Speaker 1: Me too. My welcome everybody.
Speaker 2: Just give it a chance. Don't leave, don't leave the chat.
Speaker 1: Somebody just left and that hurts my feelings.
Speaker 2: Why would you leave the chats minerals?
Speaker 1: Somebody just left the Twitter space? Someone that heard the song?
Come back?
Speaker 2: Why did y'all leave? Don't?
Speaker 1: What's up? Yes, it's it's going down like that? Like
what oh? What oh? What's that? Thank you? Sanky panky panky.
That's right, It's time for the debate review. It's been
so long. When was the last time we did it?
Even a debate review? What the hell is even that?
I don't remember. It's been a long ass time. I
know that much. It was probably Lennox, not Lennox, Lennox
Lewis versus Tyson John Lennox versus Dicky Dawkins. I don't
even remember. But so many people have requested this, but
there hasn't been any good debates in a long time
to actually do this too. And let's see, I forgot
to put the link for the people to call in.
You know what I'm saying this is this is this
is a populism situation. This one for the people. We
want you to call in. You know what I'm saying, Colleen,
let me put the link in the show description. In
the show description from Scripples all, y'all, Scripples got to leave.
So yes, we opened it up in a little while,
and I'm gonna explaining to you what's going I'm gonna
explain what's going on too, because I've been sicker. Hell boy,
I've been sick as a hell. Literally, y'all have no
idea how sick I've been. I've been. I was so
sick by the way, I had to cancel the comedy event.
You think I wanted to cancel the comedy event my
third time performing Crypto Core Crypto Cringe Core Live. You
think I wanted to cancel that? Hell No. I had
one hundred and two fever for about three days. But
that wasn't even the hard part. So I got some
kind of so basically, Abola had done had done fter
around with freaking neurovirus and they created a gay child
that infected my stomach. So I had the worst stomach
flu for the last week. I mean, dude, oh dude,
And to be honest with you, I'm still a little sick.
But I wanted to do the stream so bad that
I didn't want to say no, so we're still gonna
do it. Uh, And everybody loves these debate reviews. I
mean some of these have gotten well, they've gone a
lot of views. So, I mean, dude, I was so sick.
You ever be su Yeah, I feel like a stand
up community you ever be a black stand up? Ever
be so sick that your ass just wake up in
the middle of the night, don't even know where your
ass at, and you over your ass is googling shit
you don't even care about, but suddenly you do care
about it. You don't, y'all know what I'm talking about.
Y'all have a your ass is so sick. You over
here watching documentaries on Project Pat trying to figure out
where he's at. Look what happened to him? We're at
I'm listen, man, I'm trying to figure out what happened
to Project Pat. Right now, I'm as solved as mystery.
You ever been as sick? That's how sick I was.
And he is, Okay, I'm like eighty percent good, but
I'm about got gangster boot and Project Pat mystery is solved.
Speaker 2: Ballers, we will be on some twink and Twinkie play it.
Speaker 1: Hey, this guy found stank and stanky, tricking fat bloods up,
dank and danky, big diamond rings on a pinky panky.
That's what I'm talking about. How did I get through
being sick? Project Pat? That's how I got through. And
by the way, in case you're wondering, In case you're wondering,
I found Uh, my plan is going according to My
long term plan is going coming to fruition. Okay, keep
in mind I am a little sick still, so you'll
have to be patient with me. My long term plan
to surpass Project Pat and importance and popularity is coming
to fruition, as you can see on the long term
twelve month chart right here. Okay, as we come closer
to October, you see a steady bit of a climb
and a steady decline a Project PET. So what I'm
trying to say is twenty twenty five, twenty twenty five
were about to surpass Project PET. Now onto other key information.
Don't worry people, I see y'all leaving.
Speaker 3: This is a talking about Jordan Peterson.
Speaker 1: Who is Project PET?
Speaker 3: Why is this person talking about Jordan Peterson?
Speaker 1: What is this?
Speaker 2: What is this rule? But I have stumbled too. This
place ain't for you. This place is only for true ballers.
Get your ass out of here. This is how I
weed out.
Speaker 1: The low IQ people that don't know what's going on. Anyway,
I found something out of this thing. Look, I couldn't
resist it. We all know, right. I mean, it's almost
as if the Pope of the future predicted exactly what
was to come, and the prophecies are are being fulfilled
in our day. The Vatican has announced essentially a funko pop.
The obvious comment to make was funko Pope. But I
can't overlook the fact that one of my favorite characters,
the Pope of the Future, is intimately connected to my
hit song being married to a funko pop. And what
do we have the Roman Cally Church celebrating whatever the
hell this is. This looks like a damn bad trip
right here. I mean, I don't do LSD nomo, but
I mean this looks like the shit that the dude
from Memphis puts the LSD on. This is the tab
of paper that the dude, the quird old dude from
Memphis puts the ls D on. Okay, it looks like this.
It's got a bunch of them halfway anime, purple haired,
freak trippy whatever it is? Right is it looks like?
Is this like The Grateful Dead mixed with like anime
mixed with p p ed Oh and it's made by
something called toky Dokie. Oh what do they design?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Look what they designed? Well, they design t R A
n Z and whatever the hell of this? This is
straight out of hell right here. And this is the
official Fonco Pope mascot of a Roman gallic church. Her
name is Loose. Look she got shit on her goloshes too.
Look at that. Nobody even paid attention. She got a
raincoat and then she's got a bunch of damn shit
on her goloshes. She's been walking through all that bullshit.
The room teaches, I'm not joking either, Look at it.
Speaker 2: What the hell is that? What the hell is even
that ballas we be on some twink and Twinkie play
aheads get found stanky stanky tricking fat blood sa that
danky danky, big diamond rings on a panky panky, That's
what I'm talking about. I'll take Project.
Speaker 1: Pat over the official mass Kote Jubilee with her shit
covered galoshes over here, what the hell? And look who
called it all? You boy right here, the Pope of
the future. That's here. The Pope of the future warns
you about costco cities and that you would be living
in a Walmart and a Costco and it happened. They
really exist. Now I warned you about the marriage to
a funco pop future. Now the Roman Church has its
own funko pop. We're only a decade away from a
funko pope. So let's let's let's let's give a hand
to the progress. Let's give a hand to progress. Now
the trad Cats twenty five and under on the Internet
are cheering this on. You can't make this up. You
can't make this You think the Tradcats can't get any dummer.
Now they're cheering this on. This is to put it
in the terms of one of them, adorable. Adorable anyway,
what the hell else is going on? I don't know
if I got energy for a lot of Dawkins impression.
So I'm gonna play my Dawkins for you right now.
Get it out of the way. A lot of y'all
came here just for the Dawkins impression. Like I said,
I'm about eighty percent better from my gastro intestinal aids,
so let's just get the impression out of the way.
Speaker 4: But Throw hoped to give me the warm cookies, and
dang d I want to coach a little Christianity. But
the Throw helped give me the warm cookies.
Speaker 1: And I just realized that none of y'all even saw
any of that stupid ship because I didn't have it
pulled up on the right screen. Look, I'm sick, so
I'm out of it. Right. Look here you go. Okay,
I'm y'all. Now y'all could see it is the damn
Mike even on I I've been talking to myself this
whole time. Let's see. Okay, now you can see I'm
gonna show you the shit again.
Speaker 4: I want to cot Christianity, but hoped to give me
the wrong cookie. There we go.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm talking about, some real Richard Dawkins. Now
I gotta go back and reshow you because the stupid
ass thing was on the wrong page.
Speaker 2: This.
Speaker 1: Oh look here, so here's my project pat saying. I
was trying to Look, I'm gonna make it quick. Don't worry.
We're already running people off my long term plan to
surpass Project PAT and importance of popularities come to fruition.
As you can see at the edge of the graph,
there's a sharp decline in Project PAT and you see
a little bit of a bump there. So I think
by twenty twenty five we're gonna be We're gonna be
the true baller. Now to bring it back to the
main point about the funk, go Pope. There it is. Yes,
it's real. A lot of people, yes, it is real.
And there you can see a creepy goblin looking archbishop
reaching out to grasp this idol again, looking like it
am if grateful dead had sex with an acid trip
and produce this and then they were ppeed oh with
it's that's what this looks like. And then to show
you what I'm talking about here it is loose. There
she is. Yes, it's real. Yes, they're promoting it. It's
quote adorable. As you can see her galoshes are covered
in shit. She's literally walking through all the bullshit of
the Vatican. It's by the way, it's like all straight up, well,
I mean I know this is basically what's been coming
out of me for the last five days straight. So
she been walking through my bathroom. Basically, anyway, let's time
to get Look, people are getting mad at leaving. Let's
get to what y'all wanted to hear, which is my
breakdown of every Project Pat song starting with Ballers. Right.
Is that why y'all are here or not? I don't know?
All right, yo, what's up? By the way, you want
to support the stream, you can do. So. We got
a nice fat crowd that's emerging over here on YouTube.
My dumb ass jokes are filtering out the low IQ people.
That's how it works. I have a Malthusian practice of
bad jokes. It's mouth Thusianism. It ferrets out them low
IQ boys. It's called comedy Malthusianism, so that we only
have the highest IQ remaining over here in the room. Right.
What do y'all think about the official mascota here loose
with her shit covered goloshes? Y'all like that? That shit
is adorable according to the tragcats. Okay, whatever, okay, uh
huh uh. By the way, if you want to call in,
here's the exce link for the day's show down. My
rings on my panky pankey. I'm just glad to be alive, honestly,
like I felt like I felt like I was gonna die.
For a few days. I had such a fever dream
I was having fever dreams, and I'm seeing angels in
my fever dreams doing like making legal contracts on whether
I could be sick or not. Just shit, that makes
no sense, right, I mean, I'm not literally saying I
was having visions. I'm saying it was a dreams. We're
gonna have a damn funko pope in the next ten years.
What are you talking about? Ball us?
Speaker 2: We be on some twinky twinkies, play a heay, just
get found stinky stanky trigger fat blunts of that danky
danky big diamond rings on a pinky pinky.
Speaker 1: So again, I just cleared out about five retorts. That
just cleared out five slow boys right there out of
the chat. Get gone, shoo shoo, shoshoo. This ain't for
you anyhow. Anyway, that's enough of this. I can't even
look at this, like you see what I'm saying. What
is this? This is what that weird ass dude in
Memphis puts the LSD on. You ever seen LSD tab
or whatever a strip? It looks like that dude. It's
like a bunch of weird ass damn Japanese cartoon characters
that Jerry Garcia drew. That's what I'm talking about. And
I'm supposed to think that's a I guess that is
the mascot of the Vatican. Now did you see the
other since I didn't show you all this, this is
the same company what they design a bunch of just
freaking It looks like who's that woman from the Lisa Lisa?
It looks like Lisa Frank went to hell. Dude, Lisa
Frank got demonically possessed by the spirit of Jerry Garcia
and drew a bunch of this shit. That's what it is.
And tell me that ain't demonic Lisa Frank. Tell me
I didn't nail that shit right there? I did you know?
I did? Talking about a talk about a trapper keeper.
That's a trapper keeper in hell, dude, that'll trap and
keep you in hell. Right there? You put that on
a trapper keeper, you trapping and keeping your soul in hell? Boy,
diamond rings on my pank panke, I'm maan to my
funko ohopope, Oh all right, I guess we better get started,
We never gonna get started. Oh I wanted to play
this too, because everybody forgot this. You all remember this,
and everybody knows. I can't stand George Carling. I don't
think he's funny at all. Oh well, just big club.
You don't need it, boom a nihilism, big club. You
don't nothing funny about George Carling in my opinion. Okay,
and I don't mind him talking. I mean, okay, it's
cool that he critiques the system or whatever, but that
doesn't mean he's funny. But this, and by the way,
I don't even think this movie is very good, but this,
this clip is actually perfect. Do you remember this? I
mean literally the first thing I thought of when I
saw this was Catholicism. Wow. So that dumbass movie Dogma,
and it's like it's a Kevin Smith movie. Right. Do
you remember how it begins. It begins with Buddy Christ
And I think people actually started making these kind of
as a joke, right, yeah, everybody remembers it. Ringe is
I'm a pankcake. By the way, if you guys want
to support the stream, yes, just like that good Man
did right there, you can do it via super chats.
There's a super chat right there. I mean again, I
don't really think you got to give Kevin Smith some
props for this though, because like this is almost prophetic. Dude,
look at that. They made it like a comic book.
Catholicism Wow, like punch pow.
Speaker 5: Now we all know how the majority and the media
in this country view the Catholic Church.
Speaker 1: So I'm gonna skip ahead because I don't want to
ding the copyright. So he basically just says we got
to get hit with the times. Now, remember this is satire,
So this is like what two thousand and two three
somewhere in there, so this was considered satirical nonsense. All
They would never make pop culture dolls to promote Catholicism,
so absurd. That's like an evangelical thing. And remember evangelicals
were doing dumb crap like this in the nineties. Buddy
of Christ, Buddy Christ, right, I mean, Buddy Christ is
not even as bad as Loose. This is ten times
worse because there's nothing had to row about Louz. Dude,
That's what I'm trying to say. So anyway, all right,
let's get to it or we'll never get out of here, right,
we'll never get to deconstructing every project, project pass on.
