Do you really need to be a Christian to believe in Christian values? Aren’t Christian values shared by other religions? Can’t you entertain a religion without buying into it?

>>24474217 (OP)
>do you believe in the Bible?
>the Bible is a hyperlinked library of wisdom across centuries. It’s not a book you simply “believe in.”
>so you don't take it literally?
>literalism is a modern distortion. Stories operate on multiple planes of reality.
>you're avoiding the question.
>i’m challenging its premises.
>are you saved?
>i think the idea of salvation is psychological, social, and metaphysical.
>so you're not saved?
>i'm working on aligning myself with the Logos.
>is that a yes?
>it's a process, not a status.
>do you believe in Heaven and Hell?
>we live them out psychologically. Every day.
>that’s not what the Bible says.
>well, the Bible isn’t a manual. It’s a narrative architecture of meaning.
>are you afraid of going to Hell?
>i’m more afraid of becoming the kind of person who belongs there.
>do you think atheists can be moral?
>hat depends what you mean by “moral,” and whether they're standing on borrowed ethical capital.
>borrowed from what?
>from Judeo-Christian metaphysics. From millennia of cultural evolution.
>so they’re moral, but for the wrong reasons?
>they’re moral, but they don’t know why.
>so you’re better than them?
>no, but I may be more aware of the foundations.
>so why not just say you're a Christian?
>because I’m not willing to trivialize that claim.
Fedoras mad.

>>24474354
So many words to say nothing of value

>>24474217 (OP)
Can’t you just live? People and their asshole “god need” just piss me off.

>>24474374
Which part of it do you not understand? Being pretentious doesn't fool your betters into thinking you're intelligent, anon.

>>24474217 (OP)
>Christian values
None of the spineless grifters believe in those. If Jesus was here he'd crush the proverbial money-changers tables once again, that is the media enterprises trying to shill profiteering and domination as Christian.
>Aren’t Christian values shared by other religions?
not really, Christianity is the most radically altruistic religion. No other sets up forgiving your enemies while they kill you as an example to follow. Islam for instance is the creation of a pedophile slave-trading warlord.
>Can’t you entertain a religion without buying into it?
sorry to do a peterson move but... what do you mean by "entertain"?

Dostoevsky said that people who think that way are worse than the atheists.

>>24474217 (OP)
>Do you really need to be a Christian to believe in Christian values? Aren’t Christian values shared by other religions?
At that point, why even bother entertaining the religion?

The type of pretentious pseuds that rage against Petersen can't admit they don't understand something. Therefore, when Peterson presses them to match the strength of their opinion to the supposed knowledge backing it up, drawing attention to the assumptions they've taking for granted by existing solely within safe-space echochambers, they have a meltie. They then start projecting that Peterson isn't making sense but it's obvious

>>24474217 (OP)
>Christian values
Believing in Jesus Christ is the core Christian value

>>24474428
Deeds not words.

All religion is art. Do you have to be religious to enjoy art? You don’t have to be a Christian to celebrate Christmas. It’s like calling someone a Buddhist because they value life in its smallest forms. That’s not gatekept by any one religion.

This “omg I DESTROYED him” attitude is just cringe, Danny.

>>24474428
Okay but Christianity isn’t the only religion in the world to foster love for your neighbour or family values or learning.

>>24474408
>At that point, why even bother entertaining the religion?

Ask the Jews. They don’t care if God exists or not. Religion is a form of structure within a community. It ties us all together. Priests are another form of politician.

It’s actually mind boggling that you can’t see religion as an object rather than truth. Faith does not require truth. Never has.

>>24474397
>not really
Yes really. “Be kind to your neighbour”. It isn’t a very complex idea. Religion is a community. It just sucks that it ostracizes if it’s not handled properly. It can be used for good or ill, but it’s mostly ill since most humans are retarded.

Going to church and repeating Catholic rituals doesn’t mean I’m a Catholic or a Christian. It just means I participate in the rituals. It’s the same with Christmas.

Go to Japan and toss some cucumber slices into a pond to ward off the kappa spirits for good luck. Am I now a Shintoist because I did that? I’m just repeating art.

Again. Are you a Christian if you celebrate Christmas? Don’t be stupid.

>>24474449
>It’s actually mind boggling that you can’t see religion as an object rather than truth

Theists don’t want to admit that their faith can be used as a tool, just as atheists don’t want to admit that religion has true power.

>>24474217 (OP)
Maybe pretend to have a literature discussion instead of religion?

>>24474354
You can post this cope in every thread but you refuse to take on the fact that refusal to state your belief constitutes a denial of Christ and that is a grave sin by any measure in Christianity

At its best, religion is a metaphor for nature.

>>24474456
nothing you said relates to my point. Do you feel smart because you reduced religion to some reddit commonplace? Are you 14?
How did "just be nice!" enable early Christian martyrs to face death with equanimity and not deny their faith?

>>24474462
>Theists don’t want to admit that their faith can be used as a tool, just as atheists don’t want to admit that religion has true power.
What are you talking about? The social power of religion is one of the main criticisms atheists level at it.

>>24474494
>Do you feel smart because you reduced religion to some reddit commonplace? Are you 14?
You sound threatened. Nice.

>>24474501
>The social power of religion is one of the main criticisms atheists level at it.
Except they don’t see what it fosters. The fact of the matter is: Christianity helped science. It had ups and downs, but the religion itself is largely responsible for institutions of learning that are still around today. The Jews in particular excel at the fields of science and math and this is nepotism is reinforced by their religious upbringing. Islam was not so fortunate.

>>24474494
>nothing you said relates to my point
You claimed Christian themes aren’t shared. Most religions have elements of human decency, community, etc.

>>24474397
the teachings of all religions are ultimately the same.

>>24474567
John 14:6

>>24474531
The Islamic golden age of science predated the Renaissance in Europe. The fact that the Catholic Church funded certain scientific pursuits during a certain period of time in the middle ages doesn't mean that scientific advancement was only possible through religion or Christianity. Considering scientific and mathematical advancement occurred before the Renaissance and completely outside of religious and western contexts, the suggestion that this piece of trivia would somehow leave atheists with egg on their face of absurd.

>>24474540
Those are the trivial parts that are shared among most human communities anyway. Nothing that makes a religion special.
Most languages have pronouns and tenses, but claiming that this makes them all similar isn't interesting or insightful.
>>24474567
Really? Is Aztec human sacrifice ultimately the same as having no human sacrifice?

every bible story is an allegory for some value or teaching. nothing is to be taken literally. its like believing in childrens stories and taking them literally without understanding the core message its built upon. i dont understand how some people actually think adam and eve were the first humans or that heaven or hell are actual places your spirit goes to after death or whatever. its all allegories.

>>24474592
i said the teachings are the same not the way the humans act upon them. thats always going to be different. just look at how some perform acts of terrorism or shootings based on their religion, even though the religion itself doesnt teach them to fly planes into buildings and stuff.

>>24474485
>refusal to state your belief
He didn't refuse to state his beliefs. He stated them in a way you don't like.

>>24474485
Peter outright denied Christ three times and Jesus instructed his followers not to cast their pearls before swine.

>>24474608
And my very point is that the teachings are not the same. But, in fact, the misuses of religions by people tend to be the same. People of Petersons ilk will, for example, with a straight face preach the glories of capitalism and getting rich while larping as Christians, supposedly following the guy who made the eye-of-a-needle point, and called to give away possessions.

The teachings are unique and demanding, but will be twisted anywhich way to support someone's bullshit. If you really want God on your side, you'll find a way to argue that he ackshually WANTS you to fight this or that war, suppress this or that group, hoard earthly goods, ignore your fellow man's distress etc etc.

>>24474635
People like you cherry pick scripture in order to make generalizations that empty it of its wisdom.

>>24474580
>The Islamic golden age of science predated the Renaissance in Europe
And it was thanks to Persian Muslims, in spite of Islam, not Arab Muslims.

>>24474592
>Those are the trivial parts that are shared among most human communities anyway. Nothing that makes a religion special.
Irrelevant. It reinforces it. Even politics is a form of religion. Trump is Satan.

>>24474580
Islam had nothing to do with the Persian Golden Age (v2), which already occurred (Gundeshapur) before the Arabs came.

>>>/his/17768655
>>>/his/17768657
>>>/his/17768661

>>24474580
>Considering scientific and mathematical advancement occurred before the Renaissance and completely outside of religious and western contexts
Lol, what the fuck are you talking about?

>>24474778
Debatable that the forced conversion of Persians to Islam had anything to do with it, either. They already had academies.

>>24474610
Send me a video of him saying that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, who died on the Cross for the sins of mankind and was risen on the third. Doesn't matter how he phrases it, but send me a video where he publicly states that belief.
>>24474623
>Peter outright denied Christ three times
Just because someone is forgiven of a sin does not mean that the sin was not wrong. Also, Peter repented of this sin. Peterson continues to commit this sin.


>For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.

- Luke 9:26

>Jesus instructed his followers not to cast their pearls before swine
You don't understand what this means

>>24474802
>send me a video of him stating his beliefs in the way I demand.
Again: he didn't refuse to state his beliefs--he stated them in a way you don't like.

Why didn't he just repeat the Nicene creed?

You don’t have to believe in God to believe in God. There is NO way that God would accurately be described by a fucking book. Faith is meant to be “eh, it is probably not the case”.

>>24474802
>Just because someone is forgiven of a sin
You're not supposed to judge, dipshit. Who says he's ashamed of his beliefs? His wife converted to Catholicism a couple years ago and he sometimes attends church with her but doesn't grant himself the label of "Christian" for the reasons he very clearly lays out. What don't you understand about them?

>>24474813
Way to dodge my question you sneak. No surprise that you're a coward like him

There’s a very old, very funny, Jewish joke about two rabbis who argued over the course of the night regarding the existence of God, on whether he exists or not. They eventually came to the conclusion that God does not, in fact, exist. The east morning they were still seen going to the synagogue. “What does God’s existence have to do with it?”.

If you can’t parse the logic in the joke, it is clear you don’t see the true value of religion.

>>24474826
>And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
- 1 Corinthians 15:14

>>24474814
Well, see, that’s not quite the question you think it is, and it certainly isn’t the question you think you’re asking, which, in itself, is a fascinating psycho-social phenomenon worth unpacking. Because when you say “Christian,” what precisely do you mean? Are we talking about the creedal formulations of Nicene orthodoxy, or are we invoking something more Jungian—an archetypal alignment with the logos that structures Being itself?

You see, I’m very hesitant to place myself in a box that has been so historically—and might I say metaphysically—flattened by centuries of institutionalization, doctrinal corruption, and, yes, Enlightenment rationalism, which, for all its merits, has severed us from the sacral substrate of narrative meaning. And so, to say “I am a Christian” is, in a certain sense, to reduce the richness of a multi-dimensional phenomenological experience to a mere label, which is precisely the kind of categorical reductionism that gave rise to totalitarian ideologies in the 20th century.

Moreover, if we interpret Christ not merely as a historical figure—but as the personification of the transcendent logos, the metaphysical principle through which chaos is ordered into habitable being—then the question becomes less about whether I believe in Christ and more about whether I act in accordance with that incarnated pattern of meaning. And that is not a yes or no question. That is a lifelong wrestling with Being, like Jacob with the angel, which itself is a symbolic template for the moral striving of the individual across time.

So am I a Christian? Well, I strive to live as if God exists, which I believe is the highest ethical commitment a person can make in this fragmented postmodern wasteland. But whether I am one, in the propositional sense, as though that could be answered like a census checkbox—well, that’s precisely the kind of binary framework that collapses the mystery of Being into bureaucratic banality.

>>24474829
Muslims: “Did you just imply that Allah isn’t real? I’ll behead you for that!”
Christians: “God is real, but my next door priest thinks it’s just divine nature!”
Jews: “Lol who cares if he’s real or not. Someone pass me the wine!”

>>24474217 (OP)
why would you want to do that? unless you have ulterior motives.

>>24474832
>"Are we talking about the creedal formulations of Nicene orthodoxy"
Yes. Now please answer the question professor.

>>24474818
>Way to dodge my question
I did not such thing. I pointed out Peterson clearly stated both his beliefs and the rationale behind them, just not in the way you like, and you then demanded an answer from him in a way you like (thus proving my point).

Now, it's obvious you're not that bright so I'll do you the privilege of having me explain whichever part you're failing to understand. Go ahead and let me know: what part are you failing to understand?

