Message from @whiic
Discord ID: 615316025411371019
Are we talking JBP?
Peterson does articulate his definition **IF YOU FORCE HIM TO**. But if not forced to, he will run with his non-sense newspeak to the end of the world, leaving the audience think that he won a completely different argument .
Also agreed
When Peterson for example argues for "Christianity", he argues **only** for being a good person with morals and drive to follow them. Nothing about Jesus or God (as used by everyone else than Peterson).
And nothing about the Bible either.
Although at least he is indeed open if pressed, I guess that makes him a lot better than some
Teabag *cough cough*
Yeah, but just understanding his definitions (when he has redefinitions for every other word he uses) takes at least 3 hours of time before you can actually debate him.
Jefferson made that bible teaching the morality of Christianity without the religious overtones.
And you **cannot** skip the definitions phase or the audience will not understand it. It doesn't suffice if his opposing debater understands the redefinitions.
The audience is mislead if you just accept redefinitions.
Some scholars in similar positions to JBP often have the problem that they're not pressured to shorten their argumentation
This is what causes their word salads
@Wizard_of_The_West Did it include genocides by one tribe against other tribes?
Because that doesn't involve God. It does involve **morality of the Bible**.
(Mostly Old Testament, though.)
Lol did you know everyone genocides
Jefferson, and to a large degree the rest of the Founders, were Deists. JBP, I gather, isn't.
Jefferson's bible was for the natives in an attempt to help with cultural understanding
Seems like gun discussion was more alive on the <#613769782461857813>
He just calls his atheism "Christianity".
No, he was a deist. Thomas Paine was a legit atheist.
Sorry, I meant to type "Peterson", not Jefferson.
A deist is not a theist, nor is he an atheist.
Jordan Peterson is an atheist?
*[citation needed]*
Yeah, he his. But he calls himself Christian. He has defined Christian as a person with morals.
<:Doubt:588038713938804760>
He also believes in "God" but has redefined "God" as truth or meaning.
So did Aquinas.
Ofc I'm an atheist myself, and disagree with his notions of Christianity.
When you ask his for definitions or his opinions, you always ask for **LITERAL** truth.
Does he believe in **LITERAL** resurrection of Jesus.
He's an agnostic atheist.
@ETBrooD I disagree with your defenition of socialism and I disagree with your , imo, very limited view on what governments do and how they function. Socialism, if I may offer another defenition, is broadly speaking a doctrine that calls for the social/public ownership of the means of production. 'Redistribution' is an effect, not a core point within socialism. Furthermore, to say that any government that redistributes wealth is socialist, is afaic, ignorant of history. Goverments long before 'socialism' redistributed wealth and were not socialist in nature. Unless you consider all forms of government to be 'socialist', in which case the term 'socialism' is so diluted it becomes useless to describe anything.
He seems to have more in common with certain Christian denominations than out and out agnostic atheists, tbh.
@Αγωνιζῆς If you disagree with "my" definition of socialism, then you disagree with the bascics of the most commonly explained definition in the dictionary. In that case a discussion between us is useless.
meh, so be it then😂
JBP is an agnostic who likes the Bible a lot