I've not seen any of this debate. I will have
to maybe it's not even really a quote debate. I
will have to move around a little bit because if
I was to say sedentary my whole life, I would die.
I will have to move around a little bit into
debate because I don't want to ding the daily wired
ding dong dang. You know what I mean. So thank
you guys for those super chats. We will open it.
Maybe we'll open it up period throughout this discussion. What
do you guys think We'll see We'll see how it goes.
All right, let's kick it off with our good boy
Dickie Dawkins over here, over here hissing with a little
hissy fit with his little damn snake brain and his
snake altar coming out hissing.
Speaker 6: Which all humans have as a virtue of being a human.
Something that's built in. So it's not something that spreads
as an epidemic. It's something that we all have anyway.
And I suppose that it could turn into a meme,
but I would think it would be mudding the waters
to even say that there's something very much in common
between an archetype.
Speaker 7: And the meme.
Speaker 8: Memes are not embedded into the psychology of people.
Speaker 1: Okay, so the discussion is about memes versus archetypes. If
you don't know, Dickie Dawkins is I guess the father
of coining the term meme through his genetic books or whatever.
And of course Peterson sort of being the natural successor
to kral Young, I guess you could say, prefers the
principle of archetypes. So they're kicking this discussion off with
comparing these two ideas.
Speaker 6: There are things like the backwards baseball hat, which is
not an archetype. I mean it's it's something that becomes
fashionable and spreads as an epidemic around the population, which
is very different from an archetype, which is sort of
built in.
Speaker 8: Yes, I've heard you in the past, Octopeterson say that
the means.
Speaker 1: I got a damn epidemic. That must have been whatever
I got in my stomach must have caused me to
turn my hat around. It's a brilliant analogy there, Richard.
Speaker 5: Like.
Speaker 3: Turning the hat around, it's like an epidemic.
Speaker 8: Very similar, if not almost identical to an archetype. Almost
as if you kept pushing the idea of what a
meme is, you might end up with an archetype.
Speaker 5: I think maybe the appropriate way of tying the two
ideas together, given what doctor Dawkins just said, is the
is to notice the fact that something spreads because it
catches right. And so things catch because they have an
emotional resonance, and so they attract people's interest, and so
they attract them in an exploratory manner. That'd be one
way of thinking about it. That would be attraction on
the positive emotion side, or they attract them on the
negative emotion side, and so that would loop the idea
of the catchiness of an idea, a meme, let's say,
with the more underlying motivational structures, and as the idea
is more related to the action of underlying biological motivational structures,
it becomes more and more expression of something that's instinctual
and archetypal. Like Giung defined, an archetype essentially is something
like the manifestation of an instinct in image and then
also in behavior. So the deepest level is something like
the instinct, and that would be motivational or emotional drive
and then there's a manifestation of that in imagination and behavior,
and it's more culturally constructed there. And you could also
imagine that there are depths of these ideas, the baseball
hat idea, for example, that would be something that's manifesting
itself at a fairly shallow level. But there's a reason.
Speaker 1: Oh did doctor JBP just call my baseball hat turn
around backwards a low level archetype?
Speaker 9: Damn boy, he hurting feelings out here. He out here
dissing people at that archetype level. He's dropping them. Psychoanalytical freakin.
He needs to be in a damn battle rap in
a damn psychoanalysis about he's hurting people's feelings out here.
Speaker 1: He said, that's a low look. Next up, we might
as well just be straight up, David Ike. Low vibrational frequencies.
Turning the hot round backwards is low vibrational frequencies in
its manifesting. The cheeta OOHI.
Speaker 5: At the backwards baseball hat caught on. You know, it
speaks of the moment for whatever reason, and it's linked
to the biology.
Speaker 1: I knew that Ikata project Pat into this somehow. Project
Pat is where backwards baseball hat came from right, y'all
didn't know that. Look at that right there, proof proof.
Look at that proof.
Speaker 2: Ballers we be on some twink and Twinkie player haters
get found stank it stanky, tricky fat bluffs that dank
you danky big dummer rings on a pinky panky all
the black dudes.
Speaker 1: In the chat five of him right now, like damn
that white boy got a floro. No, no, nobody even
knew that the meme of turning your hat backwards had
come from a proj pat.
Speaker 5: Through the fact that it captures interest for some reason.
Speaker 8: So perhaps something like uh, the archetype being a more
fundamental psychological concept that memes can then play upon the
backwards touches on.
Speaker 1: Well that see what happened? A cosmic skeptic, he looks
like a damn village person. He looks like he's about
to do some arresting for the village people. You know
what I mean? He looks like a cop in the
village people. If you know what I mean, what.
Speaker 5: The heck station of that imagination?
Speaker 1: Dude trying to be on chips but not not chips
don't even exist anymore. He trying to be He's trying
to be in a what do you call those men?
A hot cops. He's trying to be in hot Not
that I think he's hot. I don't because I like girls.
But remember cosmic skeptic, remember that, we remember we review
that debate. By the way, every debate I've heard him
in he loses insanely like he needs to be arrested
by the debate police. By the way, I'm I'm the
debate police. I place you under a damn citizen's arrest
while you're over there with that gay cop. Look, you
need to go to debate jail because you suck. You're
the worst debater I've ever heard out here in the
public sphere. You need to be at the damn public
gallows for your debate. Y'all have heard my me critique
his debates. We don't have to go.
Speaker 5: There and behavior and it's more culturally constructed there. And
you could also imagine that there are depths of these ideas.
The baseball hat idea, for example, that would be something
that's manifesting itself at a fairly shallow level. But there's
a reason that the backwards baseball hat caught up on
you know, it speaks of the moment for whatever reason,
and and it's linked to the biology through the fact
that it captures interest for some reason.
Speaker 8: So perhaps something like uh, the archetype being a.
Speaker 1: More so they're just really uh, sort of feeling out,
fleshing out what archetypes are. Am I getting that damn
warning about playing too much of I wonder if I
just play the audio. You think that would work, You
think it's detective. I think I'm gonna get that warning
for let me drop playing audio because I think I
did this last time. So we're gonna put it on
the face of Project pat and then then it won't uh,
it won't ding nothing.
Speaker 8: Let's try that fundamental psychological concepts that the memes can
then play upon the backwards on.
Speaker 7: Well, that seems implausible to me.
Speaker 6: But the idea that the archetype could be a reason
why some means spread, that seems to me to be
plausible with archetypes at all.
Speaker 8: But you prefer to think of means or you do
think of means as you refer to them as a virus.
Speaker 6: Yes, it doesn't have to happen. It's a spreadibility, which is
which is a salient point. And if chiming in with
an archetype. Is something is a reason why they might spread,
then I could go with that.
Speaker 8: Yeah, and presumably archetypes don't act in the same way.
They don't spread through cultures, they don't sort of grow
up and die in individual generations. They're much more foundational
than that.
Speaker 5: I think you have to think about it hierarchically. You
know that there are there's something in the in the
structure that that would make itself manifest as an archetype.
There's something that's foundational and deep that wouldn't change over.
Speaker 1: To me, there's nothing funnier having the sole discussion be
focused around Project Path. I just wanted to test y'all
out because I knew that today was gonna be I'm
too sick to be super super serious and intellectual. I mean,
we're gonna, we're actually gonna we're gonna talk about this,
but like, just to make this whole thing about Project Pat,
which is so random, and shout out to BG Comby
because when the first day I met BG Combyduo showed
up with a Project Pat shirt from the damn nineties.
I thought that was funny. So anyway, that's the kind
of shit I think is funny. All right, let's get
back to project Peterson wouldn't.
Speaker 5: Change any faster in sense than the species itself changes,
But then there would be efflorescences of that idea that
would be less permanent as they as they were more
attuned to the specifics of the time. So, and that's
not saying anything different really than saying that there are
ideas that make themselves manifest at different level of depth,
which is also a complex thing. Like it's not that
easy to specify what makes an idea deep, which makes
it more archetypal, and what makes it transient and trivial.
There's a relationship between such ideas. There's no idea so
trivial that it doesn't touch the depths because no one
would care about it, right, So, but archetypal ideas do
have that capacity to spread virally and to rise and fall.
You see that, I think you see that in the
history of religious ideas. Know that religious ideas are very
can be very catching, because otherwise they wouldn't spread. Now
they do. There's variation in them like there is in languages,
but they also there's also something that's core that makes
them identifiable. Let's say, as religious ideas rather than as
any other sort of idea. I mean one of the
things I was really interested about. I sent you an
email at one time asking you if you had read
Richie Eliot, especially The Sacred and the Profane. But he
also has a three books he's called A History of
Religious Ideas.
Speaker 1: Hello, these are all four books that I've promoted for
and analyzed and read for years. So somebody asked too
at the beginning of this chat. They were like, has
Peterson ever done a TAG? Yes, he's actually come really
close to TAG. So and again I can't prove this.
I don't know. I'm not that worried about it, or
it's not that big of a deal to me, But
I suspect that Peterson has listened to some of my
content at some point. It's very plausible to given the
fact that you know, we've done podcasts with Pageot. I've
known Pege for several years. So now I'm not saying
that he got these books. These were around way before
you know, I was doing stuff. Iliada is a very
famous comparative religion scholar. The books are very interesting. They're
really well done compared to religion texts, and Sacred and
the Profane is one of the best. That's a great
introduction to religious you know, compared to religion. So these
are really good books. It's interesting that he brings them up.
They would be actually probably a good segue if you
were talking to somebody who was like a super atheist type.
Materials like Dawkins like a good introduction to religious archetypes
would definitely be Sacred in the Profane. And I've not
read this whole trilogy. I've read I think the first one,
but I have read Sacred in the Profane. It's really good.
So I do recommend those books for anyone interested in
religious compared to religion. So again, I am still a
little sick, so keep that in mind. I'm not at
one percent capacity, right, I'm not at one hundred percent
patpacity project capacity. I'm only at eighty percent project today.
Speaker 5: I really like a History of religious ideas. It's a
great book. And one of the things it does is
analyze a particular widespread religious motif, which is the battle
between the gods in heaven. You see this idea in
many many cultures, and each god is the expression of
a motive perception or a modive being. And what you
see happening in multitude of cultures. Is that there are many,
many ways of seeing the world enacting in it that
are metamorphous metamorphois.
Speaker 1: I like al Jordan Pearson like goes into like this
like shut down mode to like remember all this stuff.
But what are you saying here is actually true? This
is this is what's in the books that he's talking about.
Speaker 5: I see into something divine. And as cultures mingle and mix,
their gods compete in the space of the imagination and
something like a hierarchy forms. That's the emergence of something
like monotheism and the associate.
Speaker 1: So here I have to disagree. And of course this
really depends on your presuppositions of belief. For unbelief, for example,
if you believe the record of Genesis, then you don't
believe that quote. Monotheism is something that evolves or that
emerges after a period of animism and then polytheism and
then monotheism. Right, So most secular religious portrayals of the
history of religions have that process of like primitive animism, polytheism,
and then monotheism, which isn't really accurate because if you
believe the Bible, right, it was always true monarchical trinitarian monotheism.
You could say the monotheism being mono God, the One God,
the Father. That's different than the late sixteen hundred's arising
of the term monotheism. But that also plays into this.
And you guys know in this audience from all the
debates that we've had with the Muslims, for example, that
this is why it's really important to explain monarchical trinitarianism.
So that plays into this. Just keep that in mind. Now.
I want to remind you guys that we do have
a show sponsor, and I will remind you of that
in one second tier, and I would be just stepping
out for so I gotta be right back.
Speaker 10: Chad Mode is your ultimate natural pre workout designed to
take your performance to the next level. Chad Mode is
for natty beast. Alpha's only. Whether you're hitting the gym,
invading a favella, conquering a small village, gambling, burning the
midnight oil, mogging on your coworkers, or getting banned from Facebook,
chad Mode gives you the competitive edge you need. It's
as simple as mixing one or two scoops of our
fine powder into water or juice, providing you with a delicious,
energizing beverage featuring a burst of sweet organic fruit flavor.
Chad Mode will give you the extra edge you desperately crave.
Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners,
and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors, ensuring
a clean and effective formula. Only soy boys and Beta's guzzle,
blue dye and sucralose further tanking they're already low testosterone levels.
Chad Mode is made in America. Unlike your common TikTok
peasants pre workout powder, it does not contain Chinese lab
made caffeine and artificial sweeteners that soyboys so often crave.
Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode with Blue Magic
registered trademark organic blue Spirillina extract, organic lemon cherry and
organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine. Embrace the natural power
of organic green coffee bean extract. Each dose of chad
Moode mirrors the caffeine kick of a cup and a
half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy alongside essential
vitamins minerals, amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will
allow you to fire your boss and mog on anyone
who opposes you. Chad Mode will give you a dominant
and aggressive edge, like a lion hunting a gazelle, where
the gazelle is a TikTok Jim Zoomer, macro guzzling sucralose
on the daily edging to TNF videos. Whether you're seeking
a high potency, junk free pre workout or a better
way to kickstart your day, Chad Moode has you covered.
It's not just for men.
Speaker 1: Choq dot com is the show sponsor the best in supplementation.