>>24474842
What part of the answers that he has given do you not understand?

>>24474853
I'm not going to engage with a narcissist

>>24474856
There is not a single thing in his answer what is posted here>>24474832 that affirms any aspect of the Nicene Creed

>>24474860
People don't realise Peterson's "high verbal IQ word vomit retreat into semantics" is actually him trying to Mr. Miyagi you. He's teaching you the way he thinks rather than a direct answer to a question that isn't actually relevant to improving your life or reaching a collective truth. Showing the process rather than giving the answer.

>"what do you mean by 'believe'?"
>most people don't know what they even mean with the words they use, he won't "answer" because he wants to be genuinely precise with his speech to be in line with the Logos. he understands the importance of language and belief deeper than most.


I think people take all these categorisations and semantics too literally. he's essentially saying; "it doesn't matter what you TELL yourself you believe, merely by existing and having a basic ethical code, you are unconsciously acting out Christian ethics and stories. God is the interplay between conscience and calling. The act of voluntary self sacrifice can be found in all religions, all the questions you ask as irrelevant to the actual POINT i'm trying to make, you're just trying to gotcha me for youtube clout because you're obsessed with discrediting my character from a preconceived bias woke mind virus."

It's also just temperament and levels of consciousness. like the Dawkins debate. if you don't get it, you just won't get it.

>>24474863
>this level of autism
Lol!

You don't need to be a Christian to believe in Christian values, though its at least a 90% overlap, but you need to actually profess Christ to be Christian.

>>24474853
>>24474856
This guy >>24474867 is spot on. Refusal to profess Christ can be construed as either unbelief or denial. I personally think that Peterson doesn't believe and refuses to state it for fear of losing his Christian fan base but ironically his persistence to profess in the face of opposition has caused that exact thing to happen

>>24474875
>I can only think in 1s and 0s
We've already established you're autistic, anon.
>refuses to state it for fear of losing his Christian fan base
Based on what? The fact you don't like him? Lol! The fact he risked losing his career is character evidence that runs counter to your nonsensical claim.

>>24474354
This guy could doge rain in a field.

>>24474880
It's honestly shocking how easily he filters ideologues. Even in logic you can discuss something by examining the validity of axioms and don't have to restrict yourself to the outcome of the program.

I'm not sure if you guys have serious chips on your shoulders or are just dumb. Both?

>>24474879
>risked losing his career
Oh no he lost his career as a professor in a relatively unknown university to instead make millions as a become an international public speaker. How terrible

>>24474354
>>24474410
>>24474610
>>24474832
>>24474853
>>24474864
>>24474879
>>24474888
I can't believe there is a community that is more obnoxious than reddit atheists but here we are

>>24474894
Atheists and theists are both the same sort of annoying. One is devoid of all wonder, the other refuses to accept the material world. They’re both stuck on their respective sides of the same coin.

>>24474217 (OP)
Peterson does pretty well when he talks about creating meaning in your life, not throwing stones in glass houses type shit and EvoPsych. He's really annoying to listen to in debates. I feel like the reason he's like that is that he took the wrong lesson from the Cathy Newman interview. The reason people liked it when he was obtuse with her is that she was deliberately asking him loaded questions. Ever since then, he's taken that approach to his debates ever since. Oh yeah, and he's a shill for greatest ally.

>>24474907
was meant for>>24474894

I'm retarded. Anyway, yeah his fanbase is pretty annoying.

>>24474892
>a relatively unknown university
It's one of the best universities in the world and his department is ranked in the top 10 globally, retard.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

>>24474913
Refute my point instead of nit-picking

Can any of the Peterson shills answer a simple question: what is the doctrinal minimum of calling yourself a Christian?
Is there *anything* definite that you would need to assent to, which also would distinguish your creed from Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism etc etc; or is it just a gut feeling and folk wisdom about "bearing muh cross" and "being nice to people"?

>>24474926
>nitpicking
First, it isn't nitpicking. You obviously don't know what you're talking about because you referred to a top university as unknown. What's more, Peterson's particular department is ranked in the top 10 globally.
>Refute my point
You don't have one. You're trying to say he knew he'd become rich and famous but the reality is he was a middle-aged academic with a great position as both a professor and research scientist as well as a successful clinical practice. The grants funding his research were stripped away, leftwing academics tried to have him fired, and people who had never even met him started making complaints in order to get his clinical license revoked. The internet fame could have been fleeting, that had to be handled extremely carefully, so you honestly can't make the argument you're making because it's entirely based on hindsight.

In short, you're a retard triggered by a media figure. Usually when that happens the person is either a leftwing "her penis" advocate, a libtard indoctrinated by mainstream media, or a chud who hates jews. If I had to guess based on limited evidence I'd say you're of the chud variety but it's entirely possible you're just a pseud trying to feel better about yourself by attacking your betters.

>>24474939
I hope you are under 18 because that is the only excuse for thinking and talking like this

>>24474947
>no response
I'm not surprised, lol. Good luck seething about your betters online, anon. I'm sure that will work out amazingly for you.

>>24474928
If you truly believe in your religion, you are of that religion. A Christian doesn’t NEED to believe in God either.

These are just stories. Am I a specific kind of -ist person if I like Star Wars?

Peterson will touch a nerve by simply pointing out something that is blatantly ignored in the way an ideological group attempts to frame an issue. He exposes ideological blind spots in a simple and straightforward way; this leads to the fellow travelers of whichever idea is being discussed having a breakdown and exposing themselves. He's valuable as a media personality if even for that reason alone.

>Peterson: it would be productive to involve men in the conversation about violence against women in a way that doesn't label masculinity as inherently negative
>Libtard: so you're saying in order to make men care about rape women have to be returned to the status of men's property
>Peterson: the rise of identitarianism is linked to reactionary politics that sublimate personal resentment into collectivistic extremism
>Chud: so you're saying white people don't have group interests and therefore shouldn't exist
>Peterson: transgender ideology specifically targets a group of people likely to be confused and open to mental pathologies via social contagion--we shouldn't give hormones to children let alone surgically mutilate minors
>Tranny: so you're literal nazi saying we're a disease and we should be exterminated like one
>Peterson: anonymity increases the likelihood of pathological behavior so perhaps one way to alleviate the negative repercussions of its overall influence would be to segregate accounts on these specific widely used social media websites--it's definitely better than secret and selective control of the public narrative as it exists now
>/pol/tard: so you're saying you want everyone everywhere to be tied to whatever they say and do at all times...I'm a freedom fighter [goes to another thread to post about AOC's asshole while writing "nig*er" 50 times]

>>24474939
>The grants funding his research were stripped away, leftwing academics tried to have him fired, and people who had never even met him started making complaints in order to get his clinical license revoked.
nta but all of those terrible terrible things happened after he was already a bestselling self-help author and had a patreon going with, iirc, something like 50k a month.

If I go to church because I like the music and the people and the stories am I a Christian suddenly? I don’t believe in any of it. I just like it.

>>24474950
It's ok. God will judge you

>>24474964
>after he was already a bestselling self-help author
No they didn't and it's worthwhile to point out they happened when "cancel culture" was at its peak.

>>24474966
God will judge everyone. Good luck!

I miss Stefan Molyneux.

>>24474953
>A Christian doesn’t NEED to believe in God either
The fuck? You literally recite that in the Creed.
>I BELIEVE in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

>>24474953
Are you having me on?

>>24474973
He recently made a comeback to Twitter. Don't know if he's made any videos or had any streams though.

>>24474979
Yeah well that’s retarded.

Christians who seriously think that the Bible is a factual source of information are retarded. Christian mathematicians don’t even believe in God. They know the odds. They know it’s all a story.

Had a Christian told God that they took everything in the Bible at face value, God would big face palm.

Christians actually disrespect God by assuming He views them the same way they view Him. God wouldn’t even see Himself as a God the way we do. To see yourself as a god is hubris. Why would they impose human levels of hubris on to the thing they worship?

It’s like going up to an anthill and declaring yourself a god. There’s a level of silly to it. Is God silly?

>>24474440
Thanks

>>24474969
12 rules came out 2018. All the talk of license and firing was way later. And look at that, nothing came of it.
Don't know when his grants were denied, but it's completely fair to redirect research money to people not obviously focused on a career as a public intellectual, or rather self-help guru.

>>24474994
>Yeah well the Nicene Creed is retarded
Well congrats, you just invalidated your own metaphysical system, and you have no epistemic justification for your beliefs. You're in the same position as an atheist.
>the rest of that post
???
Do you know anything about Christianity?

>>24475002
>All the talk of license and firing was way later.
No it wasn't. The complaints toward his clinical practice started immediately; you're probably thinking about how they're trying to make him go to reeducation camp now. Also, the petition against him at UofT was just after he became prominent in 2016 and his grant funding began being recinded in 2017. On top of that people were putting up flyers around his neighbourhood accusing him of various things and calling him dangerous right after he took his stance on Bill C-16.

>>24474994
God is a giant higher dimensional alien or something, to justify his existence at all—but tell a Christian that and they will lose their fucking minds, even if you’re literally not wrong (God is by default external to the terrestrial sphere—and hence he’s an extraterrestrial), since he predates Earth.

>>24475011
>Do you know anything about Christianity?
Do you? Faith has never requires truth. Ever. It is counterproductive to it. It’s not at all required. Religion is just metaphor.

Pic related is the “smartest man in America”. The smarter you are the more contrarian your religious views will be. Isaac Newton was a downright heretic.

>>24475002
>but it's completely fair to redirect research money to people not obviously focused on a career as a public intellectual
P.S. That wasn't why the grant proposals were refused, dummy. Why do people like you just say whatever nonsense comes to mind when you're confronted with facts that upset your prejudice. It's obvious to people who know that you're making shit up because you don't have a leg to stand on. Do better.

>>24475021
If religion is just a metaphor, what is there to have faith in? Again, at that point you're just an atheist playing dress up.

>>24475021
>black people are like lesser gorillas
I love Langan so much it’s unreal.

>>24475021
>Christopher Langan
Lol

>>24475025
>If religion is just a metaphor, what is there to have faith in?
Did you really just ask this? How about you put faith in the narrative and the community it strengthens? Good lord. This is why Jews excel. They don’t care if God exists or not. They know the power of a story. They know the power of community. See >>24474826

>>24475039
Unlike Jews, Christians aren't an ethnic group. There are historic Christian nations, but if they don't believe, you might as well be united by the Cult of Zeus as a modern atheist.

>>24475025
Nope. Theists and atheists are both the same sort of annoying. What is a god is a matter of perspective, purely.

Atheists don’t like to acknowledge that a sufficiently godlike alien being can totally be worshiped as a god or something.

Theists don’t like acknowledging that their god is just a big alien and believing in gods is a variant of believing in aliens.

>>24475047
Jews are only partially ethnic. They have a claim to being European like white people do. The Ashkenazim, anyway. It’s the greatest untold love story. 80 percent of Ashkenazim maternal ancestry can be traced back to Germanic women.

>>24474217 (OP)
> Aren’t Christian values shared by other religions?
The fact that someone can say this and not immediately realize this means there’s nothing “christian” about said values is astounding to me.
>can’t you be a christian without being a christian
That’s Peterschwein’s fundamental problem. He wants that juicy christcash but he can’t even state the bare necessity to /be/ christian (definitionally believing in the literal resurrection).
It’s especially bizarre since the same crowd that indulges this nonsense would scoff at some hippie saying they’re “like totally buddhist” by which they mean they sit in a lotus position and smoke weed. That’s exactly the same person as all these fucking “judeo christian values” types.

>>24475022
And you got some insider info on their deliberations, or do you just take Petersons word for it that he was oh so persecuted?

Religion is essentially just liking a story way too hard. Christianity is no different from Star Wars - it even has an Old Testament and a New Testament, and a Newer Testament.

How are you all not realizing this?

>>24474217 (OP)
>Do you really need to be a Christian to believe in Christian values?
I've met so many people who've argued that they don't need Christ to agree on the values. They have all been scum ready to change their minds at the first opportunity. These are people hiding behind morals they don't believe in as a shield from others and from themselves. If they cast those morals aside, they would have no excuse not to pursue their own goals, but the fear of failure is harder to accept than leeching Christian values. One at least lets you keep your ego, such as it is.
It's actually pretty funny how much you can learn about someone just based on their answer to this question.

