclipse of critical reasoning, which they blamefor causing so much global strife and retarding social and scientific progress.This general attitude has allowed fundamentalist atheists to comfortably assaultreligion with broad, inexact critiques which are dismissive of the diversity foundin various religious traditions. Not long after becoming chair of Brooklyn College’s Department of Sociology, Dr. Timothy Shortell fueled the ire of religionists when he unleasheda barrage of ugly stereotypes in his online article entitled “Religion and Morality:A Contradiction Explained.” The Christian news service Agape Press examinedthe article and reported that the atheist professor had therein described religious people as “moral retards” and said, “Christians claim theirs is a faith based onlove, but they’ll just as soon kill you” (Brown 2005). Indeed, the piece was atirade of irrational generalizations brimming with fodder for religiousfundamentalists. One quote in particular stands out:
HUMANI

TY & SOCIETY

266

On a personal level, religiosity is merely annoying—like badtaste. This immaturity represents a significant social problem,however, because religious adherents fail to recognize their limitations. So, in the name of their faith, these moral retardsare running around pointing fingers and doing real harm toothers. One only has to read the newspaper to see the results of their handiwork. They discriminate, exclude and belittle. Theymake a virtue of closed-mindedness and virulent ignorance.They are an ugly, violent lot (Shortell 2005).Shortell’s stigmatization of all religion makes no attempt to differentiatechurches such as the United Church of Christ, which has made very publicefforts to open its doors to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community,or other Christian groups that have disavowed intolerance and hatred. He alsoignores a long list of model examples of civil rights and peace and justiceactivists including the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and former UnitedStates President Jimmy Carter, to name only two. What makes Shortell’scomments so problematic is the generality of the language he uses. A morecredible condemnation would have specified a particular religious group that fithis characterization. For instance, few would argue the validity of applyingShortell’s characterization to someone like Pat Robertson, who once called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, or to the now deceased Jerry Falwell, whofamously blamed gays and feminists for the September 11 attack. Instead,Shortell offers a broad, inexact condemnation of

 

[hillelslovak87]

Really?

http://www.academia.edu/191087/Fundamentalist_Atheism_and_its_Intellectual_Failures


Ironically, while atheist fundamentalists revere the Enlightenment legacy of love of reason and critical thought, they have forsakenthe Enlightenment’s call to disdain blind-prejudice and fanaticism.
n recent years, a new breed of atheism has emerged which seeks to obliteratereligion. It differs, however, from more mainstream atheism....
1
This kind of atheism can be described asfundamentalist atheism.Fundamentalist atheism is crystallized in the best-selling works of biologistRichard Dawkins (
The God Delusion
2006), writer Christopher Hitchens (
God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
2007), and philosopher Sam Harris(
The End of Faith
2004). In this paper I document fundamentalist atheism’ssalient characteristics, specifically its tendency to narrowly define and stereotypereligion to bolster its claim that religion is civilization’s greatest threat.Furthermore, I argue that, because its apocalyptical view of religion is based onfaulty reasoning, fundamentalist atheism, although a response to fundamentalistreligion, constitutes a dangerous intellectual failure within the ranks of atheism.Indeed, fundamentalist atheism results in an illogical fanaticism that pits itself against pluralism and tolerance.

This diatribe seems to take issues with the purported negative aspects of religion proposed by Dawkins, Hitchens, etc, not the atheism itself. I fail to see how the atheism, which is simply the rejection of Gods and the supernatural, as being it's own claim.

 

[unimackpass]

This diatribe seems to take issues with the purported negative aspects of religion proposed by Dawkins, Hitchens, etc, not the atheism itself. I fail to see how the atheism, which is simply the rejection of Gods and the supernatural, as being it's own claim.

Guess you'll have to take it up with the atheist that wrote the book. He's spent a lot of his time and energy doing his research so you should start preparing early. He's not the only one writing about this latest cool kid scenario either.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Guess you'll have to take it up with the atheist that wrote the book. He's spent a lot of his time and energy doing his research so you should start preparing early. He's not the only one writing about this latest cool kid scenario either.