Perhaps if I had been takingmychalk dot Com, I wouldn't
have gotten gay ebola in my guts. But I failed
and ended up paying the price. You don't have to fail, though,
you can succeed. Use a promo code J forty to
give forty percent off all those excellent chalk products. Become
a baller Chalk dot Com.
Speaker 8: We've been talking a little bit about the concept of
the meme. I think it would be strange to be
suspicious of the idea that memes are a thing that
do exist and transmit, but there might be more room
for suspicion about this concept of the archetype. I was wondering,
Professor Dawkins, what you think about the concept of archetypes
in general.
Speaker 6: Well, for example, if we take the idea of the
gods competing with each other, that I take it is
a proper archetype because it's present in all cultures. I
presumly mean it's something that's built in genetically. Ultimately, I
suppose that there's something about our brains makes different cultures
invent the same kinds of religious symbols and things like
a battle between gods is one. That's one and there
might be others. It's not that convincing. I mean, it's
such an obvious thing because we have human battles and
therefore ideern battles between gods would not be that implausible.
So it doesn't strike me as a very penetrating observation.
Speaker 5: Well, I think the thing that's interesting about it, the
thing that's been interesting to me about it, is is
to start to understand the nature of the universal themes
and how they're expressed in stories. I mean, one of
the things I wanted to explore with you because I
think this is an idea that's at the core of
the cultural conflict, is the postmodern type seem to have
stumbled onto something which I actually think is true. And
they're not the only discipline that's come to this realization,
because you can see it emerging in neuroscience and in
AI and in robotics as well, that we see the
world of facts through something that when described as a story,
because we have to prioritize our perceptions, we have to
prioritize facts, and as far as I can tell, a
story is a verbal account of how of how our
perceptions and the facts that we encounter are prioritized. So,
for example, when you go see a movie, the movie
has a hero, and what the writers do is they
show you how the hero prioritizes his perceptions, what he
attends to, and how.
Speaker 1: Somebody said, this stream is all over the place, Well,
this conversation is all over the place. They're talking about
hats being backwards archetypes, God's fighting comparative religion. So like
I'm trying, I'm trying to keep up, and I'm all
over the This stream is like I'm always all over
the place. Plus this stream is this their stream is
all over the place, so we get in all the
places today, he.
Speaker 5: Asks, and you derived from that the story of his
life and his ethic, and the idea that we have
a story, that we have to organize our perceptions in priority,
and that the description of that organization is a story.
That's a very revolutionary idea, and I think the postmodernists
got that right. And I think that's why we have
a culture war going on, at least in part, is
because the idea that we see the world through a story,
or that the story is a description of the structure
through which we see the world. I think that's accurate
because we have to prioritize our perceptions. That's a tricky problem, and.
Speaker 7: I would prioritize my perceptions like this.
Speaker 6: The fact that I care about are the fact that
are true and have evidence going for them.
Speaker 1: Okay, so now we're back to this. It's amazing that
the people in this sphere have never progressed beyond level
one of their sphere and have never addressed any significant
critique of their sphere. But I guess you can actually
make a whole career out of never addressing the critique
of your sphere. I'm pretty much it's a rapper right now,
I'm rhyming, should not even trying to. But what I
mean is, so he's gonna, actually he's actually going to
just say I believe in the evidence that is so
low tier. First of all, it's relying on this enlightenment
idea that really all we can ever believe in is
what we have basic proof and evidence for. What does
it mean to have proof and evidence for something? First
of all? And secondly, that relies on all kinds of
things that are above Richard Dawkins's pay grade, particularly in
the domain of metaphysics and epistemology. So if you don't
have a clear basis for what your doctrine of knowledge is,
then you're not in a position to say that all
beliefs should be based on the things that we have
basic proofs and evidences for. You see what I'm saying.
And I've never heard Richard Dawkins address any real critique
of his philosophical low tier. I don't even know what
you would call his position, like just a naive scientism, right.
I mean to say that I'm just going to go
with where the evidence leads me is kind of it's
it's it's kind of admirable actually, the ability to power
through all of these years and just stay hyper focused
on your dumbass argument and never address any significant argument
or issue. That's there's actually something kind of kind of
amazing about that that he could be that indolent. Is
that the right word I want to use here? I mean,
that's kind of that's kind of crazy. Yeah, it's it's
Neil de grasse Tyson level for sure. But to just
say that I believe what with evidence? I mean, there's
so many ways that we can critique this, which we've
done so many times, but I mean, just take one
thing like the myth of the given right from sellers,
or the underdetermination of data problem. I mean, these are
just classic problems in epistemology that show that there really
is no position that just follows the evidences. That doesn't
even even exist if you know basic epistemology. It's just so.
But this is very successful in appealing to the masses.
And I think that's what we've seen throughout these debates
that we reviewed between the various atheists and their opponents,
is that they are very good at tapping into the
normy NPC mind who doesn't know anything and thinks, dude,
that shit sounds smart, right, dear, He just said I
believe it. Well, I believe de faction evidences, And if
you disagree with him, that means you don't believe in
de faction ovidess and science. I mean literally, that's the
level we're at, right. So he's he's putting it up
up there like I follow facts and evidences. If you
disagree with me, then you don't believe in science facts
and evidences, which is not even true. But that's the
way these people have been kind of masters at I
guess they're kind of like David Copperfields or something, you
know what I mean. Look at his stupid ass tie,
by the way, with it the DNA code, The funny
thing is like the the genetic sequence itself is probably
one of the biggest attestations to design. Now. I don't
make the design argument, but there is design. There is Telos,
right Telos and this goofball. I mean, it really is
true that God makes fools out of people who hate God.
This idiot is wearing like the most obvious thing in
nature that shows design, which is the genetic code. He's
wearing an AMN tie and he's there to basically point
out how there's no design. This is so stupid.
Speaker 6: We're not that interested in symbols, I think. Don't send
your drunken symbols.
Speaker 5: Yes, you mentioned, I've heard you. I've heard that.
Speaker 1: That's actually pretty funny. I'll have to give Richard Dawkins
credit for one good quip.
Speaker 3: There your junk on symbols. You've been drinking box wine
from Pago. I got you with one little gooley googly Google.
I made you giggle, Project Peters, and it's crumbling before me.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Yes, I mean, for example, I've I counted up in
your book We Who Wrestled with God a number of
references to Caine. There are three hundred and fifty six
references to Cain in the in the book, and twenty
references to the descendants of Cain. You're obsessed with Kine
because Cain is symbolic of evil, all the evil in
the world.
Speaker 7: You more or less blame Kine.
Speaker 1: And this is actually kind of funny. He counted up
Caine references in Pearson's book, and he said, you're obsessed
with Cain. I don't know that. Is this a comedy podcast?
All of a sudden, it's theo Vonne gonna hop out
of here pretty soon? Or what's going on on? This
is getting weird. You boy over here, I kind of
obsessed with Kine. You know what I'm saying, My boy
Kine over there? You know, he over there the source
of evil. This reminds me of we're gonna go full
jesse Lee Peters. The women women of the Gaisha Hell.
That's what called Women of the Gaisha Hell, women of
Sausa A evil did evil and Karnate. That's actual Jesse
Lee Peterson quote. By the way, this is you.
Speaker 7: Don't believe Kane actually existed?
Speaker 5: I presume since I joined for.
Speaker 1: I was literally about to say Kane from te W
What if Peterson in this book was actually referencing Kane
from WWE three hundred times in the book. That's actually funny.
Ja Me, Hey, Jamie, Hey, Jamie, could you mend me
an espresso? That's actually really funny. I'm just about the
crack up right here. Project Kane Ballers we be also
twink and Twinkie player hitters get found stinky stanky trigger
fat blunt. That's dank and danky, big damond rings on
my panky panky. Let's get back to it.
Speaker 5: Just with the daily work. Plus we've built a comprehensive
forwards join us.
Speaker 6: I mean you get the game away where you say
in your book Cana and Abel were the first humans
to be born in the natural way. Now that that
betrays you as as as were pretending you think they
really existed, because he wouldn't have said they were born
in a natural way unless you were muddling up facts
with symbols, because you don't think that that cananeable existed.
Speaker 1: Well, what, I haven't read Peterson's book, and I doubt
that I would agree with his take on whatever natural
way means. But to be fair, that could just mean, right,
the first people born after the fall. So I don't
know what Dawkins is talking about here.
Speaker 5: Well, I don't. What do I think about knaan Abel?
I said, I think the pattern that they represent always
exists exist.
Speaker 6: A pattern that they represent, the conflict between brothers, the
rivalry between brothers. This is a fundamental pattern, which which yes,
it's something that's there.
Speaker 7: But I care about facts. I mean, did they exist
or did they not exist?
Speaker 5: Well, I can imagine a situation where when the story
was originated that it referred to two actual brothers are jokes.
Speaker 1: My audio, my audience is the best for freaking jokes.
Cain and Undertaker were the first wrestlers born in an
unnatural way. I mean, I'm gonna be honest with you.
I think we got some of the best comedy over here.
I'm not joking. I'm talking about me with you guys,
like we are the best collab team. I love my audience.
You guys are so damn funny. I kid, you know,
every time I do a stream, I go back and
I read my chat's comments because they're so funny, Like
we have freaking genius comedy writers. This this stream is
off the hook, dude, I'm loving it. I mean their
stream like what, this is wild? What are they talking about?
Speaker 5: But as the story what what?
Speaker 1: They probably will go talking about Project Pat and WWE
in the next five minutes. I mean it's going everywhere.
Speaker 5: It's probably across time as they mutate, as they well,
it's like Project Pat, you know, and it's like he's
wearing his hat around back. That's like, fuck, man, what
does that mean? Adapt Let's say to the structure of
human memory, they deepen, then they become broader, and so
then they become emblematic not only of the pattern of
conflict that might characterize the original two brothers that the
story was about, but about the conflict between brothers as such,
and then the more fundamental levels of the conflict that
exists within human beings, which is what you see in
more sophisticated literature. It's like the Biblical.
Speaker 1: I do agree with this that I think those it
is definitely the case that those early Genesis stories do
form kind of archetypal patterns for how people operate throughout history.
You know, even Paul talks about Adam's fall being reproduced
kind of in a pattern sequence in every human being.
This is one whereason why you know, as Orthodox, we
don't believe in the Roman Catholic view of inherited guilt,
or I should say, the classic Roman Catholic view or
the classical Latin position of inherited guilt, because modern Rome
doesn't really believe in inherited guilt either, so at least
the traditional quote Latin idea of inherited guilt from Augustine
all the way up through early Middle Ages in the West,
we don't have that view. So we would say that
our interpretation if you read myandor if on Romans five
is that every individual kind of because they're sons of Adam,
they are born deprived of grace and divine life, and
they do have mortality and the passions, but they don't
actually become sinners until they sin, and that requires some
stage in your life where you reenact or recapitulate Adam,
you become like Adam. So that I think makes more
sense in terms of in other words, if we're going
to try to interpret Peterson as charitably as we can here,
I would agree that the Orthodox idea of recapitulating Adam
is an example of that archetypal repetition that we see
in every individual, but also the other stories in Genesis.
Thank you Canaan able a great example, right, that does
kind of form a pattern for fundamental conflicts that will
happen between brothers or humans in general, and then that
kind of becomes that you could see like a pattern
for all warfare, all future human division and collapse. You
could definitely see a pattern in that. So I think
there's probably there's probably is a good inroad here, and
we've seen in a lot of these debates that Peterson
does with the atheist all the way back to the
Matt Dillon Hunty debate. If you guys remember, there probably
is a good inroad to reaching these people through archetypes.
And if you remember in the Dilla Hunty debate, that's
where Jordan came really close to TAG. I mean, he
basically kind of does this presubsitional critique. He then presents
these kind of preconditioned categories that are necessary for knowledge,
for predication, and then he kind of stops there without
doing the full dismantling of Dila Hunt's Dylon Monkey's worldview.
So I mean he basically presents Tag there in a
very soft way. I guess we could say. So what
he's doing here is similar in that you'll notice he's
playing on the thing that Dawkins sees his memes and
then trying to kind of bridge to archetypes from there,
which could lead out of materialism. I think that's the
goal of what Peterson's doing here. I think that probably
for a lot of these atheist types, that does seem
to be a consistent pattern of how they get out
of it. I think most one of the good things
that Peterson has done over the years, and many of
you will agree in the audience in the chat over
here on Twitter, many have admitted and seen this as
the road out of atheistic, nihilistic materialism or scientism is
precisely this doorway of understanding archetypes and patterns. Of course,
my critique would be that that's not good enough. I mean,
that's a great doorway, it's a great start, but you
got to keep going. And I think I'm assuming Dawkins
is going to raise the natural question, which would be Okay, well, okay,
you got all these archetypes and patterns, but what about
the original Canaanabel? What about amine? Are they not real?
Speaker 5: Ounce speak a fact in actual manner upon occasion. But
the biblical accounts also speak poetically and metaphorically and allegorically,
and people who are sophisticated in biblical analysis have known
this for centuries. The biblical literists generally suffer from the
problem that they don't even know what it means to
be literalists. There's lots of unsophisticated ways of approaching get text.
Speaker 8: Okay, let's say what Professor Dolkins thinks about that.