>>24475050
That image is hilarious

>>24475065
>I'm getting desperate and have no arguments left
It's a matter of record, anon. The fact is the argument you're trying to support doesn't hold up to reality and is based entirely on hindsight. Peterson's career as a professor and research scientist were threatened, a petition by dozens of his fellow academics was presented to top brass at the university and grants he had had in place for years were suddenly denied at renewal, and people who never met him began submitting complaints to the governing body of clinical psychologists. This was all during peak cancel culture and there was no way to predict whether or not he'd comes through it (in fact, you yourself would probably have been declaring victory at that point). Instead of going back on what he had said he staked everything on it and luckily for him it worked out.

>>24475057
Yes but they collectivize around their ethnic identity of being Jewish. You don't hear people say I'm a "Christian American", the same way you hear someone say "I'm a Jewish American". Unless you're arguing for white unity or something, I don't see how atheists can create a pan-white identity using Christianity. It's absurd.

>>24475107
German Jews were around for a long time. You can be both Jewish and German. They’ve made a European culture for themselves for a thousand years. They’re as German as the other Germans. You can’t say they aren’t. Einstein was a German Jew. You would not say Einstein wasn’t white. Ashkenazi are white Jews. Sephardim aren’t. Only the Ashkenazi have a true claim to being European.

>>24474832
Yeah man whatever do you take communion or not?

>>24475107
Christianity isn’t really an identity religion the way Judaism is. Zoroastrianism was like this too. “It’s in the flood”. It has real tradition. Christians and Muslims are the Borg in comparison, assimilating others.

>>24475118
It’s in the blood*

>>24475101
>yes I AM taking Petersons word for it, and let me repeat the bs so it becomes more true
thanks, that's all I was asking

>>24475125
What am I taking his word about, anon? Here's an article about the petition I was talking about that also mentions the meetings he had with university brass in 2016: https://thevarsity.ca/2017/11/29/hundreds-sign-open-letter-to-u-of-t-admin-calling-for-jordan-petersons-termination/
>let me repeat the bs
I was summarizing the counterargument with which you had been provided and failed to respond.

Now, can you reply or are you just going to seethe?

>>24475113
No, I wouldn't say that Einstein isn't predominantly German ethnically and culturally. I feel like we're getting lost in the sauce. So your argument is that someone who doesn't believe in God is Christian just as Christian as the guy who doesn't, similar to the Jews, correct?

>>24475135
Fuck, meant:
>So your argument is that someone who doesn't believe in God is Christian just as Christian as the guy who does

>>24475138
If someone entertains (OP’s word) the religion and does more good with it, while another who deeply believes in it does only bad with it, who are we to argue who is more Christian than the other?

I don’t know. I find being religious is just what >>24475078 said. It’s a story. How much you put into it is up to you.

I just find it odd how even the most faithful and zealous can disrespect their religion, and yet they argue they’re the more religious? For being crazy?

>>24475132
Weird, I read the whole article and found nothing whatsoever on the reasons for the refusal of his research grants; almost like you slyly changed the topic.
Then I tried to find where it "mentions the meetings he had with university brass" and couldn't. Help me out.
It mentions an interesting tidbid though:
>Peterson’s proposed website, which was meant to identify “postmodern” and “neo-Marxist” university faculty members, courses, and disciplines, is targeted in the letter.
Funny, so he wanted a little blacklist of his own and then got all triggered when he faced some resistance? I bet he cried, aww. Anyway, is this the "peak of cancel culture" you're refering to?

>>24474802
>Send me a video of him saying that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, who died on the Cross for the sins of mankind and was risen on the third. Doesn't matter how he phrases it, but send me a video where he publicly states that belief.
Not all Christian sects believe all of those things. He certainly never claimed to be a Catholic or Anglican and I'm pretty sure he would outright deny being one if you asked directly.

>refusal of his research grants
That article was about the petition to have him fired and the meetings he was forced to attend in 2016, anon. That was one claim I made. If you want one about the research being recinded...https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/an-opportunity-to-make-their-displeasure-known-government-pulls-funding-of-pronoun-professor

Now, I know you're going to want to say I'm "taking his word for it" but it's pretty fishy he had never been denied funding throughout his entire career, the research was previously given the highest amount of funding ever given to a psychology professor, and the performance of Peterson's work was objectively "exceptional" as per his h-score. These are all facts. So, is it just a big coincidence that his ability to conduct research was taken away after the stance he took? If you want to make an argument about greater scrutiny then explain why they were so cursory in previously awarding his research more money than any other psychologist. If it's about results, well, there's his h-score which is directly related to the research he had been conducting. Based on that I don't need to take his word about anything.
>Then I tried to find where it "mentions the meetings he had with university brass" and couldn't
Not that important but since you're apparently bad at reading: "The administration, states the letter, “has already publicly acknowledged the danger posed to both faculty and students by Peterson’s behaviour” in the letter sent to him by the Dean and Vice-Provost in October 2016."
>inb4 "meeting"
If you try to argue that you're pathetic, anon. The letter itself is enough to demonstrate his job was under treat at the university in 2016 and if you don't think he had meetings with university authorities over it you're a dunce.
>Anyway, is this the "peak of cancel culture" you're refering to?
Are you trying to gaslight about cancel culture not existing in the mid-10s, anon? Here's an article containing what came to be known as crybullying to remind you of "cancel culture": https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/30/jordan-peterson-doxxes-two-student-activists/

>>24475183
>refusal of his research grants
That article was about the petition to have him fired and the meetings he was forced to attend in 2016, anon. That was one claim I made. If you want one about the research being recinded...https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/an-opportunity-to-make-their-displeasure-known-government-pulls-funding-of-pronoun-professor

Now, I know you're going to want to say I'm "taking his word for it" but it's pretty fishy he had never been denied funding throughout his entire career, the research was previously given the highest amount of funding ever given to a psychology professor, and the performance of Peterson's work was objectively "exceptional" as per his h-score. These are all facts. So, is it just a big coincidence that his ability to conduct research was taken away after the stance he took? If you want to make an argument about greater scrutiny then explain why they were so cursory in previously awarding his research more money than any other psychologist. If it's about results, well, there's his h-score which is directly related to the research he had been conducting. Based on that I don't need to take his word about anything.
>Then I tried to find where it "mentions the meetings he had with university brass" and couldn't
Not that important but since you're apparently bad at reading: "The administration, states the letter, “has already publicly acknowledged the danger posed to both faculty and students by Peterson’s behaviour” in the letter sent to him by the Dean and Vice-Provost in October 2016."
>inb4 "meeting"
If you try to argue that you're pathetic, anon. The letter itself is enough to demonstrate his job was under treat at the university in 2016 and if you don't think he had meetings with university authorities over it you're a dunce.
>Anyway, is this the "peak of cancel culture" you're refering to?
Are you trying to gaslight about cancel culture not existing in the mid-10s, anon? Here's an article containing what came to be known as crybullying to remind you of "cancel culture": https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/30/jordan-peterson-doxxes-two-student-activists/

You're losing this debate so badly right now, anon. Feel free to shift goalposts again.

>>24475168
>If someone entertains (OP’s word) the religion and does more good with it, while another who deeply believes in it does only bad with it, who are we to argue who is more Christian than the other?
What do you mean by the non believer does "more good" with it and the believer does "more bad"?
>It’s a story. How much you put into it is up to you.
You can enjoy the story and take it as moral instruction, you can even inquire into the faith and attend liturgical practices, yet not believe. However, I don't know how you can call yourself a Christian if you don't believe. If you're a part of the Apostolic faith, you have to be Catechized and Baptized. It's an all encompassing worldview which you are made part of. You can't really be a Christian philosopher like John of Damascus if you don't think God is real, as you need it for your metaphysics and epistemology.
>I just find it odd how even the most faithful and zealous can disrespect their religion, and yet they argue they’re the more religious? For being crazy?
Your first responding to me was insinuating that God isn't real, but was still trying to attribute attributes to him, implying that he is real, and saying it's disrespectful to him to believe in him. I really don't know what to make of that. I'm really not trying to be obtuse, but I have no idea what your position is.

>>24475200
>What do you mean by the non believer does "more good" with it and the believer does "more bad"?
A Jewish Rabbi is a lot nicer and does a lot more good than a rampaging Muslim who goes “Allahallahallahallahallahallah”. A Jewish Rabbi is like a mix of a priest and a therapist, and they will tell you it’s irrelevant whether God exists or not. The Jew has superior family values to the Muslim. They live happier and successful lives, in comparison.

I don’t care whether you believe in God or not as long as you live a good life and don’t impede on others’ lives.

>>24475183
Oh, P.S. That article was about an event at Ryerson University. Well, "Ryerson" University no longer exists because Egerton Ryerson was "cancelled" lol.

>>24475200
>Your first responding to me was insinuating that God isn't real, but was still trying to attribute attributes to him, implying that he is real,
Applying attributes doesn’t imply realness when said attributes are shared across religions. God is just a higher intelligence. That’s all a god is.

> -and saying it's disrespectful to him to believe in him. I really don't know what to make of that.
Religion, being a matter of faith, isn’t meant to be true. It’s disrespectful to be dumb enough to assume a storybook edited by persons throughout millennia would actually have accuracy to it. I don’t think God would approve. At best there are grains of truth to sift through. It’s all a metaphor. Make of it what you will. It’s a story to mold your life by. Nothing more.

> I'm really not trying to be obtuse, but I have no idea what your position is.
My position is that belief and religion are not inseparable.

If you think there are only two positions (that of ‘I believe’ and ‘I don’t believe’), it’s a moot debate. You don’t have to believe to be religious, or be involved within the community, is the point. I’m not convinced of this. You don’t have to believe in the story, you just need to believe in a higher power, be it some hypothetical godlike intelligence or the power of the community itself.

>>24475198
I see, so you make up things the article "mentions", and I'm bad at reading because I'm not in on what seem to be your fantasies of what exact events occurred in JPs professional life 8 years ago.
Now, apparently I also have to be autistically literal with someone freely inferring the unwritten content of articles, but no, I didn't deny the existence of cancel culture, I just found it worth an ironic remark that Peterson wanted to establish a bit of a cancel culture of his own and make a list of evil postmodern neo-Marxists.

Now, as to the grant denial, which was the original topic before *you* shifted the goalposts to all attacks on JP in general: in the article you linked, basically everything is his own take on the situation, with just a bit of objective information like his h-index. And boy does he know how to present himself as a saint, only ever concerned for his grad students.
In some other articles, new additions to his research program were mentioned: investigating the correlation of "political correctness" with personality traits, and the effectiveness of measures like the Self-Authoring Program. Now the latter was, as far as I recall, a commercial enterprise of his, and the former is at least rather dubious as to how neutrally an investigator can define it without imposing his own political preconceptions.
Those alone *could* be reasonable grounds to decline. But we won't know, because we don't have the full proposal. Only the circumstance that Peterson was producing good research before and felt entitled to have his grants continue by default. Of course his interpretation of the refusal is conspiratorial, as so many of his interpretations are. And you're just parroting it, which was my original point, nothing more.

>>24475282
>so you make up things
I didn't make anything up, anon. I claimed that a petition was made to the university to have Peterson fired in and when you objected I provided a source. I then mentioned that the article alluded to him being called before brass in 2016 as well based on its mention of the letter of reprimand he recieved which I had not mentioned up to that point.
>freely inferring the unwritten content of articles
I'm not "freely inferring" anything, anon. My claim was that there was a petition to have him fired and I substantiated that claim with an article. Now, just as I predicted, you're ignoring the fact I've supported the claims I made in order to quibble over the idea of meetings when the fact the petition I claimed existed has been shown to exist and, not only this, the article I provided also mentions a letter of reprimand going way back to the fall of 2016.
>Peterson wanted to establish a bit of a cancel culture of his own
This is another argument, anon. You're losing the one you're in currently and given your disingenuousness I don't feel like engaging in another that is entirely beside the point of this one.
>Now, as to the grant denial, which was the original topic before *you* shifted the goalposts
No it wasn't, anon. Why are you lying? I made the claim that Peterson's job was under threat and that the idea he had an illustrious career as an influencer to fall back on was pure hindsight. In order to support this I brought up that a petition had been sent to have him terminated, his research funding wasn't renewed, and his clinical practice was threatened. Instead of coming up with an argument you asserted I was "taking his word for it" (twice) so I provided an article to corroborate the claim I had made. This established the credibility of an example I had given (and thereby my argument) so you then shifted to the second example, the research funding, instead of accepting I was able to back up my claim.
>in the article you linked, basically everything is his own take on the situation
Again, exactly as I predicted. Anon: he had received the largest grant ever given to a psychology professor and his research was successful as indicated by his h-score. These are objective facts and not a matter of opinion. Once again you have no counterargument and attempt to deflect based on your mere opinion.
>Those alone *could* be reasonable grounds to decline
Based on what? You're opinion? Do you even know what the grant was for? No, you're grasping at straws and shifting the goalposts away from the fact his career was under threat.