You have yet to show how not believing in something is in itself a tenet. I have also never heard anyone else adequately do so.

 

[unimackpass]

You have yet to show how not believing in something is in itself a tenet. I have also never heard anyone else adequately do so.

It's part and parcel with with how they process and dispense information, one more form of fundamentalism. Sorry, can't help you out any more than that, your on your own.
Buy the book and read it several times, might help.

 

[hillelslovak87]

It's part and parcel with with how they process and dispense information, one more form of fundamentalism. Sorry, can't help you out any more than that, your on your own.
Buy the book and read it several times, might help.

All I can see is that is sounds like incredibly biased and specious reasoning to say a lack of belief in something has fundamentals that can be adhered to. Quite like someone saying abstinence is their favorite sexual technique.

 

[unimackpass]

All I can see is that is sounds like incredibly biased and specious reasoning to say a lack of belief in something has fundamentals that can be adhered to. Quite like someone saying abstinence is their favorite sexual technique.

Nothing more I can really say here. I could quote a pile of atheists on the subject like the one above but it wouldn't go anywhere.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Nothing more I can really say here. I could quote a pile of atheists on the subject like the one above but it wouldn't go anywhere.

You dont need quotes to prove your claim. You simply need to explain as to how a lack of belief can, in itself, have fundamentals in any fashion.

 

[unimackpass]

You dont need quotes to prove your claim. You simply need to explain as to how a lack of belief can, in itself, have fundamentals in any fashion.

Dude, we've gone over this. If you need to hang on to a obsession I'm not going to try and talk you out of it.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Dude, we've gone over this. If you need to hang on to a obsession I'm not going to try and talk you out of it.

It's not an obsession. Atheism makes no positive claims, so it cant have fundamentals based upon claims it does not make. It's like saying you do not believe alchemy is real. This is not a positive claim, in itself. Atheism and a-alchemy are not attempting any explanatory work on their own.

 

[unimackpass]

It's not an obsession. Atheism makes no positive claims, so it cant have fundamentals based upon claims it does not make. It's like saying you do not believe alchemy is real. This is not a positive claim, in itself. Atheism and a-alchemy are not attempting any explanatory work on their own.

Ok dude, whatever.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/chr...ob-not-free-speech-is-target-of-laurier-probe

Her lawyer asked their lawyer for the evidence of the complaint, but the dude had to admit that there was none. I'm sure I saw that it was the Rainbow freaks who made the complaint somewhere, I'll try to find it.

McLeans article iirc.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

 

[meauneau]

Ok dude, whatever.

What is the difference between fundamental atheism and non-fundamental atheism?

And when you say atheism do you mean new atheism as exemplified by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Co? Or all and any atheism? If the latter, then why?

 

[unimackpass]

What is the difference between fundamental atheism and non-fundamental atheism?

And when you say atheism do you mean new atheism as exemplified by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Co? Or all and any atheism? If the latter, then why?

From a atheists perspective .


http://www.academia.edu/191087/Fundamentalist_Atheism_and_its_Intellectual_Failures


Ironically, while atheist fundamentalists revere the Enlightenment legacy of love of reason and critical thought, they have forsakenthe Enlightenment’s call to disdain blind-prejudice and fanaticism.
n recent years, a new breed of atheism has emerged which seeks to obliteratereligion. It differs, however, from more mainstream atheism....
1
This kind of atheism can be described asfundamentalist atheism.Fundamentalist atheism is crystallized in the best-selling works of biologistRichard Dawkins (
The God Delusion
2006), writer Christopher Hitchens (
God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
2007), and philosopher Sam Harris(
The End of Faith
2004). In this paper I document fundamentalist atheism’ssalient characteristics, specifically its tendency to narrowly define and stereotypereligion to bolster its claim that religion is civilization’s greatest threat.Furthermore, I argue that, because its apocalyptical view of religion is based onfaulty reasoning, fundamentalist atheism, although a response to fundamentalistreligion, constitutes a dangerous intellectual failure within the ranks of atheism.Indeed, fundamentalist atheism results in an illogical fanaticism that pits itself against pluralism and tolerance.