Speaker 7: Well, I I suppose I'm a literalist.
Speaker 6: I mean, and you give the gamer when when you say,
Cana and Abel were the first time was to be
born in a natural way.
Speaker 5: Well, I was speaking allegorically there within the confines of
the text. I mean what I meant by that was
that the way the story lays itself out is that
Datam and Eve are created by God, and so they're
they're they're not they're not they don't they're not emblematic
of the patterns of human beings that exist in fallen history.
Within the confines of the text. The first two people who.
Speaker 1: Are Well, that's what I thought he meant. So that's
actually I'm actually surprised that he said that, But you know,
that's actually correct. Now, this is going to be the
problem though, and you guys have probably already spotted this,
because it's not a question of literalism versus allegorical interpretation.
Sometimes that might be the issue because for example, let's say,
you know, you do have evangelical fundamentalists who make this mistake.
Let's say you're reading the Psalms and you know God
is likened to a rock or something. You know, the
Lord is a strong foundation, et cetera. Those are you know, metaphors, right,
So obviously God is not a actual rock, right, But
I mean, this is not anything really to do with
quote literalism or fundamentalism. This is just hermeneutics. This is
just exegesis of a passage. So there's multiple things that
go on here that people conflate and confuse. I want
to mention that really quickly. So a lot of people
think that a solution to a lot of the Old
Testament texts is to just simply say that they're all
allegorical and there's a problem with this position. And pointing
out that there's a problem with this position has nothing
to do with adopting some Seven day Adventist John Hagy ridiculous,
you know, in times evangelical hermeneutic. Okay, it's a different topic.
It's a question of the traditional approach of the church.
And by the way, to make this fair for Peterson,
also to Jews. Jews also had this fourfold structure. It's
called the quadriga. And I'm surprised that this never comes
up in these dicussions. Maybe they think it's too hetty.
I don't know, but there was never really a huge
issue as theological parlance developed. And I don't mean that
in the Roman Catholic development sense. Of dogma, but in
the sense of, like the church explicating its beliefs in
a more systematic way. That's different than the idea of
the dogmas developing and evolving. That's not what I mean.
Maximus talks about this the early Church, I mean by
about the sixth seventh, eighth century. I don't want to
go there. Who is Bishop Michael Rant? Is there not
a basic like? Actually, out of all these, I would
probably go to the wick Wikipedia of all these, so
there's not even an entry for that. So I guess
people just maybe fourfold let's trow this. Yeah, here we go.
It's called the quadriga. So you'll notice, even if Wikipedia
can figure this out, even Judaism had the notion of
multiple senses of the text. Okay, this passes also into Christianity,
as you'll note they've mentioned Boetheists. But I would say
same maximism. Even better example of the quadriga and the
idea here is that you have four layers. Now, it
doesn't necessarily mean every single text has all four layers.
There might be passages that are really just meant to
be literal recordings of events. So, for example, we have
a genealogy, there could be some secret deeper message in
a genealogy. But typically I think we would say genealogy
is just layer one. It's just a literal recording of
you know, Jews are trying to say that we have
kept this record to ensure that so and so is
the son of so and so so when you read
Deuteronomy or whatever, and you see genealogies, when you read
the Gospels, that's intended to be literal historical events typological.
This connects the Old Testament to the New Testament. Everybody,
Hopefully you guys know what typology is. That should be
pretty obvious. We don't have to go too deep on that.
And then there's what's called the tropological or the moral,
and sometimes this is the moral of the story. I
think a lot of times Peterson is focusing on the tropological.
He's usually trying to find that third layer. It would
be I think if he became Orthodox, he would begin
to see number two, wouldn't he. And then sometimes there's
an anagogical or an eschatological sense of the text. And
so for example, let's take Exodus from Egypt. The literal
interpretation is the actual story of the Jews exiting, making
an exodus of Egypt. Typologically, though, we have in the
New Testament the mentioning of out of Egypt I've called
my Son. The New Testament cites this traditional prophecy, which
is not written in the Old Testament's just the tradition.
Out of Egypt I've called my son, and that's referred
to referring to the movement of the Holy Family out
of Egypt. So Jesus fulfills out of Egypt, I've called
my son, and so that's layer two, Layer three, out
of Egypt I've called my son, or exodus would be
you as an individual believer, when you convert, you are exodusing,
exiting the world of Egypt and sin. Right, the bondage
to Pharaoh. The bond is to sin, death, the vices.
Baptism then is linked to this. And you'll notice, oh,
wait a minute, the New Testament actually gives this four
full time sense, doesn't it absolutely, because it says that
baptism is the exodus. It is the washing of the
water that corresponds to the drowning of Pharaoh and his soldiers.
The typology, right, that's the tropological sense and agogical sense,
the future eschological reality. Oh well, what would that be, Well,
the promised land is Heaven, the esketon, So exiting Egypt
coming to the promised Land is a type or anagogically
speaking of the es catological in times reality of coming
to the real promised land, the escton, the resurrected state.
So you see in this example there's four layers. This
is not even disputed. It's very well known. It's based
in the Bible and the Rabbinic tradition as well. Because
the Rabbinic tradition is basing there what's called pardes p
rdes their fourfold sense on this, because it's a biblical
principles from within the tradition of the Bible itself. The
Church fathers then sort of explicate and systematize this as
a general rule or principle. So you see that this
really has nothing to do with a separate question which
is raised by textual higher critics, which is that there
is no literal interpretation, There is no level one because
the Bible is a bunch of made up stories. So
you see that this separate issue of unbelief is not
an issue of hermeneutics, although it could affect one's hermeneuticts
because For example, if you're an unbelieving higher critic, you
don't believe in well, layer one or layer two, you
might believe in three or four. Right, the Jews concocted
and the Christians concocted stories to give moral tales, so
you could believe three. You're not going to believe in
typology unless you think, well, the Christians made up stories
to make Jesus fit into types. Right, So if you're
a liberal higher critic, you might believe in two as
a kind of maiden switch scheme that the Christians came
up with. If you're a liberal higher critic, you're not
going to believe in one because you don't believe in
any actual biblical history. It's all made up pretty much, right.
And then you might say that four exists, but that
the Christians again just made up allegories to give people
the idea of what the Esketon would be like and
to hope in the Eskaton. So do you see how
this constantly get And I've been bitching about this for
like ten years. I made a video critiquing Father Stephen
Freeman like ten years ago, and the entire video was this,
because he thought that the Orthodox way to answer the
problems of the Old Testament was to say that it's
all a historical and allegorical and it's all not real.
But people don't understand the Pandora's box that you get with,
which is, well, wait a minute, how many times is
Jesus in the New Testament talk about these topics.
Speaker 3: A lot?
Speaker 1: Okay, So wait a minute. If Jesus talks about these
topics all the time, and if he speaks about him
and Eve as real people, Jonah as a real person
who underwent the real events that Jonah underwent, if he
talks about David and all these people, then now we
have another problem because the Jesus of the Gospels is
now an idiot fundamentalist, and every time you bring this
up with these people, they will just shut you out
and ignore you and call you names because they don't
want to they don't want to be consistent with their position.
So Peterson is I think wanting an inroad then, But
I think this is where there's going to be a mistake,
a problem, because he's going to bring up this issue
of the layer three moral or the tropological, and Dawkins
wants to talk about layer one, and the problem is
that if we read Galatians four. What does Paul do
in Galatians For well, we have the apostolic authoritative interpretation
of allegory. Paul does his famous allegory of Hagar and Sarah,
representing two different women, the Church and flesh Israel. One
of them is free, one of them is the heavenly Jerusalem.
The other one is earthly and is enslaved to the
earthly things. These things are an allegory. They represent two covenants,
one from Mount Sinai, which engenders bondage, which is Hagar.
The other is from is the Jerusalem which is above,
which is free, and that is Sarah, the mother of
all living. So remember, Sarah is given a new name
because she's an image of the Church and soul. He
says that the two sons of Abraham are symbolic. Now,
how does Paul's allegory work. Does Paul say anything about Well,
of course there was no Haygard Sarah. Do you understand
the allegory doesn't work. If there weren't Haygard Sarah, the
whole thing collapse. It makes no sense. So Paul's allegory
presupposes the first sense, the literal, and if you go
back and read the Church Fathers. If you read, for example,
Saint Cyril Alexandria, he says that you cannot sacrifice the
literal for the sake of the moral, or the typological
or the allegorical. Even a Quinnas, who I don't care
anything for, says that the two, three, and four levels
are grounded in the first. So the irony is that
this whole process of algorical and typological interpretation comes to
full fruition and systematization in the East and the West,
in the Middle Ages. Nobody questions it until modern higher criticism,
and it has nothing to do with the higher critical
doubts of texts at all. It's a hermeneutical question. And
yet now people still conflate all of these things together.
They conflate this with fundamentalism versus allegorical interpretation, which is so.
Speaker 5: Stupid anyone who aren't creations of the divine are canaanable,
and so for me, they're emblematic of the patterns of
conflict that rip people apart in the world of history,
in the world of normal history.
Speaker 8: Professor Dowkins, I know you take particular umbrage with that
statement that cana enable with the first normally born human beings.
But I think of unsend doctor Peterson, Correctly, there are
things that can be sort of true within a story.
Speaker 1: It's true that, well, they're not normally born. Uh, they're
the first born after the fall, and the fall is
not normal. The fall introduces the unnatural state, which is,
by the way, what all the Tomas and natural theology
people call the natural state. So no, actually, the fall
makes things unnatural. Now I'm not saying nature itself is unnatural.
I'm saying that the state, the mode of nature after
the fall is not what was intended to be, and
that's why death is the enemy. Death is unnatural in
the Orthodox few.
Speaker 8: Shelock Holmes lives the two two one B Baker Street,
And as far as I understand, that's maybe what you
mean by.
Speaker 7: That.
Speaker 8: The truth in the matter of canaanable being the first
naturally born to it's internal to well, in the context of.
Speaker 5: This story, they're the first two spirits or patterns you
could think of, patterns of perception and action, Yes, that
characterize human existence in the fallen world. Right, So they're
emblematic of what happens in history outside of whatever is
meant by the pre existent paradise.
Speaker 8: At the same time, you must know, I know this
comes up with the time when somebody says, but it
canaan able really exists, and I know that you want
to say that the story which.
Speaker 5: Is a silly question. I think it's like asking whether
Raskolnikov existed in crime.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's not a silly question because the compilers
of the Bible and Jesus himself treated those people as
if they existed. Jesus speaks of Cain as actually existing,
right because he talks about Cain getting murdered, and so, No,
it is not a silly question. In fact, the entire
history of exegesis assumes that for the typology to be true,
than he had to have literally existed. But this is
I think the weakest point for doctor Peterson, because he
always wants to shy away from dealing with the historicity
of things like genesis for the Old Testament.
Speaker 5: Like, it's not a trivial question because you can answer yes,
and you can answer no. You can say, well, there
was no such specific person as Raskolnikov, but you it's
it's not a helpful question because the reason that Dostyevsky's.
Speaker 1: By the way, this is totally a false analogy because
the premise for things like the Birth of Christ are
based on the genealogies of the Old Testament and particularly
going all the way back to Adam, and that would
mean that, yeah, Kane, as to Cain and Able have
to be real people because Jesus is a descendant of
real people from Adam on. So yeah, it matters, especially
if Christianity's tribune to course. Again, we know that doctor
Peterson is not explicitly a Christian. So the other thing, though,
is that it is not correct to compare Raskolnikov, who
is a completely fictional character are in Crime and Punishment,
to the status of canaan Abel, who are again according
to the entirety of biblical revelation positive to be real people.
So that's a false analogy.
Speaker 5: The Punishment is a masterpiece is because Raskolnikov was everywhere
in Russia when Darcyevsky wrote Crime and Punishment, and so
Raskolnikov is hyper real, not not real.
Speaker 8: To be clear, is that how you feel about Cana
and Abel that that that is to say, an identified
hyper real Homo sapiens called Cain's in a sense.
Speaker 5: It's irrelevant to me because.
Speaker 1: Now he says hyper real, which I think he means
that like the fact that it's an archetypal presence that
brothers have conflict and murder each other, that's more real
than there being like one dude in his history named
Caine and one dude in history named Abel. But I mean,
I don't know what that means to say that something
is hyper real. If there's you know, more instances of
that thing in some archetypal sense, that doesn't make it
more real than you know, Canaan Abel in history. I mean,
I get the idea that he's going for, I guess
with hyper real, But no, why don't we just go
ahead and say Canaan and Abel were real? You know
what I mean? It seems like an easier just bite
the bullet.
Speaker 5: Even if they were real, like we don't know anything
about them as.
Speaker 1: Well, well, how does he know we don't know anything
about them? So another thing I notice here is a
tendency in a lot of these circles to presume a
lot of Protestant exegesis and and ideas. And I noticed
this in the not so much PAGEO. But because I
think Pago is correct. He's he's you know, orthodox, he's
on our side. But when it comes to say, it
comes to say doctor James Lindsay arguing with Peterson and
critiquing Peterson, and Lindsay critiquing Pagoe too, and then say
Peterson's presentation, I don't know that. I don't know if
Peterson's ever directly addressed Lindsay, but the things that Peterson
says that might address doctor Lindsay, like between those two
the positions pretty much pivot from a kind of basic Protestantism. Right.