Anon, you don't have a leg to stand on and I have fully supported my arguments. You're embarrassing yourself.

>>24474217 (OP)
The main thing about Christianity is not the values but salvation, which is the equivalent to nirvana in Buddhism. In Christianity you kill the ego (aka the flesh) by becoming a follower of Christ (John 15:4). Without an ego you see yourself as just another part of God’s creation, and will be start acting in line with Christian values (which is how those values came about in the first place).

>>24475311
>Based on what? You're opinion? Do you even know what the grant was for? No, you're grasping at straws and shifting the goalposts away from the fact his career was under threat.
Based on reasonable considerations on how a research proposal might be evaluated. Don't you think asking grant money to fund research into the effectiveness of your own "Self-Authoring" business sounds somewhat fishy? After all, you base your assertion that his career was under threat on petitions, anonymous complaints, and "meetings with brass" you conjure up, all of which led nowhere and had zero concrete consequences, but were dramatized to the fullest extent in Petersons "self-authoring" of his heroic rebel saga; so I think it's not out of bounds for me to engage in some speculation on possible causes other than the Grand Conspiracy against Jordan B. Peterson.
Source on what I *do* know: https://thevarsity.ca/2017/05/01/jordan-petersons-federal-funding-denied-rebel-media-picks-up-the-tab/

Apparently he not only didn't suffer any consequences, he was immediately rewarded for complaining by a indiegogo campaign that gave him the money without any pesky oversight or accountability. Maybe that's when he felt his career threatened the most, huh?

In fact I have to thank you because this argument managed to lower my already low opinion of Peterson and his scummy grifting. I was willing to see him at least as a target if not a victim of cancelation efforts, but that's moot after seeing those had zero concrete career consequences, immediate monetary gain (incl his patreon btw), and were in part provoked by his own attempt at blacklisting professors whose stance he disliked, and not just speaking out against "zhe/zher".
You're free to insist that I'm "losing the argument" or grasping at straws because it seems to make you happy; in turn I'm glad I could solidify my suspicions against JP and his defenders.

>>24474217 (OP)
Christian values aren't even Christian, they are mostly poached from the ancient Greeks.

>>24475430
>Based on reasonable considerations
Your considerations aren't reasonable as the funding was previously provided for the same research that was being conducted. What you're doing is inferring information that isn't substantiated and, to make it worse, you're doing so after accusing me of such.
>Self-Authoring" business sounds somewhat fishy
This is shifting the goalposts away from the actual argument which was: Peterson's career was under threat and did not have an assured fallback as an e-celeb as you claimed. I don't want to go down this tangent with you because you're disingenuous. However, I'll tell you that the Self-Authoring program was found to increase the odds of graduation and there are no rules against research being monetized
>he was immediately rewarded for complaining by a indiegogo campaign
Lol, called it: >>>/tv/211613826. I was a little off with the crybully part (I knew they're be a "no you" but you went with the Marxist website thing) but I was spot on with the Rebel Media thing, lol.
>You're free to insist that I'm "losing the argument"
Anon, it's clear that you lost the argument like 10 posts ago.

Recap: I claimed his job was under threat and the assertion he had a career as a "multimillionaire self-help author" was based on hindsight. When questioned I gave the rationale behind my claim (petition to have him fired, research funding not renewed, clinical practice threatened). You claimed this was all after 2018 (you've been thoroughly proved wrong on that). You then tried a lame "just his opinion" so I backed up my first claim by linking to an article (now noting the letter of reprimand going back all the way fall of 2016). You then failed to acknowledge I supported my claim and lied about the main argument being about funding (i.e. literally shifting the goalposts while accusing me of such). So, I provided you an article about that while predicting you'd sperg about "all his opinion" while clearly stating the FACTS of the matter in the vain hope I could help your small mind focus. Aside, I also predicted you'd slide about "meeting" while so I pointed out the letter alone supports my main claim (that his job at the university was in jeopardy).

Anyway, you then started projecting your own unsubstantiated nonsense about why the research funding was revoked when it's quite clear you don't even know how the funding works and missed the part about how it was for existing research. You made a bunch of stuff up as to why it should be revoked based on nothing and linked to an article written by a student newspaper (the same one I did but, importantly, I did so for the facts reported and not for the sake of tone).

You lost this debate in every way imaginable. You had no response, in your confusion projected your own behavior on to me, wrote pathetically predictable replies, and you've been reduced to literally writing "WAAAAA I DISLIKE JORDAN PETERSON", lol.

You're a dummy, anon.

>>24474217 (OP)
>western ethics are founded on Aristotle
>ACHKUALLY THE BIBLE (which contradicts many of our ethical beliefs with its semitic nonsense) IS THE FOUNDATION OF YOUR VALUES
I don't understand this. Why does a seemingly intelligent person like Peterson not know about Aristotle?

>>24475609
Aristotle based his ethics on the Bible obviously.

>>24475613
Ah yes. Well. I can't refute that.

>>24474217 (OP)
If they are shared by other religions then no point in framing them as "Christian" values.

And yes there's nothing wrong with having values without worshipping mr. Dead Jew stick

To be a Christian one must believe whole heartedly in the Trinity. There's nothing abstract here. Peterson is a grifter and he has referred to himself before as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

>>24475666
Thanks, Satan

I don’t get why he dodges questions constantly it reminds me of those influencers who pretend to be muslim because that’s based or whatever but then if they get asked about child marriage their brain gets short circuited because they don’t know what their supposed to say, I don’t know what Peterson is hiding though, does he think he will lose fans/followers if people knew his real opinions?

How can this board be so obsessed with Nietzsche yet he has no presence in this thread, the thread he's tailor-made for? Nietzsche loves to remind us that no, actually, if you don't believe in Christianity you CAN'T hold to "Christian values," because you will be a charlatan and over time your actual behavior will come to reflect this. Nietzsche correctly notes that for the unbeliever the only paths are the way of the Overman or the way of the Last Man.

Look at the entire debate on assisted suicide. It's the perfect example of "Christian values" in the absence of faith. All the arguments in favor of euthanasia are like a parody of Christian thought. Reducing suffering, avoiding harm, being compassionate, it all sounds vaguely Christian, but it's missing "thou shalt not kill," and "the measure by which you measure shall be measured out to you." If you try to maintain "Christian values" without actual faith in Christ you are doomed.

>>24475693
Peterson evades every single question that shows a hole in his position. He can't defend himself in any other way than evasion and then attacking his opponent.

>>24474354
>>the Bible is a hyperlinked library of wisdom across centuries. It’s not a book you simply “believe in.”
This hyperlinking nevertheless pertains to physical events which is where atheists make their critique.
JP is trying to situate the conversation in a much broader context which isn't required logically for what is, essentially, a proof by contradiction or counterexample.
Dawkins, or any other atheist, do not need to consider the hyperlinked ways in which Christianity may be culturally or morally true to simply argue that Christianity's claims are physically false.

To steel man JP's argument, I believe he's saying that you can't apply truth or false claims to Christianity on a purely physical basis because the physical, moral, and cultural aspects of the religion are intertwined. But this comes with a number of problems, not least of which is that the criteria by which claims can be evaluated as true or false becomes incredibly opaque, if not groundless. It's also not clear to me why it seems, at least in JP's rhetoric, that Christianity is the only thought-system for which this is permissible. For starters, can Muslims make the same argument so that we have the perplexing situation of Islam and Christianity being simultaneously true? Not to mention that there's no reason religion, considered as a thought-system, should benefit from this hyperlinking and not other thought-systems. This isn't so much a direct argument against JP's position but at least a point of tension for people not quite buying what he's saying. He's developed a logic which opens the door to an incredibly radical (and largely postmodern) view of the world which raises red flags for people given his past hostility towards postmodernism and for the fact that he doesn't really seem to extend this reasoning towards anything else.
It's also a kind of thinking liable to legitimate many things that JP or at least many of his followers would disagree with. For example, one could easily argue that gender is an intertwining of cultural narratives with the physical so that the validity of transgender identities can't simply be evaluated by or reduced to physical factors.

>>24475501
I'm baffled by how hard it seems for you to understand simple points, but here's another try: I did not claim to *know* why his grant wasn't renewed, but that just from the little reporting of what was new in the proposal one can see an alternative explanation other than him being hunted down. You have provided zero evidence that funding was cut because the reviewers conspired to destroy Petersons career, other than the circumstances of him being a respected scientist who had his grants approved before, so obviously the next one should be approved too, right?
I'm focusing on the grants because that's the only event with some concrete effects on his career; everything else you mention were nothingburgers that had no consequence whatsoever, and are summarized with "people complained about him". It's hilarious that you think a letter from the administration imploring him to be a good boy constitutes indication let alone proof that tenured professor's position was under threat. The fact the petition claims it was doesn't mean shit.

What do you think you have "called" with Rebel Media? Did he refuse their (crowdsourced) money? If not, the point stands. He was immediately rewarded with a much better alternative funding source, so there wasn't even any insecurity about his research money, let alone his personal income from tenured professorship. RebelMedia's political leaning is irrelevant here. To repeat a point you're wisely avoiding, that was all while he had a 5 figure patreon running.
The only thing I was wrong on is the chronology of when the book came out vs when complaints about him started. But at no point did he financially suffer or had actual administrative steps taken against his employment for being le rebel against wokeness, which was the issue at hand. Feel free to repeat how big the shitstorm was, how mean the anonymous complainers and crybullies, how terrible the cancel-culture; if you wilfully fail to see the irrelevance of those points, I can't make you.

>predictable replies
funny how proud you are of what you imagine you "predicted", repeating it over and over. A valid point doesn't become invalid because you inb4'd it, y'know? Not that your reading comprehension failures were predictions at all.

>>24474960
>>Peterson: transgender ideology specifically targets a group of people likely to be confused...

It doesn't *specifically* target that group at all. There's no age limit on transitioning and most trans people are quite happy when someone transitions well into adulthood. If an adolescent wishes to transition, has been psychiatrically evaluated, it's been confirmed to not be just a passing fancy, then sure, there should be a pathway for that person too.

>>... and open to mental pathologies via social contagion...

I don't think Peterson has even made this argument because the idea of 'social contagion' is really flimsy to begin with. Being trans isn't considered a mental pathology either so the point is totally meritless.

>>...we shouldn't give hormones to children let alone surgically mutilate minors

Hormones are already often given to adolescents experiencing hypogonadism or some other kind of puberty delay. I don't think Peterson has made this argument either because he's likely familiar with the use of hormones in circumstances where an adolescent is not developing at the rate expected of their gender. Surgeries are done on minors for a variety of reasons so that point is also meritless.

Underpinning your argument seems to be a view that hormones related to transgender identities are less legitimate than those related to cis identities. If that's the case you want to make then okay, but it's better to do that directly than to hide behind moral outrage at hormones being given to children in general which happens already.

Also the argument you present from the perspective of the "tranny" is the weakest of the lot. If you're going to steel man the Chud or Libtard, you should be consistent.

>>24474645
nta but he simply falsified your hypothesis of
>the teachings of all religions are the same
clearly they're not. no need to spaz about being wrong

>>24474217 (OP)
I'm not sure what true religion is, but I'm certain it doesn't take paychecks from corporations and the State to go on podcasts.
>>24475704
He gets paid

>>24474531
>The Jews in particular excel at the fields of science and math
This is recent and only happened because some jews disregarded Rabbinic authority

>>24475113
>You would not say Einstein wasn’t white
He himself would not have said that so I will not contradict him

>>24475906
>If an adolescent wishes to transition, has been psychiatrically evaluated, it's been confirmed to not be just a passing fancy, then sure, there should be a pathway for that person too
>If an adolescent wishes to have limbs amputated, has been psychiatrically evaluated as having Bodily Integrity Identity Disorder, it's been confirmed to not be just a passing fancy, then sure, there should be a pathway for that person too

>>24474217 (OP)
>Do you really need to be a Christian to believe in Christian values?
Yes
>Aren’t Christian values shared by other religions?
No. But Christians values have been so powerful as to infect YOUR perception of other religions.
>Can’t you entertain a religion without buying into it?
Perhaps on the scale of the individual but such psychic dissonance inevitably destroys any society afflicted by it

>>24475992
He’s German. He’s white.

>>24475980
>This is recent
The last couple of centuries is recent?

Danny is such a twink.

>>24476252
He and the other one from the Jubilee video went on Piers Morgan and they were both bisexual, then they got bullied relentlessly by two Christian guys for being gaytheists, first time I thought a Piers Morgan show was actually funny.

>>24476272
The other guy söyfacing and holding a hand over his mouth in shock was the funniest thing

i miss when peterson was in the zone. and/but i don't really care what happened after.

>>24474217 (OP)
>Aren’t Christian values shared by other religions?
What a stupid question, thanks for proving gaytheists have no idea what they're ever talking about.

p.s., the answer is no.

>Can’t you entertain a religion without buying into it?
Sure, everyone is forced to entertain the religion of atheism/communism and their retarded creation myths which are tax-funded and taught as "science fact" in the schools despite requiring more blind faith than believing the Bible which is a reasoned faith, but atheists believe their creation myth in spite of the science and in spite of the logic and in spite of the laws of science.

The bottom line is gaytheists don't believe the truth and won't typically believe the truth because they already love to believe lies. Those who love lies won't believe the truth.

>>24474387
>ugh, just let people enjoy things
>IV of drugs
>VR set of porn

>>24474458
Nothing about Catholicism is Christian, faggot. You and 99% of gaytheists are pic related.

>>24476323
>Nothing about Catholicism is Christian
Except the Bible, sola scriptura right?

>>24476377
The Bible was complete long before the Catholic cult was created in the 4th century by an ecumenical council comprised entirely of heretics by a pagan emperor who wanted to use religion for power, which is why Catholicism has always been full of paganism.

>>24476323
But you don’t have to be an atheist or a theist to be a Christian. It’s just following a story. If God is real, then that’s just a bonus.

>>24476393
>let me redefine "Christian" so even atheists can claim to be Christian.
You gaytheists redefine "marriage" and even what it means to be a man or a woman these day. Please kill yourself.

>>24476396
But I don’t think gays should get married since marriage is a male-female ritual that comes across as weird if it’s male-male or female-female. They should just make their own ritual.

>>24476396
How do you respond to Christian mathematicians who know the odds, and don’t believe in the Bible? You struggle with nuance.

>>24476408
>but I'm a special snowflake gaytheist, I'm not like the other girls
Literally nothing about you, your fellow atheists, or your entire religious belief system built around the blind faith belief in there being no god or gods or the true living God have anything concrete to oppose the advancement of faggotry and the pedophile agenda that accompanies it.

p.s. God created marriage. You just think it's some evolutionistic "ritual" that just "appeared" because "society" or whatever garbage, which is why you have such weak opposition to it.

Also, it's funny how gaytheists are like the papists, in that they have to ignore 90% of what I post since they have no rebuttal to it.

>>24476412
Math supports the Bible.
>but ... le odds
They're obviously not Christian if they're saying the Bible isn't true. Just like the Catholic publishers who put prefaces in their corrupt bibles translated from corrupt manuscripts that claim the Psalms aren't revealed truth.

If someone is saved (i.e. a real Christian), then they're not only indwelt with the holy Spirit of God and being guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, but they'll be seekers and lovers of truth; which you obviously aren't, since you love speaking lies to slander the truth.

>>24476427
>Math supports the Bible.
Lol, no it doesn’t. All religion are stories. Fiction. Altered by many persons over the ages. It’s a game of telephone by default. At best there will be grains of truth to be had.

Believing in the religion is disrespectful to it. You don’t see the story for what it is. It isn’t necessary to buy into it.

>>24476427
Wait. Are you actually one of those guys who thinks God is some bearded man in the sky, and the earth is 5,000 years old?

Evolution is a tool. “He made the world in seven days” can be interpreted as some giant alien having a different perspective of spacetime, the same way the Trinity is three parts of the same higher dimensional being.

>>24476443
>>Math supports the Bible.
>Lol, no it doesn’t.
It does.

>All religion are stories. Fiction. Altered by many persons over the ages.
But not yours since it's state-funded and ever-changing whenever someone criticizes it, right? And yours is also "not a religion" despite requiring blind faith and built around a core belief that you'd have to be God to know is even true in the first place. Well, if you fags were honest and admitted any of that, you'd lose access to tax-funding and indoctrinating kids with your lies, you communist pedophile.

>It’s a game of telephone by default.
This old trope. You're such a pathetic programmed NPC, lmao.

>Believing in the religion is disrespectful to it. You don’t see the story for what it is. It isn’t necessary to buy into it.
You're literally retarded.

>>24476427
>If someone is saved (i.e. a real Christian), then they're not only indwelt with the holy Spirit of God and being guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, but they'll be seekers and lovers of truth; which you obviously aren't, since you love speaking lies to slander the truth.
Faith does not require truth… if anything it is counterproductive to it. Faith, religion, is sort of meant to be a mystery. Internal. There’s mysticism to all religion. It’s not at all a matter of external verification. It’s as tricky as psychology.

>>24476447
>Wait. Are you actually one of those guys who thinks God is some bearded man in the sky, and the earth is 5,000 years old?
LMAO

Thanks for proving that you're programmed by the schools and jewish media, since that's how your jew media portrays Christianity, so you parrot it and think it makes you sound smart. You're such a fucking loser, lmao.

>Evolution is a tool. “He made the world in seven days” can be interpreted as some giant alien having a different perspective of spacetime, the same way the Trinity is three parts of the same higher dimensional being.
Evolution violates the laws of science and has never been observed. You just lie and use bait and switch, and you're too much of a programmed subhuman NPC to realize you were baited and switched with "look at a variation within a kind" then claiming that proves changes of kinds. Do the world IQ average a favor and kill yourself, the world IQ average will jump 5 points when you die.

>>24476452
>It does.
The smartest man in America is a Christian and he believes all religion is bullshit since they’re all stories mixed up through the ages.

See the image in >>24475021

Isaac Newton was also a massive heretic despite being a God thumper. He rejected the holy Trinity.

>>24476455
You're just a retarded philososhitter who thinks he's super deep and intellectual, but you're just a fool speaking folly. Seriously kill yourself, idiot.

>>24476458
>Evolution violates the laws of science and has never been observed
You appear to be insane. Maybe even a troll.

>>24476459
>claim someone is the smartest man
>is an atheist fool who claims to be Christian while saying religion is all bullshit
lmao, clearly not a Christian if he says religion is bullshit, you stupid tranny.

You will never be a real woman. Stop changing definitions, you retarded tranny pedophile.

>>24476392
bro is cooked

>>24476461
No I’m just using common sense. It ain’t so common, and you’re threatened by it.

>>24476467
>>24476474
Thanks for proving my point in another thread, atheists are incapable of forming logical arguments to prove or defend their beliefs (because they literally cannot be proven).

>>24476458
You believe in IQ b it you don’t believe in evolution? Lol. IQ wouldn’t exist if there were no evolution to reinforce biological variance. Go ahead and assume that biological variance just stops once it reaches the brain. You will look so smart.

>>24476478
But I hate atheists more than theists, and I’ve only ever supported Christianity. You just aren’t a happy person.

>>24476467
The only troll here is you. But keep with the logical fallacies, it's all you tranny pedophiles have to defend your blind faith creation myth and fairy tales.

Subhuman NPCs afraid of questioning what they were programmed to believe by the government schools and mockingbird media.

>>24476480
You don't understand the scientific method, tranny.

>>24476452
You are mentally unwell. I will pray for you.

>>24476486
Just keep lying and being a coward, it's all you can do.

>>24476490
Keep proving my point, coward.

>>24476488
But you don’t understand science. It’s just causality.

>>24476488
I’m one of the first people who would go against the tranny epidemic, moron.

>>24476510
>But you don’t understand science.
Pure projection, troll.

>>24476510
You're redefine words just like the trannies and jews to make your "arguments" which aren't even remotely arguments but just logical fallacies and ad hominem.

And your evolution-tranny myth is trannyism, and proto LGBT-trannyism. It's trannyism of kinds which has never happened, but you just assert it does in spite of it never being proven with the scientific method, and you act like a tranny fag when people question your lies. Do the entire world a favor and kill yourself, freak.

>>24474217 (OP)
Anyone who mindfucks themselves to the point of supporting what Israel is doing in Palestine and to Iran right now, is not a person to take seriously. This guy is intellectually-bankrupt. He needs to go to rehab and some kind of re-education camp where he can get his brain washed free of the Israeli intelligence programming he has been subjected to in recent years. Being philosemitic is not equivalent to being a Christian.

The scientific method was invented to oppose academia and the mindless NPC subhuman trash who blindly believe what academia tells them is a fact in spite of what we actually see in the real world.

It's really not surprising that atheists are incapable of proving or actually defending their beliefs logically or scientifically though, since they're just dumb gay retards.

>>24474397
All religions carry the prejudices of the races that created them. It's that simple.
The New testament is more or less a revisionist version of Christianity which is more emblematic of a European's capacity of empathy. No other race is capable of that level of empathy and so we don't see it in other religions.

Of course the least barbarous of religions other than New Testament European Christian theology is Eastern Buddhist and again, we see that East Asians are most compatible with Western Europeans, just as we see socially with immigration and assimilation.

Once you view it that way, it all begins to make sense.

>>24476183
Yeah, becoming prominent in the sciences after the mid 19th century does make them Johnny come latelys. And again they had to break away from Rabbis to do it. There isn't a parallel to the Christian clergymen who also investigated natural philosophy in their tradition. If Christians hadn't started doing it and fascinating jewish young men with new discoveries, they would never have done it.

Whose payroll is Jordan Peterson on these days

lmao

>>24476560
>There isn't a parallel to the Christian clergymen who also investigated natural philosophy in their tradition
Are you sure about that?

>>24476523
>Anyone who mindfucks themselves to the point of supporting what Israel is doing in Palestine and to Iran right now, is not a person to take seriously

Lmao. Iran is a theocratic shithole that beheads dissenters and forces women to wear head wraps because they have low impulse control ingrained into their genetics.

Not even their own people like their own government. They are cheering from the rural areas.

>>24476581
Yes. Give an example of a Rabbi doing it if you doubt me.

>>24476587
One of the oldest recorded chemists in history was a Jewish women. Mary the Jewess. They’ve always held intellectual inclinations. They’ve always been into geometry.

>>24476523
Anyone who supports Palestine or Iran shouldn’t be taken seriously. Seriously.

>>24476575
surely this is just out of context, right?
...r-right?

>>24476595
>One of the oldest recorded chemists in history was a Jewish women. Mary the Jewess
Goofing around with borrowed 4 Element 'theory' nonsense does not a scientist make. Confine yourself to 1600 to 1850 and the number of Christian divines who were also astronomers, physicists, chemists (real ones), biologists, geologists etc. is remarkable. And you'll find no Rabbi their match.

>>24476323
>The Bible verbatim tells you how to own a slave, to what extent you can beat them, how you can pass their ownership down to your inheritance
It's Christians who endlessly cope over the Bible. It's an salvageable document.

>>24476478
>Gravity is a religion, an explicit substitute for Jesus walking on water or ascending on a cloud to heaven
kek, Christians simply have an issue with neutral observations of reality

>>24476531
Atheism is correlated with a higher IQ. Thanks for playing.

>>24474217 (OP)
If a non-believer would be willing to sacrifice themselves and their being to the ideals of the kingdom, would that in a sense be an ultimate expression of faith?

>>24475868
My claim was that his job was under threat and your argument about internet fame is based on hindsight. This was the argument and you have tried to shift the goalposts continuously.

I gave the examples 1) petition to have him fired, 2) research funding revoked and 3) clinical practice threatened. You claimed this was all after 2018 and information was given to you from 2016 and 2017 (you're proven wrong). You then claimed I was "just taking his opinion" so I presented an article from 2017 about a petition to having him fired AND pointed out the letter of reprimand from 2016. However, instead of acknowledging I predicted you would get hung up on the word "meeting" even though the letter alone proves my point AND if you can't figure out such letters involve meetings you're being obtuse. Instead of acknowledging this supported my example and thereby my claim you shifted the goalposts again, falsely claiming the argument is about his research funding.