So for example, I saw Lindsay saying something the other
day about when he was talking about Saint Michael the
archangel or something, and oh, angels an intercession, and like
his whole argument against this, which he's not even a believer,
was all from like some kind of product style argument,
And I'm like, well, first of all, you're not a believer,
but your arguments are Protestant based here anyway. So it's like,
in other words, they're arguing stuff like where does the
Bible tell you that you can have intercessors? This kind
of stuff, right, And here Peterson's saying stuff like we
don't know anything about canaan Abel. Well, what do you mean.
There's tradition too, So tradition is another key element in
this which many people in this debate miss because so
often this debate is framed from some goofy Protestant style position.
And you'll notice even the atheists quite often when they
try to explain, oh, well you believe this right as
an atheist, you Christians believe this, They're almost always describing
some faulty Protestant position.
Speaker 3: But of course you believe that God has to kill
himself to say that, which is bustless, you know something
like this.
Speaker 5: Like I said, it could have been the case that
when the story originated, way back when it originated, that
the first people that were described by the first person
who generated the seeds of the Canaanaval story were referring
to actual people. But it doesn't matter, because the text
is being compressed and modified over a vast span of time,
and it's created all sorts of meanings that certainly weren't
part and parcel of whatever the original was. Now, what
is that?
Speaker 1: Did you hear that accretions, all these accretions that weren't
part of the original story. This sounds like Gavin Ortland
and all the Protestant nonsense of there's all these accretions.
Say again, it's like, can we never get away from
Protestant nonsense in this whole discussion? I mean even even
the atheist debates, Let's say an atheist debates. I don't
an apologist for Christianity. It's like it's Protestant garbage all
the time, like William Lane Craigg versus mohammedd jab And
it's like, can we never get away from Protestant crap everywhere?
The accretions? What are the accretions? By the way, there's
there's not much in the Canaanables story anyway other than
like a little bit of you know, blood sacrifice, you know,
hatred in the heart versus the brother. Like what else
is there in this? It's not like there's tons of
accretions around canaan Apel.
Speaker 6: Within the comprise of the story. And dost ask him
was a great writer. What makes you think the writers
of Genesis are a great writer?
Speaker 7: I mean, who were they? We don't we know nothing
about them?
Speaker 1: Well I think that, well, oh, he's we know nothing
about them. First of all, how does Richard Dawkins know
that there's multiple authors of Genesis because akad told him so.
But wait a minute, Academia has shifted away from all
of these different documentary hypotheses which come and go like fads.
So has the recent scholarship told you what the recent
fad is? How do you know that it's multiple? How
do you know it wasn't Moses because academia says it wasn't. Well,
so academia changed their position every decade or two.
Speaker 5: I think they were great writers because I think I
understand the patterning of the stories and what it points to.
I think the idea, for example, that canaan Abel are
emblematic of to oppose patterns of adaptation to the world,
is brilliant. It's it's almost brilliant, beyond imagining, especially because
the story is so insanely compressed, and it's certainly evident
to me as a clinician that the patterns that are
portrayed in the story of canaan Abel play themselves out
in the real world continually.
Speaker 6: I'm terribly, terribly the ansor of that story in Genesis
was a literary genius.
Speaker 5: I think that there's a spirit of literary genius at
work well.
Speaker 1: By the way, not a stupid question. Like, first of all,
it's odd that Dawkins would even call this into question.
I mean, why would this story resonate for thousands of
years throughout the entire world if it didn't have some
literary and practical application that does prove Peterson's point. So
this is kind of stupid, right, I mean on what basis?
By the way, does Richard Dawkins know also, whether or
not something counts as genius literature? Remember in these goofballs perspective,
if you don't have a degree in something, you can't
actually speak on it. Oh, when did Richard Dawkins get
a literary degree? By the way, is he qualified? Does
he have the expertise? Does he have the facts and
the evidences to prove through pure review whether or not
Genesis is actually good literature? You see how inconsistent and
arbitrary these people are.
Speaker 5: Ross millennia crafting that story so that it has almost
an infinite depth. How that relates to the original author
or sequential authors, I don't know, because it's lost in
the seeds of time. It's lost in that, it's lost
in history.
Speaker 6: So the story evolved saying the story like I mean, yes, well,
that's interesting if it evolved.
Speaker 5: To match the contours of the human memory. That's exactly
it is that these stories, that's part of their archetypal nature. Like,
so they have an emotional and motivational expression. But as
they propagate across time, they also evolve, so they're maximally memorable,
and they're maximumly memorable for a biological reason.
Speaker 6: Well, that's very interesting if they've ready to get evolved
over time, if you could actually trace successive manuscripts. You
can't do that, I mean, that does that's presumably a
couple of Hebrew manuscripts and the Greek one.
Speaker 1: And oh, there's a couple of Hebrews manuscripts and a
Greek one. By the way, he has no knowledge of
this time. Does he have a degree in textual studies
in ancient textual history? So what the hell's he talking about?
You can't trace it. There's a Hebrew one and perhaps
a Greek one, and what like, what does he know
about ancient manuscripts? Nothing? He thinks there's one or two
Hebrew ones and a Greek one, when as if the
textual traditions are manuscripts, which is stupid to begin with,
because you could have thousands of textual you could have
thousands of manuscripts, and right, that's not the same thing
as a textual tradition.
Speaker 5: Per Se would say, you can see that in the
compilation of the Biblical texts, because one of the things
that you see evolved. You know, you criticized the Biblical
texts at one point. Correct me if I've got this wrong,
because I don't want to get this wrong. You said
that there isn't anything in the Biblical text that constitutes
let's say, significant original discovery, which is something that you'd
expect if it was a divine providence, let's say divine
providence and so, and I think, you know, I was
thinking about that objection, and I think that one of
the discoveries that the text lays bear in an insanely
brilliant manner is that the foundation of the community is sacrifice.
That that's an appropriate conceptualization. And you can see the
concept of sacrifice evolve across the Biblical texts as their
sequenced chronologically in the what in the overall story that
makes up the Biblical the Biblical text.
Speaker 1: I agree with this. I think that this is fundamental
to Biblical religion. As the notion of sacrifice. Society itself
is grounded in sacrifice. In fact, even globalists believe it
or not. Remember when we read jacque Attlee's book, I
was like, he sounds like Jordan Peterson here. Now that
was early jacque Attalie back in the nineties, talking about
how the global system would need to preserve some of
the elements of the old world when they bring in
the technocracy, and so he says, you know, we're gonna
have to find some form of sacrifice to you know,
placate the people and have order and meaning and life
and all this kind of stuff. But even Jacquette Lee
noticed that because I think he had read probably Eliada
like Peterson was mentioning. And that's kind of what Iliata
talks about too, that you know, throughout Biblical religion you
do have these recurring patterns and motifs and principles like sacrifice,
and that's why there's always alter. So whether it's from
the time of you know, the Patriarchs and Genesis, Abraham
builds an altar, calls him the name of the Lord.
You have in the tabernacle, and then the temple, the
altar you have in the person of christ sacrifice on
the Cross, which is the ultimate heavenly altar. In the
Book of Revelation, when John season heaven Revelation four through six,
actually five through eight, John sees the Lamb slain in heaven,
so he's bleeding in heaven. That means that this application
of this principal sacrifice continues even into the New Testament period,
which is why we have Melchizedecian priests in the church.
So there's always been an altar at which there is
this heavenly sacrifice, which is the key way to refute
both Protestantism and Islam. You know, protestantsm in Islam pretty
much have done away with those principles. Now Protestants once
for all, once for all. Yeah, but where's your altar?
Because Paul says, and he was thirteen, there's still an
altar in the church. Your churches don't have altars. The
Reformation was premised on getting rid of the sacrifice of
the Mass. So where's it at bro By the way,
when I argue with the debate with them, remember the
debate with Daniel Hecke gets you, where is your temple?
Where is your incense? Where's your priesthood? Where's your altar?
Where's any of that? Islam loses all of that because
Islam is a false religion and a dumb cult.
Speaker 5: Next, the idea of sacrifice becomes more and more sophisticated.
It's more and more elaborated, it's more and more specified,
it's more and more embodied. There's an obvious progression in a.
Speaker 6: Way is the progression? Where do you see that progression
in successive manuscript So.
Speaker 5: In the successive stories, as the story, as the text progresses,
the way the way a novel progresses something sacrifice through
the entire text is a sacrificial is a sacrificial story?
Speaker 1: Uh, this is true. By the way, it's a holistic
text which the all the parts makes sense of the whole. Right.
That's called nic interpretation. That's true. That's how we would
definitely make sense of the Bible from Genesis to the Apocalypse.
And the only qualm I have is using this term evolution.
It's not evolving, it's just progressive revelation. That's a much
better term than these meanings are evolving. They keep in
mind another element here that's missing in the Peterson scheme
is the notion of divine revelation. So again for Peterson,
these are archetypal stories that really wise stages collected to
capture human patterns or something, and then to also help
society's function or something. There's not an idea of these
texts and these passages being supernatural revelation. And that's the
key element here, and that's why another miss components. And
I'm sure from Peterson's perspective, I mean, I know he's
not officially an Orthodox or a Christian. Let's say for
the sake of argument, he's a secret believer or something
like that, which I think if he really was, he
would go ahead and start saying that he believes in
the resurrection of Christ and whatnot. But he would probably
say that he's trying to find an inroad through level three, right,
being the most charitable in this analysis. But the problem
is that the Bible actually demonstrates its inspiration through number two.
Why because of all those Messianic prophecies, which are extremely precise.
So I would say the just like Jordan Peterson, what's
an inroad with Dawkins through archetypes and typology? How about Peterson,
here's an inroad to you through that same typology. Look
up Messianic prophecies. And I don't just mean the four
or five that goober Protestants will cite. I mean the
dozens and dozens and dozens of very precise Messianic prophecies.
Speaker 5: As well. The Passion story is a story of sacrifice,
and the sacrificial motif recurs continually through the Biblical text,
and it's elaborated constantly.
Speaker 8: And Okay, so the criticism is the Bible is a
text gives us nothing to indicate that it has divine origin.
There's nothing that we can read in it where we
think there's no way this idea could have evolved were
it not.
Speaker 1: No idiot showing your goofiness and total lack of knowledge
of anything in relating relation to these topics. I mean,
I understand if you didn't believe, but if you should
at least be familiar with the thing that people cite
to prove inspiration and divine authorship, which is prophecies and
their fulfillment. So I mean, just to say something so idiotic,
like there's nothing in the text that would make us
think it's divine, well, first of all, the text themselves
say they're divine. Now again, you could say that's fraudulent
and they're just lying. But just the phrase itself is
obviously patently false because the text claim to be inspired
and divine. Secondly, the evidence for that is the many, many,
many Messianic prophecies, which don't just predict the person of
the Messiah, they also predict the church, that he would
establish the calling of Mary blessed throughout all the world,
the church being gentiles converting from all the nations to
believe in the God of Israel. Hello, that's happened for
two thousand years. Maybe those are prophecies that signify divine
authorship in origin. But he doesn't even know any of this.
These people have no knowledge of it. I'm speaking of
the atheist.
Speaker 8: Divinely put into this text. That's a criticism that past
in the past.
Speaker 5: It's reflective of some of some order that's so profound
and implicit that there isn't a better way of describing
it than divine. But I don't really care if we
if we look at that from the bottom up, like
as a biological phenomena, or is from the top down,
I don't think it makes any difference.
Speaker 7: It doesn't make a difference.
Speaker 1: Whether it's a biological phenomenon. I mean, I think Peterson
means by that that archetypes are necessary for survival, that
humans and societies need them, and all that which is
I guess that's true.
Speaker 10: Chad mode is that I have designed to take We
do have.
Speaker 1: A show sponsor, and I do have to plug the sponsors. Briefly.
If you're listening on the Twitter space, I will be
right back. But being sick out to drink many many fluids,
and the many many fluids pass through me very quickly,
so I'll be right back.
Speaker 11: I want to show off something that we're all proud of.
I've got a browser here. This is Jay DIYers, much vaunted,
much sought after philosophy one oh one. Now he just
got this page up. We are just testing it out.
You guys are some of the first people in the
world to see it. I want to say, for my part,
it's not philosophy one oh one. I think this is
as mistitling. I really think is as like philosophy unleashed.
Because a philosophy want on one course, they give you
kind of some useless information that you can't.
Speaker 5: Make sense of.
Speaker 11: Jay actually lays out over twelve weeks, dozens and dozens
of hours put into just the presentation of this, let
alone the hundreds and thousands of hours of research that
it takes to have a coherent evolution and history of
the origins of philosophy, the uses of philosophy, the different
ways to look at it over time, and how that
has been brought about to what we have today, which
is almost an absence of philosophy on the objective, logic
and reason side in an overabundance of woke philosophy that
is irrational is made up day by day as people
are like, I think we should bring racism back, and
then here's a justification, and then it gets woke offied
and spread out, and then all of a sudden you
have a bunch of communist socialist ideas where you become
the property in action. You need to be able to
stand your own ground. It helps to have a foundation
in philosophy because it's a method to fine truth when
you get down to it. Philosophy is there because you
love truth enough to go and learn how to find it,
because it's valuable. So if you're interested in things like that.