With regard to the funding I provided you with another article. I predicted you'd say "it's just based on his opinion" once again and deflect from the argument that his job was under theat. I thereby pointed out 1) he received the highest amount of funding ever from that organization 2) his research was successful as per his h-score 3) the funding was for research that was previously funded 4) never had Peterson been denied funding. These are a matter of fact and not opinion. Instead of accepting these facts, and how having his funding taken away therefore supports my claim his job is under threat, you made stuff up about why the funding was cut. Therefore, you failed to prove I was just accepting his opinion and shifted the goalposts to making things up about his funding being taken away (after accusing me of making stuff up) instead of addressing the facts pointed out AND accepting they support my main argument that his job was under threat.

You also engaged in 2 slides that were predicted before you posted: "Peterson is the one cancelling" and "Peterson was funded anyway". The former isn't worth addressing and the latter is from a small media outlet crowdfunding (that didn't reach the full amount of funding to which he had applied) and doesn't indicate his position was not precarious.

So yes, anon. You've entirely lost this debate. I've demonstrated that his job was under threat in the relevant timeframe and that the idea he would be a multimillionaire self-help guru is hindsight. You shifted the goalposts multiple times, failed to acknowledge when I supported my claims, and predictably began making up nonsense (letter/meeting and, now, you won't address how the funding being taken away indicates his career was under threat from authorities let alone the actual FACTs surrounding it--you just make things up trying to reverse rationalize it, although this doesn't indicate his career wasn't under threat, while ignoring reality).

You're BTFO.

>>24474217 (OP)

>>24476836
>>>/his/

I am sorry, but the only point to engage in these debates is for the theist to develop their beliefs in God and for the atheist to develop their philosophy via debate, and for the whatevereist or -stic to develop their whatever etc.. You rarely will convince, if ever, the other of your position and you know this. Even when it comes to winning arguments, it’s almost always in the form of conceding details and taking in aspects of what the other is saying instead of full conversion of one’s world view. People debate here because they want to know more about their own beliefs by arguing it, and putting their ideas to the test. Iq stats are completely useless, this is just name calling, and they stats are skewed to bring out a certain narrative anyway. IRC, it’s actually independent belief that is linked to higher iq and atheism is linked more so with independent belief because most of the world is religious. The other guy was a moron, and his whole argument was based around devaluing people who didn’t follow his bigotry, but posts like that should be ignored

>>24474217 (OP)
Yes, yes and yes.
There are religions older than christianity like paganism.
I personally believe snorri snorrelson was a christopagan and not a full christian. Either that or he just wanted to preserve history

Need to stick my thumb up Danny’s butt and put firm pressure on his throbbing prostate

Has Danny's Grindr profile already been found?

>>24476868
>the atheist to develop their philosophy via debate
Internet atheists don't debate. They merely repeat things they've heard Nu Atheists say because they think it makes them smart. They're like autistic 5 year-olds who like watching the same movie over and over in between spergs expressing how smart they must be because they know Santa isn't real.

>>24476586
>>24476601
Israel is the number 1 sponsor of terrorism.

1. Israel financed and arms ISIS and Al-Qaeda. An ISIS leader was exposed as being an Israeli Jew Mossad agent, and when ISIS accidentally attacked Israel they apologized.

2. Israel is number 1 in human trafficking and illegal organ trade. There are tons of sources on this.

3. Israel is genocidal. They love killing civilians and innocent animals. Israel deliberately fired rockets at a horse ranch in Iran. These Persian horses are considered fine breeds that are largely desired by many, and Israel deliberately.

4. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence Mossad was behind felling the WTCs during 9/11.

"We go into countries as an undercover team. We take on the same shape and form as the people there . . . we’re like undercover agents . . . We are aliens, starting to prep ourselves to conquer Earth . . . We are being trained, activated, and that emotion and mind awakens in us. It’s coming from our original planet . . . We will take over those living on Earth . . . It’s not a different galaxy, it’s a different Universe. It’s a different dimension altogether.”
- Michael Laitman

“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat… That is why gentiles were created.”
- Rabbi Ovadia Yosef

"We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own."
- Maurice Samuel

Cyrus/Kourosh made a mistake freeing you Jews from Babylonian captivity, and his tomb needs to be decorated. Kys.

>>24476841
Ok good to see you're carefully ignoring my points and repeat your thrice-dismantled ones like your brain is stuck with some autistic loop error.
If you just want to be obtuse, so be it.
To say it one last time, as simply and autist-friendly as I can:

CLAIM: Petersons career was genuinely threatened and pointing to his stellar rise as a public figure is hindsight.

EVIDENCE:
1.There was a petition by a crowd of various people to fire him
2.There was a letter from the administration asking him not to aggravate minorities
3.It was cancel culture time
4.His grant application for previously approved research was refused

REFUTATION:
1.Petitions don't decide what happens to a tenured professor.
2.Neither do "letters of reprimand"; a uni admin asking a professor to behave is not a threat of firing. Your "meetings" are still made up and just as irrelevant.
3.Generic handwaving that has nothing much to do with the individual case. But feel free to point out a tenured professor who was fired(!) for problematic opinions at that time.
4.The only reasonable point; however, the proposal was not just for continuing a research program, but expanding it to include new topics, like investigating the effectiveness of his own for-profit enterprise (using taxpayer money). Thus, there is AT LEAST a non-conspiratorial possible explanation for the refusal, simple doubts about its worth and neutrality. All your appeals to what an amazing researcher he was before are near gambler's-fallacy level. Previous success doesn't guarantee grant approval, why else write applications? And you still seem to struggle with the distinction definite reason vs possibility. Here's another article where JP himself offers alternatives: https://torontosun.com/2017/05/12/supporters-fund-u-of-t-professor-jordan-petersons-research

BUT, even assuming it was denied by a conspiracy of reviewers:
- his career and income as professor remained untouched
- he was already raking in patreon money
- Rebel crowdsourced the money for the first year in A DAY, and then for the second year. Wonder if he actually started the research btw, or what happened to that money.
Nothing about this is HINDSIGHT. He went on to grow into a superstar, but he was more than secure at that point already.

CONCLUSION:
Petersons career was not threatened other by what he paranoically perceived as threats, pointing to people disagreeing, complaining, and petitioning the uni as dangers on par with concrete administrative measures.
Financially, he immediately (not hindsight) profited from the controversy.
I already conceded that this indeed happened before the book sales, which is the only gotcha you have. Patreon alone makes this irrelevant.

Now, you can autistically repeat how you've convinced yourself you "won this debate", or just accept that your favorite substitute dad is a scummy performance artist overselling the dramas he's involved in.

>>24477286
My original point: Jordan Peterson's career was in jeopardy. This is evidenced by a petition to have him terminated, his research funding being revoked, and his clinical practice being threatened.
>CLAIM: He was already a bestselling author what that happened.
False as the events I referenced occurred in 2016 and 2017. (You're BTFO)
>Disingenuous response: You're just taking his word that these things happened
False, here is an article about the petition in 2017 that also mentions the letter of reprimand in the fall of 2016--which involved meetings. (You're BTFO)
>Goalpost shift: This argument is about his research funding
No, but here is an article about that as well. I know you will say it's just his opinion so here are the facts you must contend with: 1) funding is for previously approved research, 2) the highest amount of funding ever granted to a psychologist was given to Peterson by this body, 3) the research was objectively fruitful, 4) Peterson had never been denied funding. I also know that you will slide over the word "meeting" so I will point out the letter of reprimand alone backs my case. (You're BTFO)
>Disingenuous response: you're freely inferring information
False, as I predicted you ignored the facts I gave you and also pointed out you'd ignore that the letter alone services my point. (You're BTFO)
>Goalpost shift: he could have been denied money for these reasons
Once again you are ignoring the facts that were listed and you're now making things up to serve a narrative without any basis. This is what you just accused me of doing by the way. (You're BTFO).
>Disingenuous response: you have to take what I say about the research seriously even though I've avoided discussing facts and I am obviously just speculating
It has been apparent for a while that you argue in bad faith. I do not need to take what you base on speculation at your word while you avoid addressing facts that have been laid out to you and change the perimeters of debate when you've lost. However, I'll note one example you gave, that of the Self Authoring Suite, was tested successfully and there are no rules against monetizing research. Further more, you're completely ignoring the specifics of which research was funded because you have no idea in regard to such.
>REEEEEE I DISLIKE PETERSON EVEN MORE NOW!
I don't care.
>REEEEEE YOU HAVEN'T WON THIS DEBATE!
I have.
>REEEEEE LET ME GET AWAY WITH BEING RETARDED
No.

The above isn't nearly an exhaustive outline of all your nonsense, anon. You're an idiot and you've been thoroughly BTFO.

>>24477492
All of those "points" have been adressed in the post you're responding to, and previous ones. Which you are ignoring, perhaps to save your sanity, your image of Peterson, or your fantasy of btfo'ing me.
What you've won is the obtuse retard award. Also I notice even your repetitions get increasingly incoherent, so maybe I'm just arguing with a bot or a schizophrenic possessed by some idée fixe. My bad.

>>24474635
>And my very point is that the teachings are not the same.
and this is easily provable

>>24477537
>"points"
Thanks for admitting you're disingenuous. Didn't read the rest because I BTFO'd you like 50 times now and it's getting boring.

>>24477581
Yeah, the best out you have desu. Ignore ignore ignore, repeat repeat repeat. Sorry I have broken your brain anon.

>>24477620
>Yeah, the best out you have
Lol, what?
>Ignore ignore ignore
No you (with specific examples given in previous posts).
>repeat repeat repeat
Yep, after you tried shifting the goalposts multiple times I was forced to restate my central claim. I was also forced to bring attention to evidence that was already supplied because you "ignore ignore ignore".
> Sorry I have broken your brain
LOL! Sorry you don't have one!

>>24476272
Those two bisexuals destroyed Dyer so hard that he could only repeat
>Is/ought Hume, is/ought Hume
Ad infinitum, in the end it ended in opinion shit flinging about politics and trannies which wasn't that interesting.

>>24477786
>Those two bisexuals destroyed Dyer so hard
Nice word choice, gaytheist.

>>24474928
going to church unironically, everything else is cope

>>24477792
Lmao, get a life Dyer, you lost to bisexuals, time to retire

>>24474354
Man is a walking parody of a sophist.

>>24477807
>lost
Your 15 mins are over gaythiest. Time to go watch other men fuck your wife into the sunset.

>>24474354
I don't know who the hell Danny is nor I watched this time-wasting debate but if the kid had read studied the Socratic method, he would have wiped the floor with Peterson.
This dialogue is basically Socrates arguing with caricature sophists.

Also
>borrowed from what?
>from Judeo-Christian metaphysics.
The code of Hammurabi predates Judaism by a couple hundred years minimum. We all borrow from that code.

>>24474217 (OP)
In the end and alphabetically, you'll need to have been from Animist to Zoroastrian, and everything in between, and including what I've excluded because I as an individual do not know éverything.

>>24477829
>Time to go watch other men fuck your wife into the sunset.
Is this what orthodogs do? Damn Dyer, next time don't lose to bisexuals

>>24474397
>No other sets up forgiving your enemies while they kill you as an example to follow

that has never been done by a so called christian, ever, with the exception of maybe one or two martyrs, so it's not representative. what is a religion but the source material's interpretation in any given place in time and space? you have one interpretation of it now, do you wholeheartedly believe that to be the definitive one? you could argue that the church has accumulated knowledge over the millennia, so newer developments are bound to be more right statistically, but considering the upheavals in foundational knowledge it has come to experience over time, who's to say it won't do a 180 tomorrow?

a given religion is as good as its material legacy, objectively speaking. christianity gave the world a lot, granted, but it was also violent and caused a lot of bloodshed, more than any other. so it's not really fair to call it more altruistic than any other.

>>24474217 (OP)
Terrible showing from both sides. Atheists came off as better composed, but utterly unlikable. Since neither side could be proven, this was all about optics, and the results were horrific.

Danny has nudes right

>>24477220
Mental illness.

>>24478706
>

>>24477937
>I don't know who the hell Danny is
Then why are you name dropping whoever the fuck that is in response to a pasta that says nothing about him?

>>24477667
>No you
All your examples were refuted in >>24477286
as was your central claim. You choose to ignore it and repeat them like a malfunctioning robot from 50s sci-fi.
In all this back and forth you haven't manage to give evidence his funds were denied due to prejudice against him other than variations of "success in the past must equal success now".
It's adorable how desperate you are to not let your image of Peterson be sullied. You know what, it's ok, I hereby declare him a Great Thinker, unjustly maligned and persecuted, just for your benefit, kid.

>>24479099
>his career was never under threat
You lost.
>everything happened after 2018
You lost.
>(disingenuous) you're just taking his opinion
You lost.
>(shifts goalposts) this argument is just about funding
You lost.
>you're just taking his side
You lost.
>I didn't see the word "meeting"
You lost.
>you're just inferring things
You lost.
>(shifts goalposts) I'm going to infer that...
You lost.
>YOU PREDICTED MY SLIDES!
You lost.
>YOU NEED TO GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT MAY BASELESS CONJECTURE
You lost.
>BUT IF I IGNORE THE FACTS YOU GAVE...
You lost.
>...AND IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THIS STUFF I'M MAKING UP
You lost.
>Y-YOU REPEATED YOURSELF!
You lost.
>YOU POINTED OUT I LOST!
You lost.

You lost.

>>24479113
Lol. If you say so. Talk about disingenuous.
Don't forget to wash your penis, bucko

>>24479135
You lost, bro.

According to Danny you have to be a Christian to celebrate Christmas. You’re a Christian if you celebrate Christmas.

>>24479207
omg dude you're in love with jordan peterson
you love him dude

>>24479220
No I’m just pointing out that Christianity is literally just a goddamn work of art. It’s a goddamned story. Are you religious if you like Star Wars? It depends on the person. Star Wars and its hysterical fans are no different from Christianity. It even has its own old and new (and nu/newer) testaments. Jews don’t need to believe in God to make Judaism work.

It’s so bloody simple. People just kill each other over canon. Jesus being hated by the Jews makes complete sense. Imagine if some annoying people ruined your story by shoving in a Gary Stu like Jesus? “He is like, the son of God, he is like soooo awesome”. Jesus was literally the Rey Skywalker at one point.

>>24479207

We were never Christians yet we celebrated Christmas as kids. With the Christmas tree and all. Of course my sisters and cousins attending a catholic school had much to do with it. My sister in 2nd grade even started believing that she's a Christian until I beat the idea out of her

>>24479237
Cool. The point is you don’t have to buy into a religion to repeat its rituals or live by its values.

>>24474217 (OP)
>Do you really need to be a Christian to believe in Christian values?
Yes.
>Aren’t Christian values shared by other religions?
Some, but mostly no.
Can’t you entertain a religion without buying into it?
Sure.

>>24474456
>Be kind to your neighbour
Christianity has many more values. That is not even the most important command.

>>24479325
To Christians who aren’t assholes it is absolutely the most important value. It’s the golden rule.

>>24479390
Christianity is about salvation of your soul, not being what society considers a cool guy.
Don't step on toes is what you get when religion gets neutered into a social club.

>>24474397
>forgiving your enemies while they kill you
Why do fedoras always have the most idiotically reductive understanding of scripture? Do they seriously think people missed the shallow points they bring up and they're some kind of genius for parroting them? Lol.

>>24479417
>Christianity is about salvation of your soul
Nah that’s fear mongering

>>24479023
Kys, kike. There are sources for each of the claims I made.

>>24479748
Yeah and they’re all mentally ill sources. You people feed each other more mental illness.

>>24479390
No, it's not. You should love your neighbor - materially, and by speaking the truth in love. Kindness is both missing the mark for being too easy, and lower-order when weighed against other Christian duties. Jesus and Paul were loving and just and charitable and patient but not particularly kind.

>>24480240
>No, it's not.
Yes, it is.
>Kindness is both missing the mark for being too easy, and lower-order when weighed against other Christian duties.
So you think kindness is only deserved to given to those who have seen the truth. They will burn in hell otherwise. Yeah you are sick minded if you think that.
>Jesus and Paul were loving and just and charitable and patient but not particularly kind.
Splitting hairs.

>>24480245
>So you think kindness is only deserved to given to those who have seen the truth
I think charity is given, love is given, but merely being 'kind' is superficial and weak; particularly as it pertains to sin, mere kindness is not loving; it is enabling.
>Splitting hairs
ITS NOT SPLITTING HAIRS YOU MONGOLOID JUST BEING A VAGUELY KIND LIBTARD IS NOT DOING A HECKIN CHRISTIANITY AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

>>24480278
>all capitals
I win.

>>24480283
I accept your concession

Danny butthole pics?

>>24474217 (OP)
Why are they pushing this bisexual hapa twerp so hard?

>>24474217 (OP)
>Do you really need to be a Christian to believe in Christian values?
Yes. Christian values are only "valid" in their claim insofar as the concept of God is attached to supreme goodness and commands a prescription of Christian values. If you believe Christian values to be valid absent the God presupposition, your mind is already poisoned by religious drivel beyond your understanding.
>Aren’t Christian values shared by other religions?
No. They're spectacularly different.
>Can’t you entertain a religion without buying into it?
No, because entertaining a religion means accepting its prescriptions, which are all uniformly prescribed under divine terms. If the presupposition of a God is rejected, there is no logical reason to accept any religious prescription.

>>24480621
>Xia
Is that his actual name

>>24480638
>No. They're spectacularly different.
Lol, Christianity isn’t unique. Jesus was copied.

>>24474354
Can this bitch answer a yes or no? Like, I'm pro-religion and everything, but Jesus fucking Christ, it's infuriating the way he doesn't really answer a single question. Does he think he sounds smart by doing that?
Reminds of my first years of working:
-anon, did you do task x?
-well I did task y and, regarding task z, I was...
-I didn't ask you about tasks y and z anon
-right but they're relevant because of this, also I'm almost finishing task w.

This exchange happened way too often because I was too much of a twat to just say "no, I forgot to do it and I'll get to it now". The way he answers is very frowned upon in most professional contexts.

>>24474217 (OP)
>Do you really need to be a Christian to believe in Christian values?
No but for society you need enough Christians to create herd immunity for degeneracy.
>Aren’t Christian values shared by other religions?
Yes but why is Christianity singled out as being bad? At least that has been my experience.
>Can’t you entertain a religion without buying into it?
Perhaps but wrongs have less consequence.

>>24480999
First point is annihilated by even a cursory look at history. The Catholic church indulges in every moral degeneracy known to man and "Christian values" are no bulwark against it. Same goes for Nazi German, which was a super majority Christian during both the Wiemar Republic, the rise of the Nazis and the culmination of that murderous ideology. In fact, far from being a bulwark, the Christian ideology primed people to accept their moral superiority, and scripture gave them a pretext for exacting a blood penalty on the murderers of Christ, the Jews. As far as being singled out as being bad, you must not pay very close attention to the New Atheists, since they are notorious for being even harsher on Islam than Christianity, Dawkins saying he is a cultural Christian and Islam is more barbarous, and Sam Harris saying on a show watched by millions that "Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas". Similarly, Hitchens was harsh on both Islam and Judaism, eviscerating both religions for their barbaric practice of infant genital mutilation (I encourage you to look up his confrontation with a Rabbi on circumcision where he vocally shames him and calls him disgusting for flippantly referring to cutting up his own infant son's penis). In short, Christians have a propensity to a persecution complex which is, like so many of their inclinations, delusional.

>>24481277
>The Catholic church indulges in every moral degeneracy known to man
There is a great difference in kind between doing what is wrong clandestinely but outwardly preaching that it is wrong, and unapologetic evil. Also, empirically, the Catholic Church commits significantly less child molesting than comparable atheist groups like schoolteachers, not to get started on the muslim rape gangs.
>t. protty who despises the pope as the literal Antichrist

>>24481313
>Schoolteachers are an atheist group
????

>>24474217 (OP)
>do you need to be a communist to believe in communist values
Bro I love Marx he was right about everything!
Oh so you’re a communist?
Uh.. well, that depends on what you mean by communist!
Do you believe in the proletariat owning the means of production?
Well, let’s say the proletariat are a group of people with lots of money and they own the machines, in that sense I agree completely.
But that’s not communism at all.
Uh, I won’t be interrogated like this! You’re trying to put words in my mouth! I never said that it was! I never claimed to be what you said! You parasites keep twisting what words mean with your academic inquisition and I won’t stand for it!
Ok but can you at least tell us if you think Marx existed?
For certain values of the word “exist”, he almost certainly did, but what’s more important is the ideas of communism that are so central to our world, values like the right to own property and treating everyone according to their purchasing power!
But none of that is right. Words have meaning.
That’s it! I’m walking out of this unfair interview!

>>24481277
If only the doors t'weren't made of wood.

>>24480807
>Lol, Christianity isn’t unique
Nothing in this world is, but still no two things are alike.

>>24481462
Learn to respond to the proper post you bitch

>>24481462
I'm sorry, but I do better with positive encouragement and feedback.

Jordan won the argument because language is as Derrida observed, an unending socio-historical project. The plurality it contains makes routine reference to ideal objects in order to function. All of Jordan's interlocutors are continually making appeal to some or another of these ideals, while claiming not to believe in any ideal (picrel), as atheists, which is just a euphemism for nihilists. An image of the exchange could appear as a chapter heading for "Mauvais Foi" and it would be quite fitting. Jordan's opponents would have been better served to have stripped his clothes off, ripped him to pieces, and eaten him if they wanted to "win" ("winning" is already a metaphysical idealized concept) in accord with the ethical system to which they purport to belong. Jordan still lost though because he's a faggot and a retard, and you're a faggot and a retard if you don't recognize Jubilee to be a buzzing hive of faggots and retards.

Tl;dr

Influencers are the heroes/gods of a modern fetish religion.

>>24474354
>peak postmodernism
Seriously, he's a walking application of Derrida, Focault and Baudrillard if I've seen one. Guy can't say anything definitively, and everything gets plunged into the abyss of relativism and psychology. Wait till he synthesizes Jung and Lacan somehow, he will have completed his postmodernist journey.

>>24480555
Need.

>>24474354
This is actually pretty accurate.
The most annoying thing about this debate is that literally every claim Peterson made was reduced to a truism if you actually understood what he was saying.
Therefore, it was like Peterson was saying 1+1=2 and then all the retard atheists made a fool of themselves by trying to argue against a truism or purposefully misinterpret what Peterson was saying or just completely ignore the claim and attack Peterson for something else. Absolutely embarrassing.

>>24482476
That wasn't what I saw at all.

>>24482476
False. A complete fabrication. This didn't happen.

>>24482491
You didn't see it clearly then.

>Peterson: My claim is that God can be defined as consciousness. Consciousness exists. Therefore, God exists.
>Atheist: You're wrong because you're using the word God in a way that doesn't align with common parlance.

>Peterson: My claim is that morality can't be derived from science.
>Atheist: You're wrong because the Christian bible doesn't directly condemn slavery.

All the discussions are just nonsense arguments like these.

>>24482476
Yeah, Peterson gets people to tell on themselves by filtering them. Once he does that all their insecurities come bubbling up and all they're left with is comforting one another with nonsense that only serves to alienate them even further.

>>24482569
His actual claim is that atheists derive their morality from Christianity while rejecting the stories of Christianity, which is ironic since Christianity imports much of its morality from the ancient Greeks and copies a lot of mythical elements from Egyptian lore, but he rejects those traditions and claims Christianity is somehow special and distinct from its forebears.

>>24482581
>Christianity is somehow special and distinct from its forebears
Read Frye. Peterson has.

>>24482581
>His actual claim is that atheists derive their morality from Christianity
In actuality, atheists have no morality at all, simply transient opinions that change with the times. Not that long ago atheists would've opposed faggotry and fag marriage and fags adopting kids, now they overwhelmingly support it from all the propaganda in the media. Morals don't change at a whim like that.

>since Christianity imports much of its morality from the ancient Greeks
>Christianity is somehow special and distinct from its forebears.
You're retarded, lol. Christianity is the fulfillment of the true faith going all the way back to the beginning. People don't understand this for some reason, despite Jesus literally saying he came to fulfill the law and testimony and messianic prophecies going all the way back to the fall in Genesis 3.

Also, Jews don't simply follow the Old Testament, they don't even believe one word of it, they follow the Babylonian Talmud and Kabbalistic Zohar, they pray to Ein Sof and Shekinah, not the God of Abraham, and the Bible clearly says those who don't have the Son don't have the Father.

>>24482581
Not sure which one you're referencing but the one I'm referencing is almost verbatim what I said.