There is the landing page. We'll link it up into notes.
Speaker 5: It is a longer.
Speaker 11: Once we'll get a shorter url for this. I'm sure
Jay has a link on his page. I just wanted
to show it off.
Speaker 1: Now you know it exists, all right, let's see.
Speaker 5: Involved in the human I don't think fundamental look if okay,
so let me ask you this, Like, I think that
at bottom, truth is unified. And what that's going to
mean eventually is that the world of value, in the
world of fact coincided in some matter that we don't
yet understand. And I think that that union, the fact
of that union, and the fact of that union is
equivalent to what's being described as divine order across.
Speaker 1: I actually agree with this. I think this is a
good point. He's basically saying that our worldview is an
actual worldview, right, Like they're not only intellectually connected, but
that our views of morals and esthetics and biology are
not just views in our head, but that the universe
really is a uni verse.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 1: I remember that book that Cardinal Newman wrote about the university,
and it was talking about how the whole idea is
that universities come out of the idea that the world,
the universe is under God. It's a holistic system, a
uni under a God, and so therefore every part will
have a relationship to the whole and to the source
and to the origin to God. So I think that's
what he's getting at here, and I would agree with that.
And I think Peterson would argue that when you hear
him arguing with the atheists all the time, it's because
he's trying to get them to He's trying to find
an inroad with number three. See that that's what's going on.
But by the way, it is true that reality is
a set of symbolic correspondences. Now, when we think of symbols,
we shouldn't think of symbols as something necessarily not real.
In fact, symbols are real. I did a lecture on
iconography and typology and symbolism a few years ago. It
was the philosophy of iconography, and I was pointing out
in that talk, which is still up you could go
find it that it's wrong to think of like icons,
for example, as symbols. But in another sense, they are
symbols that are real. And what I mean by that
is a lot of people when they think of symbols,
they think of something that's not real. Well, that's false
and it's also a very modern, you know, post Enlightenment idea.
In the ancient medieval world, symbols are real and they
partake realities higher realities. So if you read, for example, Palamas,
or if you read the las Ky Awspensky book on iconography,
in book number two, there's a whole chapter on how
the icons portray realities and hyperrealities. So it's both. It's
not an either or it's not purely symbolic or pure allegory.
There might be allegorical symbolic correspondences within an icon, for
example patterns, color, symbolism, and so forth, but that does
not mean that the icon is false or that it's
not telling you the truth, or that it's not telling
you history. It's telling you aspects of history because that
person really was a living saint in history, and it's
telling you as catological hyperreality realities, and so symbols are reality.
Speaker 5: Millennia, there's no difference now. And here's this is a
tricky business because you either believe that the world of
truth is unified in the final analysis or you don't.
Those are the options. And if it's notified, then it's
there's a disunity. There's a contradiction between value and fact,
or there's a contradiction. Well, there's a contradiction between different
sets of values, and they can't be brought into unity.
I don't believe that.
Speaker 7: Well, let's go back to you said earlier, which I
was very interested in.
Speaker 6: You implied there's no difference between whether the text is
divinely inspired or whether it evolved in progression during a
series of manuscripts. Presumably No. I think that's genuinely interesting,
but it's a huge difference. It's not the same thing.
I mean, either it was divinely inspired or it wasn't.
Speaker 5: Well, it's the same thing if it's fundamentally reflective of
the and accurately reflective of the implicit logos or order.
And I think it is, like, let me explain that
a moment. It took me a long time to understand
the concept of sacrifice in the Biblical.
Speaker 1: Text because it se no icons are not symbols of Satan.
That's what you're saying. Here's the talk that I did
on this here, And if you just think about this,
it becomes obvious. I mean, think about the Bible itself,
think about the Torah itself. It's a book it's a
scroll with symbols on it, right, So is that evil
is God? Isn't? Are you an idolator because you write
God's name? I mean, so obviously created things can encapsulate
and refer to the divine. It's really that simple. So
there is this talk from a few years ago. This
talk is very philosophy heavy, so if you're not familiar
with some of those topics, you're not going to enjoy
that talk very much. But Pajo and I did do
a talk a few years ago. We did a podcast
that covers the same material, the same ideas here, and
you can watch that if you'd like something a little
maybe a little more accessible. And that talk, by the way,
is very relevant to what Peterson is discussing here.
Speaker 5: So anachronistic and so primitives and primitive and not understandable.
What are these people doing offering no choice cuts of
meat to a god that is in the sky.
Speaker 7: Something disgusting about it?
Speaker 5: Well, it's very easy to satirize, but when you start
to understand that perception is solf.
Speaker 1: What a minute, there's something disgusting about it. The fact
that there's a typology involved in the animal sacrifice system,
the sacrificial system, because I mean, I want to know,
first of all, on what basis does Richard Dawkins call
something disgusting? I mean, really, in his worldview, all he
has is personal taste.
Speaker 3: But I personally don't like it.
Speaker 1: And by the way, is he a vegan? What does
he to have a problem with choice cuts of meat?
Speaker 5: What is he not like?
Speaker 1: Exactly? But notice the arbitrariness of the atheist world view,
right obviously the idea that the idea that something is
disgusting is only a personal subjective opinion. There's nothing objectively
disgusting that you can demonstrate. Remember, he says, I only
believe in what I have facts and evidence for. Okay,
what is the evidence or the factual proof for disgustingness
or a standard of disgusting disgust disgustination? What is the
standard for discustination? Doctor Dawkins, Doctor Dickey.
Speaker 5: Health is sacrificial in its nature. And you start to
understand that there's no difference between work and sacrifice, that
they're the same thing, and you understand that community is
predicated on sacrifice, then the emphasis in the text on
sacrifice starts to become something quite marked and remarkable, especially
because it's implicit. It isn't obvious at all that the
authors of the texts and the editors who sequenced them
actually understood what it was that they were highlighting. So
with regards to the community, why is the community predicated
on sacrifice? Because it's not about you the community. Every
step you take towards the communitarian means that you sacrifice
something that's local to what you want here and now,
right now, I think you have to give something up.
Speaker 6: You're wondering something else, and which is something quite quite different.
The notion of sacrifice, as you say, it goes right
through the Old Testament and the New Testament, the sacrifice
of Isaac Ishmael by Abraham and the sacrifice of Jesus.
Speaker 7: It's the same idea.
Speaker 1: I think, Wait, did Dawkins say the sacrifice of Isaac
or Ishmael? Does Dawkins not know what the Genesis text
says versus what the idiot Muslims say in their corrupted,
dumb book, Like what did he say?
Speaker 6: Is that?
Speaker 3: What?
Speaker 1: I want to hear this again?
Speaker 6: And the New Testament pe sacrifice of Isaac Ishmael by
Abraham and the sacrifice of Jesus.
Speaker 1: The sacrifice of Isaac Ishmael by Abraham? Does he not
know what the text? Who was he Ismael? What's he
talking about?
Speaker 6: The notion of sacrifice, as you say, it goes right
through the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Speaker 7: P sacrifice of Isaac Ishmael by.
Speaker 2: Rich?
Speaker 1: Come on, bro Rich, if you're going to critique our book,
you got to know the stories. Dude, what are you
talking about? You don't remember whether it's Isaac Ishmael. I mean,
that's kind of important to the story. And by the way,
the whole purpose of that story is against human sacrifice.
That's the purpose of it. The God of the Jews
does not require human sacrifice. That's the whole point of
that story. And but he thinks it's the lone story
in Genesis twenty two?
Speaker 3: Or is Ishmael this saying, as is the Quran is the.
Speaker 6: True Bible, Abraham and the sacrifice of Jesus. It's the
same idea. I think it's a very unpleasant idea, by
the way, but what he writ.
Speaker 1: So wait a minute, he just admitted that there is
a connection between the sacrifice of Isaac and Jesus. So
he's admitting typology. I don't understand. Oh, but he says,
it's an unpleasant idea. But he doesn't understand, as many
people out there don't, that we do not believe in
the Protestant doctrine of God having to damn himself and
kill himself to save everybody. That's a stupid Protestant doctrine.
The whole purpose of the incarnation and death of Christ
is that the second person of the God had willed
to take on human nature which was damaged by the fall,
and to heal it. There's no kind of like paying
off of God. That's not the actual Orthodox story. That
is a Protestant concoction intended to prop up the Protestant
doctrines of sola fide. And so now most of the
world in the West thinks of the Gospel and the
death of Christ in this stupid Protestant way, and everything
is characterized around a false debate because people think that
God had to kill God and pay God off to
save men, which is dumb. And we critique this a
million times, but people still don't get it. But he's
just referring to this idiotic Protestant position.
Speaker 6: They saying, are you saying that Abraham did or did
not sacrifice, Isaac, I'm saying that Jesus really was Jesus
really did die for our sins? I mean, do you
believe that there are Do you believe that as a
fact that Jesus died for our sins?
Speaker 12: We have a big election coming up and there's a
lot at stake. But here's something to consider, regardless of
who's free. Don't claim to understand what might be alert
Jordan to.
Speaker 1: The number nine eight today, by the way, he this
showed a gold ad.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 1: Does anybody have been seeing bitcoin? I awoke from my
fever dream to Bitcoin almost hitting all time high. I thought,
by the way, that my app says that the at
H was like seventy two eight, but apparently on other
exchanges I guess coin bay it had hit seventy three eight.
So we were like, are a few hundred bucks away?
And by the way, where's all the haters that were
talking shit for the last year and we're still over
seventy we're what seventy one seventy one nine, so basically
got seventy two thousand? All you dummies like I don't understand,
Like no, does that not matter to you? Like what's
right and wrong? Do you just want to show off
on the internet. Why is everybody so dumb? That's what
I want to know. What do y'all get What do
you get out of being dumb? Is it just fun
being dumb? I don't get it. What are you getting
out of that? I tried to tell people I've been
talking BTC since twenty seventeen, and we're edging towards one
hundred K. Remember I made a video when it went
down to three K, and here we are almost at
a damn hundred k. Have you got it through your
thick skulls yet? And here comes here. They'll never stop.
Bit quite will be a million dollars and we're gonna
be hearing these idiots.
Speaker 3: He's gonna go to.
Speaker 1: Zero next year.
Speaker 5: We've gone January, gonna go zero. There are elements of
the texts that I don't claim to understand. What my
experience has been that the more deeply alert I look
into these texts, the more I learned. That doesn't mean
that I can proclaim full knowledge of what the texts proclaim,
but I don't think and I'm not trying to play
a trick here. You know, I watched an interview that
you did recently where you were talking I think it
was with Pierce Morgan. Yeah, about the about the complexities
of trying to understand this strain realm of quantum phenomena. Right,
and we have a trouble with quantum phenomena because at
the micro level, things don't act.
Speaker 1: Oh, here we go, quantum phenomena. Now, I'm not making
fun of Peterson for bringing this up, but for Richard Dawkins. Now,
I don't know what his views are, but it is
funny to me atheists of believe in all this quantum
gibber jabber, right, like quantum foam and all this nonsense,
because it really is just atheists bringing metaphysics back under
the guise of atheism, under the guise of science, right
or like.
Speaker 3: Well, of course we know there can be alterations in
the multiverse through the quantum foam where the dinosaur universe,
where I am the overlord, and I preside if I
can tap into my consciousness in that realm, I can
sap into some of the powers into this realm. You see,
it's all very science y.
Speaker 5: Act like things act at the macro level, so they
escape our intuitions. In One of the things you said
was that although it's perhaps even impossible for creatures embodied
like us to get a grip on quantum phenomena the
strange wave particle duality, for example, we have ample evidence
that it works and stellarly. And I would say exactly
the same thing about the Biblical texts is they run
into a mystery. Like there's a horizon of mystery, which
I do not claim to penetrate. But in so far
as I've been able to understand the text, every time
I make a improvement in understanding it reveals something to
me that's just might shattery.
Speaker 6: Toun Physics is deeply mysterious, and you're saying that Biblical
texts are deeply mysterious. The difference is quantum physics. The
predictions you derive from quantum physics are fulfilled to the
unptieenth decimal place, the emptieenth definal place. I mean, I
think was Richard Finland Say's equivalent to predicting the width
of North America to the nearest has breadth.
Speaker 1: What kind of bullshit is this? I mean, come on, uh,
you got to know that, like the majority of quantum
stuff is just bull crap, right, And every time you
if you go and read into any of this. It's
all theoretical, right. They always put out these like you
know Soliens that website, They put out all this endless
gibber jabbern ons and then when you actually read about
what this stuff is or quantum computers, well it's the
theoretical realm, right. But everybody, all these want to be
smart heads on the Internet try to talk about stuff
like it's real, like they know about it, like like
they're working in an underground base on quantum computer.
Speaker 3: Well, I've talked to Zuckerbug and he's told me that
the quantum phoam chip will be next.
Speaker 7: To you, I don't know, definite place.
Speaker 6: I mean, I think was Richard Finland says, the equivalent
to predicting the wits of North America to the nearest Hasbrits.
Speaker 1: Well, if that science man said it that, what else
do you need? Quantum foam vindicated?