>>24482581
>but he rejects those traditions and claims Christianity is somehow special and distinct from its forebears.
Are you sure about that?

>>24481277
>The Catholic church indulges in every moral degeneracy known to man
I agree and is why I am not Catholic despite it being a more convenient option for me.
>Same goes for Nazi German, which was a super majority Christian during both the Wiemar Republic, the rise of the Nazis and the culmination of that murderous ideology.
Hitler had the SS hunt down Christians, particularly the Lutherans that were opposed to Nazi persecutions of all people. Hitler also wanted the Bible to be replace with Mein Kampf. There is some other stuff from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich I'm forgetting but any association with Christianity and Nazi Germany was by words, not actions, at least that is my understanding.
>Islam
I don't know too much about them. As for Christianity being singled out, you don't feel it? Your statements don't pass the smell test.
>In short, Christians have a propensity to a persecution complex
Maybe, I haven't talked to a lot of Christians and am unfamiliar with those outside my denomination, but most seem chill. Have you talked to many Christians? You seem prepared to argue your points. Does this affect your conversations with Christians?
Wish I had more to offer but it's mostly vibes.

>>24482581
>Christianity imports much of its morality from the ancient Greeks
There's a lot to disagree with in your post but I'm not going to let this slide in particular. Christianity borrowed from and is the successor to Temple Judaism which is an entirely separate faith that didnt start syncretising with the Greeks until the Hellenistic period. By then, Jawhehian monotheism had fully developed into the Tenach writings already. At best, the era of Jesus was hellenistically oriented and Catholic writers syncretised ancient Greek thought with Biblical writings in their theology, but this is of later date. The idea that Christianity is Greek is laughable.
The idea that Christianity copies from Egyptian is also silly, but not particularly worth belaboring.

>>24482604
True morality is a negotiated framework of behavior to maximize preferred outcomes of all participants and to increase incentives for buy-in. Preferred outcomes tend to align on the metric of good experience, meaning experiences which carry the intrinsic characteristic of Good. We all know this concept, when you do anything meaningful or pleasurable, you can identify this manifest Good in the experience in your consciousness. Ultimately morality must be based in maximizing that phenomenon and minimizing the reverse phenomenon. Anything else is just deference to human authority (since all gods are made up by humans). By the way, if you do adhere to a "whatever god says goes" morality, you end up justifying the slaughter of children, the way William Lane Craig does, which is demonic.

>>24482876
You going to just pretend like Aristotle isn't a major influence on mainstream Christian thought? Aquinas, for example.

>>24482604
>Not that long ago atheists would've opposed faggotry and fag marriage and fags adopting kids, now they overwhelmingly support it from all the propaganda in the media. Morals don't change at a whim like that.
A similar shift has happened within Christian demographics. Most people get their morality from the cultural milieu of their time. Real morality must be rooted in human well being if it is to mean anything at all.
>Christianity imports much of its morality from the ancient Greeks
Aristotle massively influenced Christian thought with Aquinas borrowing wholesale from his philosophy at times. And that's just off the top of my head.
>>24482876
>The idea that Christianity copies from Egyptian is also silly
Look at the story of Osiris, he is killed, resurrected, and then rules over a kingdom beyond death, and those who are worthy must pass through him and his judgement to that kingdom, in fact, the rituals around Osiris's death and resurrection are centered on the hope of eternal life through Osiris conquering death (sound familiar?).

>>24482995
yes because aristotle only influenced mainstream CATHOLIC thought, aquinas for example, and St Thomas is from the Middle Ages, post-Schism, post-Roman fall, post-everything-that-fucking-matters; its the late syncretism of medieval scholars.
Christianity from the Biblical era did not have this. Hell, Christianity from the Constantine era didnt have this Aristotelian-Christian syncretic obsession. And both of these were in a period of Hellenism!
The reason they didnt have that is because they were too busy spreading Christ and fighting heretics to engage in fancy metaphysics from scholars whose books they hadnt read. This Aristotle reinvigoration all post-dates the early church eras. The slight effects of hellenism we can see, like the disputations with the Sadduccees, are found in Scripture; and platonic-aristotelian disputations are not among them.
>>24483027
Osiris did not resurrect himself, and surface-level similarities do not suddenly make the Christian story Egypt-inspired. It's a ridiculous proposition only a deranged atheist could think up. Osiris wasnt even in the possibility of being in the mind of the apostles who spread the resurrection of Jesus.

>>24483104
>Osiris wasnt even in the possibility of being in the mind of the apostles who spread the resurrection of Jesus.
It absolutely was possible, hell, the Gospel of Matthew claims Jesus himself was taken to Egypt as a child. "NO POSSBILITY"? Be serious.

>>24483128
as an infant, not to mention migration of ideas may not even be the main issue. Though it is a big issue - These apostles, mostly humble farmers and fishermen raised in Jewish monotheist society, had NO reason to have Egyptian stories at the front of their minds.
Still, another issue is that they were distracted by the death of Jesus and the immediate threat from Jewish overseers. Its one thing to invent a resurrection, its another to steal Osiris' backstory for that. It would make the story less credible to a monotheist temple society; not that inventing the story offered them much gain anyway.
just stop coping man

>>24483156
Projection, it's you who is coping. It's clear that the mythos of Jesus is plagiarized from earlier religions. I haven't even touched on the similarities to the Greek god Dionysus, again, son of the highest god, Zeus, born of a mortal woman, died and resurrected, turned water into wine, and on and on.

@24483180
its totally not clear, its pure baseless cope, and it gets even worse when you mix religions. if its osiris-inspired its not dionysian and vice versa. you're fucking stupid by any metric

>>24483192
kek, you're so funny when you get rattled enough to stop (You)ing. It's actually hilarious that you think a mythic story must have ONE INFLUENCE ONLY and can't possibly have more than one. lol.

>>24474217 (OP)
I culturally align with Christians. They do things like run food banks, foster community, etc.

Where I differ is I think the bible is a lie & none of its true. Except for that, I'm basically Christian.

>>24483180
>Zeus
Is mentioned in the Bible, fedora tipper.

>>24483221

>>24482569
I think any self-respecting person should just ignore the opinion of sleepers, and go straight back to your esoteric practice and only listen to their HGA instead

>>24483383
And I don’t get how atheist can debate about religion and philosophy, when they commonly know absolutely NOTHING about religion OR philosophy


If you are going to debate about God then I expect a PHD level knowledge on the subject, that includes religious people too, otherwise shut the fuck up

>>24483180
That’s the point? Jesus is the sun, that is the centre of things. Christianity is a solar religion. He is the logos in the flesh. He is literally the culmination of universal myths and archetypes in man. Obviously any educated person could link what he said to Plato, think about why what he said could be linked to such and such.

Oh, I got something that’ll break you. Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth:
https://laotzu.xyz/chapter/display?id=76

Obviously, he did not get that from reading the Tao Te Ching. Or what about the Native American myths that parallel abrahamic myths? What about the mythological parallels to Christianity found in the americas? It’s not a matter of lazy plagerism, these links to other religions are an intensely spiritual thing with deep symbolic importance

>>24483391
I stopped listening to any debates about theology unless all people involved have a degree in theology and philosophy.
Otherwise it just results in being a massive waste of time.

>>24483232
Wow you are fucking stupid, well stupid people like you are meant to get filtered

>>24483232
>tips fedora

No. Seriously.

The Christian who doesn’t truly believe in the Bible but supports the community and makes peoples lives better. Is he more, or less, of a Christian than the militant evangelist who believes in the Bible and has people hanged in the name of the Lord?

I ask you!

>>24483414
>>24483419
>Christcucks coping and seething when you reference direct passages from the Bible
Every time lol

>>24483845
No, I am insulting the way you interpret the passages and the fact that you think there is anything wrong with them

>>24483849
Yes, Jesus was a Jew. Shocker that the so called ‘King of Jews’ was Jewish. Really called out an abrahamic faith for being Jewish, that is some supreme logic.

What new conspiracy theory will you throw at me? The Dalai Lama being Buddhist? Isreal being a Zionist state? Americans love oil?

>>24483845

>>24483849
>>24483907
The Bible is incoherent Jewish gibberish

>>24474374
retard lmao

>The Bible is incoherent Jewish gibberish

>>24483986
Just stating facts

I wonder what percentage of gay people are religious and what percentage of gay people are not religious

>>24474217 (OP)
Read John Wesley's The Almost Christian
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-2-the-almost-christian/

>>24483986
Atheisharts think their lack of understanding and retardation is actual evidence for their beliefs. The reason is they're full of pride and since they can't understand the Bible (or rather deliberately misinterpret it), that it's proof for there being no God. They don't even understand basic logic or burden of proof. They can't comprehend the idea that they're not as smart as they were indoctrinated to think they are for believing exactly what the government schools and media programmed them to believe.

>>24485271
>The reason is they're full of pride and since they can't understand the Bible (or rather deliberately misinterpret it), that it's proof for there being no God.
It's actually quite funny.
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1750336946239109.webm

>>24483104
You are forgetting Origen's "Against Celsus", one of the earliest works of Christian apologetics which heavily employs Platonic and Stoic concepts.

>>24485293
I want to also state that I'm not saying this is evidence that Christianity imports it's morality from Ancient Greeks.

That work really attempts to establish Christianity as "respectable" in the eyes of the educated classes in Roman Society, and uses Hellenistic thought as an attempt to validate the faith in the eyes of that audience. I just think it's important to note that the early church was engaging with Hellenistic thought seriously well before the Summa, although not as autistically.

>>24485271
>>24485275
This is like a Muslim saying "You just don't understand the Qur'an, the transcendent word of Allah. Oh, by the way, the burden of proof is on you to prove it isn't the word of Allah, not on me making the claim." With every post, you demonstrate your ignorance on how to reason out a position. Further, most atheists, such as the New Atheists, do not think that the Bible "proves there is no God" (ironic that you are aggressively misunderstanding what atheists believe), but rather that the Bible is overwhelmingly characteristic of what human beings make up, that it is very similar to other religious holy books, and that from an anthropological stand point, it is just another man made cultural artifice. Lurk more you reprobates.

>>24485524
An enemy that numbers time in millennia with a cultural basis that goes back to preliterate man and symbolism rooted in primordial hominids appears!
>[(You)--Choose your fighter]!
a) Richard Dawkins: rat-faced evolutionary biologist who popularized the word meme (secret weapon: Scientism; weakness: Kafka)
b) Sam Harris: midwit who solved the problem of induction (secret weapon: meditation; weakness: complex thought)
c) Christopher Hitchens: reformed commie/former fag with great talent for rhetoric (secret weapon: alcoholic snark (aka Hitchslap); weakness: Neoconservatism)
d) Daniel Dennett: Saturday morning philosopher (secret weapon: midwit empowerment (aka Reddit); weakness: phenomenology)
>(You): WEAPONIZED CONDESCENTION! ALL FOUR HORSEMEN, I CHOOSE (You)s!
*****[Fight!]*****
>(You) choose: YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS, DO YOU?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy isn't 4 and is unimpressed you don't believe in Santa. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: WHY DON'T YOU WORSHIP ZEUS?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Myth is meaningful in a way not reducible to materialism. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: SCIENCE THOUGH!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy brings up the history of science and its complex relationship/continuing interplay with religion. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: FEDORA TIP!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>(You) choose: NO YOU!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>[(You) have fainted.]

Danny looks like the kind of guy who’d cry had you slapped him.

>>24474217 (OP)
>Do you really need to be a Christian to believe in Christian values?
To possess any morality that isn't merely relativist, you must believe there is a Supreme Being and thus objective reality. It follows that the intelligent mind you believe in is the one that is the progenitor of these values. Peterson has essentially admitted that he isn't a believer in Christian values but rather advocates for their cultural usefulness like some kind of walking think tank.
>Aren’t Christian values shared by other religions?
Some, not all, and not the primary ones.
>Can’t you entertain a religion without buying into it?
Sure. But entertaining isn't the same as defending it. You can have a discussion entertaining the possibilities, but if you're taking a position in a debate? Kind of helps if you believe in it.

>>24486549
>To possess any morality that isn't merely relativist, you must believe there is a Supreme Being and thus objective reality.
You can believe that objective reality exists without a Supreme Being.

>>24486622
By supreme being I don't mean a God, necessarily.

>>24486635
Whatever you meant by "Supreme Being", you are either wrong, or using the phrase wrong.

>>24486720
you are a nigger