Speaker 7: Bro?
Speaker 1: And you think I'm joking about quantum foam? Do you
remember when because we covered it with John Adams back
in the day. Do you remember when they were you?
Won't you? I kid you not. If you don't know
about this, you're gonna love this. Let's see if it's
still up. I hope it is. So there were some
science boys. Oh man, it's not up anymore. There used
to be an our an article. It might have been
on like a It might have been on like a
Huffington Post. But they were arguing that quantum foam was
a way to demonstrate I kid you not. This is
the funniest shit ever that nine to eleven truthers were
retroactively causing the Big Nine to have been a conspiracy
through quantum foam. Kid you not. It was one of
the dumbest scientism bullshit stuff I've ever seen. But now
look at all this crap.
Speaker 3: Is space time quantum probably being space time foam, quantum foam,
virtual particles, quantum boone.
Speaker 13: Whoa louse that dudes like ice cream combes, quantum cone. Dude,
it's just self looking quantum cone.
Speaker 1: Anyway, This is all just like this is what higher
IQ science nerds do instead of Marvel. They just make
up shit like that and normies. This is what normies
think is smart.
Speaker 5: This kind of stuff that no doubt.
Speaker 6: The mystery there as it gains its credentials by its predictions.
The mysteries of the Bible don't have any credentials at all,
as far as I can make of well, I guess
the credentials.
Speaker 5: That I would put.
Speaker 1: Well, but wait a minute, Richard, how do you have
the credentials to talk about the Bible's credentials? You don't.
But secondly, again, why have you not at least addressed
the Messianic prophecies? I mean, that's the thing that demonstrates inspiration.
So where is at least some reference to this right
against Like they don't even mention the thing that is
the most cited and obvious thing.
Speaker 5: You made a statement a couple of months ago that
I found very interesting and I claim to understand it,
and I'm not trying to put you on the spot
with it. You said that you were a cultural Chris, okay,
and so that reason.
Speaker 1: By the way, Yeah, quantum whatever, it's like a marketing
term you just stick. It's like in crypto. Remember last
year in crypto you just put meta anything, right, or
maybe two or three years ago in crypto when they
were gonna roll out metaverse. Then you could just put
anything meta in it, make a crypto and it would
go crazy. It's just marketing, dude. Yeah, cyberum up, it
has a quantum blank quantum insert equals new pseudo intellectual
words that will raise your shoe size level IQ exactly quantum,
quantum cream pie exactly, Quantum foam. Let's come up with
some new science. Shit, bro, what's a quantum science? Oh dude,
whoa that's like, I don't We're not there yet. Okay, guys, can't,
we can't even we shouldn't be uttering that word. Quantum
science is right now. It's theoretical. There's a lot of
peer of you literature, but it's something that we really
hope to see kind of in the field by twenty
one hundred, but we're not at that yet. Quantum cooming, Yes,
that exists. Quantum. That's when you coom before you com quantum, guys,
I want your best quantums in the chat. I'm going
to read out the best ones. Quantum Catholicism, that's the
religion of the future. We're not there yet. It's theoretical
we will see a quantum pope who will develop that
the quantum Vatican Council. But also that council has already
happened before it's happened, So I'm gonna read the best one. Quantum. Friends,
if you're lonely. You have friends even though you don't
know them. They're just simply in a different universe. I
like quantum science. Still, that one sounds really legit. Quantum
quantum that's like next level quantum. That's where the quantum
is happening before the quantum is happening, before the quantum set.
So it's like it's basically a perpetual motion machine. That's
what we're talking about here. Quantum evolution. Oh, that's legit.
It's not here yet. It's theoretical. We're in the process
of laying the groundwork for understanding the mechanics of quantum evolution.
Look how I made that shit sound real?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 1: I made that shit sound real, dude? Right there? Uh
so we got quantum science. We don't write these down.
These are legit. We'll do a whole podcast on quantum coin.
That's a crypto of the future. Quantum science. Quantum evolution
is really good. Quantum evolution, quantum meditation, let's get let's
get full on new age quantum catholicism. Quantum meta quantum
that's we can't even think that yet. We got to
have a quantum AI to think about the quantum meta
quantum quantum atheism. Oh shit, how do we not have that? Yeah?
I mean that's the next level of becoming an atheists.
Before you've become an atheist. You guys have got some
good ones. Your quantum girlfriend, Quantum queef very possible, Quantum
dawkins not bad, Quantum tag argument, We're not there yet,
Quantum of solace, Quantum come quats, Quantum cute, Quantum cantaloups,
Quantum quantum keys, Quantum quantum fluid. That's pretty close to
quantum pham. But that's okay. Quantum atheism, I like these
are great Quantum all right, that's that's we got some
good ones here. I'm gonna quantum elon, Quantum reddit, quantum ethics.
That's definitely something we're gonna see rolling out. So you
see how easy it is. You just put quantum in
front of anything and it sounds like some like super
deep normy. Shit, this is a blowing normy's mind. Dude,
I got one whiteboard right here to pop a normy's
mind like a damn ZiT. Watch this. You ready to
pop a normy's mind?
Speaker 14: Pop Quantum science, quantum evolution, quantum catholicism, Quantum I forgot
where that one is quantum fluid, quantum atheism, quantum fluid,
and quantum ethics.
Speaker 1: You just blew a normy's mind right there.
Speaker 5: Number of questions in my mind, you know.
Speaker 7: And the first question was you are changing the subject.
Speaker 5: No, no, I don't think so. I may be leaping
outside of the topic of bit.
Speaker 8: Cultural Christianity, but I think I have a list of
questions that you wanted to ask, and that is one of.
Speaker 1: All of the snotty dudes arrogance that the we can
do this.
Speaker 3: I shall permit this as the cop of the as
the village person policeman of debate. We shall do this
by law. Section three three three of the Quantum Code
allows me, as the debate cop, to allow cultural Christianity
to be discussed.
Speaker 5: But I think professor referring to the predictive and to utility. Okay,
so that's actually what I was trying to so that
that was the point.
Speaker 1: Peterson is super energetic. I've never seen him be this energetic.
And Richard Dawkins looks like an old turtle is about
to like cave over, and Peterson actually looks like it.
He looks kind of chad here like, he looks like
he could like get up and just like whip the
ship out of Dicky Dawkins. Dawkins looks like he's about
to roll over and frigging start becoming a He's already
in his mean phase of becoming a damn fossil.
Speaker 5: Beeping outside of the topic of bits, But.
Speaker 3: I think I shall permit this as the British cup
of debate from the village people.
Speaker 8: I have a list of questions that you wanted to ask,
and that is one of them.
Speaker 5: But I think professor to the predictive power and to utility, Okay,
so that's actually what I was trying to so that
that the point. Well, it seemed to me that your
proclamation that you were a cultural Christian was a recognition
and this statement that you had found something in the
culture that had been derived from Christianity that you had
an affinity with and that there's some reason for that.
And one of the things I wanted to ask you is, well,
what do you think that Christianity got right that allows
you to make a statement like that. I mean, I know,
I know that there's differences perhaps in what we both
think about the ultimate veracity of the biblical stories. Maybe
there isn't differences like it would take a lot of
conversations figure this out. But but what did you mean
by that? Like, what do you think that Christianity got
right that would enable you to make a statement like that?
Speaker 7: Actually, nothing I meant by that, no more.
Speaker 1: Down the time, he sounds like he's getting a little
nervous there, dude. Peterson's over there, like he looks like
about a ten foot chad gorilla to this little old
British fossil that's about to rollover and croak. Dude, And
he's did you hear that? Hear that? It sound like
you get a little nervous. He's like tripping over his words.
Speaker 5: But what did you mean by that?
Speaker 7: Like, what do you here?
Speaker 1: Some looks like a giant that's about to like crush
this little dude.
Speaker 5: I think that Christianity got right they would enable you
to make a statement like that.
Speaker 6: Actually, nothing I meant by that, since no more. When
I brought up in the Christian culture, I went to
Christian schools. I therefore know my way around the Bible.
Speaker 3: I knew I want a cookies and nothing more.
Speaker 7: My way around the Book of Common Prayer. I know,
I know the hymns.
Speaker 1: That's I know, my way around the Book of Common
Prayers and him it's okay, I mean he just laid
down some some hardcore Christian street creer right there. You
know what I'm saying, that's so Christian street creer right there.
You know that Book our Prayer.
Speaker 6: Oh, I don't value Christianity as a truth system at all.
Speaker 5: Okay, So let me ask you about that, because maybe
that's true and perhaps it's not. So the first question
is like, do you think that there are any marked
differences between cultural traditions that would enable you to rank
order them in terms of their ethical validity? Okay, So,
for example, we could contrast mainstream UK Christianity with Islamic fundamentals. Okay,
so there's a hierarchy.
Speaker 1: Wait, Richard Dawkins says, there's a hierarchy of which types
of systems, religiously speaking.
Speaker 5: Are good or bad.
Speaker 1: Is there anything more foolish than the atheist? I mean seriously,
And you know when you talk to a lot of atheists,
deep down they know they know that they don't have
any bay for these standards, these value judgments. Okay, what
basis is this goober going to have to rank these religions,
because to rank something is to put them on a
scale based on some standard, some measure. Okay, where does
the measure, the standard, the value judgment come from, Richard?
It cannot be purely subjective, and yet every atheist worldview
always ends in ultimately pure subjectivism when they're consistent.
Speaker 7: Hierarchy that points to what well, in the case of Islam.
Speaker 1: Now this, maybe Peterson there is making the point I
just made, right, So this is the clearest, like obvious
just destruction of any atheist position right there, because they
always want to say, they're always pontificating on their morals, right,
how moral they are, and how Christianity is so bad
and the other you know. But now he just said
as long is worse? Okay, on what basis? And it
sounds like that's where Peterson went.
Speaker 6: I dislike any religion which punishes apostasy with death.
Speaker 1: Oh you dislike it? Really, here's your greatest mind of
the atheist world, supposedly one of them. What's the standard
for this hierarchy of good and bad religions? I dislike? Okay,
this is the same level as when Peterson debated Matt
Dila Hunty, or maybe it was one of the other
Matt debates. I don't remember, and Dila monkey said monkeys
have value, so I have value. One of the monkeys
in the past said I have value. Therefore monkey life
have value and I have value. I shit you not.
That is the Matt Dila Hunty argument. That's the justification
for why life has value and why there might be
a secular ethic because monkey have value.
Speaker 7: That throws gay people like and I don't like.
Speaker 1: So here's the trick. They always do this. We saw
remember when we were critiquing the Sam Harris debates. When
you ask an atheist what's the standard, they do a
rhetorical trick where they say, well, I don't like a
religion that condemns people to death. So that's a rhetorical trick.
That doesn't tell me the standard. I don't give a
shit whether you like it or not. That means you're
a dumb debater. And how has this geriatric goon, after
however many damn decades of debating, how has he not
figured out how to at least give a sensible answer.
I think actually he knows to just play to his
I don't know, what do you think? The REDDITI Q
is just play to the bass. I guess, like, if
if this has been good enough to satisfy fifty million dummies,
why change the game plan?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 1: Just roll with the same stuff, right. You saying you
don't like it doesn't tell me why it's wrong. You
saying you don't like it doesn't tell me what a
standard is and how we would know this standard. It's
so simple, like this is such a fundamental philosophical question.
It's inexcusable that somebody at this level of intellect IQ
and public prominence is answering in such a just low
tier emotional way.
Speaker 3: But I don't like a religion where people get killed.
You'll mean, you'll mean, that's the equivalent.
Speaker 1: That's what he's basically saying, what's your standard, Richard for epistemology?
Speaker 5: I don't like it? What I like?
Speaker 1: That's that's what you saying. The smartest man on the
planet for you atheists literally just says, it's what I
don't like. What's the standard? What's the epistemology.
Speaker 7: Full of high buildings that practices can don't reject to me?
Speaker 1: So then they do it. They all do this. They
read out the litany of the things that this religion
over here does that they don't like. Okay, this rhetorical trick.
This is an emotional appeal, so you want to go
into the fallacies. It's an emotional appeal to tell me
that the ranking of the religions is due to Oh look,
here's these abuses. The abuses tell me nothing about the
standard itself, because your listing of the abuses presupposes a
standard that those things are bad, and the standard was
the thing in question.
Speaker 6: Dummy, That seems to me to place Islam on a
lower level than Christianity. But that's not to say anything
very positive about Christianity.
Speaker 5: Well it might, it might be to say something positive
about Christianity, like I think.
Speaker 1: So Dawkins right there just revealed his inveterate hatred of
Christianity because Islam is worse, he says. But Islam being
worse does not make Christianity positive. That's pretty wild. So
it's better than Islam, but it's still not anything positive. Well, Richard,
wouldn't you rather live in a Christian country than a
Islamic caliphate? By that logic? So even the statement itself
is dumb because obviously living in one society is Christian
versus Muslim is a positive, But really he just reveals
the stance of the unbelief towards God, which is hatred.
So you'll notice that really it's an inveterate hatred towards
Christ irrational and when asked about the rational justification, it's
completely irrational.
Speaker 5: I don't like it.
Speaker 1: Anyone who's had a basic philosophy class would know that
to respond to a question about an epistemic standard. But
with saying I don't like it is childish? Is Richard
Dawkins a seventeen year old on Reddit or an accomplished
global academic.
Speaker 5: That question is open because you might ask yourself, what
did Christianity get right that led it away from those
particular presumptions and towards something that you regard is more
ethically appropriate, Like this isn't a trivial question, it's a.
Speaker 7: And it's not very much.
Speaker 1: I mean, Richard Dalwatkins, that's funny to.
Speaker 6: Be better than a religion that throws gay people off
high buildings.
Speaker 7: They're not really a very.
Speaker 1: Okay, what's the basis for any of that being wrong? Richard?
Speaker 3: Of course it is.
Speaker 5: I don't like it.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's because you get thrown off a building.
Speaker 7: Oh, virtuous achievement.
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 5: I don't know if that's true, because if you look
at the barbarism that characterizes the human past, you might
think that any progression whatsoever towards something approximating mercy and
tolerance is nothing short of a bloody miracle. Well, like
people are pretty pretty ruthless, and so are our chimpanzee cousins. Yes,
they are right, So we move forward into the light
with great difficulty. And the fact that we can take
that for granted now, and that it seems self evident
and deserving of faint praise, it's not so clear to
me that that that's a reasonable proposition.
Speaker 6: Okay, let's grants of the faint praise, But that has
nothing to do with the truth value. And what I
care about is the truth value. I see no truth
value in the claims of Christianity, the virgin birth, the resurrection,
the miracles.
Speaker 7: Do believe in any of those?
Speaker 1: Now, this is where the rubber meets the road, right,
And I think, unfortunately, this is where doctor Jordan Peterson
has a hard time explicating exactly why why we ought
to choose these stories if they're not real, or if
they are just merely sort of they're like crime and punishment, right,
They're like Raskolnikov, They're Dostoevsky level stuff. Maybe they're more
important than Dostievsky. But if they're just stories like crime
and punishment, even though they are real in the sense
of the principles and the meanings applying archetypally everywhere, this
is going to be a significant challenge.
Speaker 7: Do you believe Jesus was born in virgin.
Speaker 5: As I said before, there are elements of the text
that I don't feel qualified to comment on my experiences,
being that the more I know from a metaphorical perspective
and from a mythic perspective what the story of the
virgin birth means, and I accept that, I know, for example,
that any culture that doesn't hold the image of the
woman and infant sacred dies, and I don't know how
that needs to be.
Speaker 1: Well, of course that's not exactly what the virgin birth means.
You could extrapolate that, yes, the virgin birth and the
Theotokos and the Son of God have a meaning which
applies to the sanctity of life in birth everywhere, and
preserving the chastity of your young maidens, and I mean,
you could extrapolate all those, but that's not ultimately the
redemptive historical meaning of the virgin birth. The virgin birth,
redemptive historically speaking, is the reversal of Adam and Eve's fall.
So Mary is the new Eve, clear as day. That's
the redemptive meaning of the virgin birth, and that Christ
is thus not subject to the passions and subject to
the fall. He is in fact the new Atom, and
he has a pure nature, unfallen, just like Adam and
Eve had before the fall. That's the purpose of the
virgin birth to then counteract Adam's transgression and to heal
and create a new humanity. But if you only limit
this story to level three, the most important, which needs
one and two, and by extension three and four right
fall apart. So again it's it only goes so far
to have an inroad with an atheist with level three,
it can work. It's it's a practical thing that I
think does work, and we've seen that born out by
how many people, as we said, leave atheism through the
archetypal stuff that Peterson talks about, which is layer three.
But the Bible and the meaning of these things is
not just layer level three, And here Dawkins, who has
no idea about any of those, is maybe inadvertently hitting
on the key point, which is, yeah, but you can't
just have layer three.
Speaker 5: Right rested form.
Speaker 8: Do you mean that you don't know?
Speaker 5: Let me let me ask you about that, because truth,
this is something I talk with Sam Harris about too. Truth,
as we know, is a tricky business. Do you think
there are differences in the truth claims between different writers
of fiction, Like it's Dostoevsky more profound.
Speaker 7: Then well, I wouldn't call fiction truth claims anyway. I
mean he's then on.
Speaker 5: What grounds do we rank order the fiction in terms
of quality? Like Dostievsky's a profound purveyor of fiction on
the philosophical front, unbelievably deep and profound. There's something true
about what he's writing about.
Speaker 6: It's nothing to do with the truth, the truth that
science is concerned with.
Speaker 1: The uh, well I have to give Although Jordan Peterson
is not going to do well. I don't think in
answering this fundamental issue, because this is the CrOx issue,
he is, as a side point, demonstrating the stupidity of
Richard Dawkins that Dawkins is so unedgic and such a
soy scientism man that he thinks that some masterpiece like
Crime and Punishment from Dostoevsky, because Peterson's absolutely correct here
that it doesn't have truth claims because it has nothing
to do with what science is concerned with. I mean,
does this man really exists. He's almost like a caricature
of what you would make up about a scientism man.
Like he's so unfeeling and unhuman that he doesn't realize
that Dostoyevsky's books encapsulate and tell way more about life
and humanity than your dumb ass science books. This man
is pitiful. He really should be pitied. I mean to
say something this just outright stupid that, first of all,
just because it's a novel, of course it can have
a truth claim. How stupid is that to think that
a novel doesn't have truth claims? Why would you think
that that's fool So this guy is like literally a midwit.
Richard Dawkins is straight up a midwit because any educated
person would know of the value of Dostoevsky. But to
say something so foolish that well, it's not concerned with
what science is concerned with. First of all, it actually
it could be you could have a science of great writers.
For example, I had a friend who sent me an
article some years back, maybe in New York Times, I
don't know, and they were talking about how people who
were very well versed in Dostoevsky novels, when they would
read Dostoevsky novels and really penetrate and get the meaning
of it, chew on it, that it lit up more
centers of their brain than when they read any other
type of thing, including scientism, man's boring ass books.
Speaker 2: Why is that?
Speaker 1: Because ski novel is functioning on so many different layers
and levels, and you have so many different characters that
you're keeping up with and their motivations and getting in
the thought and the mindset of those characters, that it
causes the whole brain to do like the meme and
basically go lit. But this goober has no knowledge of that,
because he's basically functioning like an am antelope. He's like
a reptile brain himself, which is like lower base MIDWIP level.
I'm not kidding now. But what does that demonstrate, Well,
that's a scientific measuring of people who read and study
Dostoevsky novels and their brain lighting up better than if
they read your dumbass book.
Speaker 2: So you could actually do a science.
Speaker 1: Of literary studies and their effects on the brain.
Speaker 6: Goufus truth of science, and it is the truth that
gets us to the moon. I mean this has nothing
to do with with a One writer of fiction has
a sort of insight into human nature that goes without
saying I accept that.
Speaker 5: Okay, So how do we deal with the notion that
on the purely factual side, how do we deal with
the idea Let's take the note you talked about clitoridectomy.
Let's talk about the oppression of women. Yes, we make
a scientific case that that's inappropriate, or is it the
case that we're making on some other grounds?
Speaker 1: Like I see, on what basis is this goofball who,
if he's a consistent atheist, should believe in depopulation human
population reduction. Oh but he cares about the status of
women and their cltorus getting cut off. Uh huh, yeah,
I bet you do. I bet you really care about that, Richard.
Let's see Dawkins's statements on population because I don't know,
but I'm guessing isn't Dawkins out of the Royal society circles.
Speaker 5: He has to be.
Speaker 1: A proponent of this. It looks like he is. So
here's articles fussing about his tweets. Let's see what this is.
Where's the Dawkins shit? I don't want to read all that.
Dawkins sparked controversy when he tweeted that eugenics would work
in practice. Well, of course that last year, eleven thousand
scientists signed a statement urging population reduction. Of course, Dawkins
and eugenics advocates for reducing undesirable populations. Well, there we go.
Speaker 3: As a scientist, I respond, what are the facts?
Speaker 1: Okay? Why ought we reduce them? Richard? That's an aught. Okay.
So Dawkins believes, apparently in obviously population control. So now
wait a minute. So he's for abraution reducing the population,
but he cares about women's clatoruses being cut off. I
bet he does, sure, now.
Speaker 5: Judeo Christian tradition, one of the earliest pronouncements is that
both men and women carry the image of God both
and that sets a certain tone to everything that follows.
And it is a remarkable proclamation given its radical age,
that both men and women are carry the image of
God and are to be treated as something with intrinsic
value outside of the domain of power and politics. And
it isn't obvious to me, It isn't obvious to me,
having thought about this a lot, how we deal with
that in the pure realm of fact. Because one of
the facts is if I can oppress you, why the
hell shouldn't I?
Speaker 8: And my job is to keep things on track. Hit
I think there are a number of questions which fessidalcins
is offked quite directly, that we still haven't really heard
an answer.
Speaker 1: Ah. So when Peterson brings the heat, skittles O'Connor steps
in here to deflect the way. So here is the
crux of the issue, where Peterson's going to actually ask
the question which we're waiting for, Hell shouldn't I? The
fact is that I can oppress you. Why shouldn't I
appress you? Why shouldn't I be? The queensants hotter rock Right,
These hypocritical, inconsistent, atheist goofballs who are always touting their
soy morality and how ethical they are have no basis
for their ethics. It's so annoying. And then they try
to pontificate, and they go around and around in circles
all day long about how much they hate theism and
all this kind of stuff, and they have absolutely no
basis for ethics and they know it. And so he
knows exactly where this discussion is going, and so he
deflects and tries to shut this question down.
Speaker 8: Job is to keep things on track here. I think
there are a number of questions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, things are on track, village person cop.
Speaker 8: Which Professor Dolkins has asked quite directly that we still
haven't really heard an answer.
Speaker 5: Okay, okay, Profess.
Speaker 8: Alex O Komer is so annoying, dude, asking about the
virgin birth. You started talking about mesophol, you started talking
about myth. I think anybody listening to this conversation will
understand that maybe a society that doesn't believe in the
virgin birth won't work. Maybe that's the predictive power that
you're talking about. But I think you must understand that
when Professor Dilkins is asking you do you believe that
Jesus was born of a virgin, he means something like
a biological fact, And by the way, it's saying I
don't know or saying, you know, I'm not qualified to
comment is an answer to that question. But is that
your answer that you that you don't know?
Speaker 5: I said earlier, and I would hold it.
Speaker 1: Did you catch how stupid that was? He said, there
was a number of questions that weren't answered, such as
Richard Dawkins asking you do you believe in the virgin birth?
And then he says, and you answered, I don't know,
which is an answer? Is that your answer? I mean,
obviously that was a stupid deflection from Peterson's question, because
that goofball just admitted that the answer already given was
an answer, and then he re asked the same answer
or the same question is how does any how does
this guy have an audience? By the way, remember when
we covered his debates years ago, and he said that
he asked the way that he knew it wasn't it
about quantum shit or some bull crap? And he said,
I have a really smart friend at Oxford And he
told me that was his answer.
Speaker 5: I know a smart I know a guy like what
this is that there are elements of the text that
I don't know how to that I'm incapable of fully
accounting for. I can't account for what the what the
fundamental reality and significance of the notion of the resurrection is.
My knowledge just ends. But I know that whatever happened,
whatever happened, as it.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm surprised that the amount of discussions that Pageoe
and Peterson have had. I mean, you know that Pageot
has has to have explained this probably many times. And
even if Peterson doesn't necessarily believe it, like he's not,
you're not aware of the significance of the resurrection. I mean,
that's that's an odd statement.
Speaker 5: Quince of the origination and the promotion of the Christian
story was powerful enough to bring Rome to its knees
and demolish the pagan enterprise. So there's some power in
that story that's remarkable to.
Speaker 7: The Virgin Book.
Speaker 6: Yes, yeah, well, the Virgin Books results from a mistranslation
of Isaiah.
Speaker 7: You know that.
Speaker 5: I'm like these sorts of questions.
Speaker 1: It's not a mistranslation of Aziah. Remember this is the
same guy who by the way, I'm Richard Dawkins. Do
you have a degree in Hebrew? Do you have a
degree in Greek?
Speaker 7: Oh?
Speaker 1: Wait, you expect credentials. You have none of these credentials,
Yet you're a textual scholar who knows that Isaiah at
seven is mistranslated. And by the way, no, it's not
depends on whether you follow the Jews or whether you
follow the septuagen So if you believe the Septui agent
like the Orthodox Church does, it's not mistranslated. And on
what authority do you know? By the way, which techs
are authoritative and which ones aren't. Of course they have
no that's way out of their domain. But notice the
I think what happens too when you get to be
say like a Richard Dawkins level, when you're probably like
the most you know, when you're in the top five
most prominent atheist type people in the world, you're not
typically in the presence of anybody that would significantly challenge
you very much. That is very rare, and so you
just assume, I guess that you're on the money. Like
when you're making basic mistakes and you have no idea
what you're talking about.
Speaker 5: It's for what would you say? They don't They don't
strike me as they're not getting to the point that's
the purpose. Well, look, I understand that there's perfect reasons
to debate this. I know that, and I know that
your question is more than valid, but it's beside the
issue