Brotherhood, so... that's my bias lmao

Oxhorn did a play through of the Brotherhood and still didn't like them, or at least liked the Railroad more. But he's a cuck, so whatever.

"Muh Synths r people"

@Happy Humble Hermit that troll calling was hilarious! I hope I'm lucky enough to watch the next one live

I will be waiting for the thay wwere lTFM wil... Javé.... The

what?

I'm watching the Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson discussion and its fucking stupid.

Religiously naive tradcon vs Predictable Naive Libtard

Its not challenging at all lmao

Peterson speaks out of both sides of his mouth expecting us to believe one over the other, like a true hypocrite.

All the while Sam Harris makes the same arguments that every good atheist has heard since he was 12

really? I think it’s pretty good, I’ve been watching them today too.

Well... I've studied philosophy and psychology in a university so maybe that's why lol

I've studied philosophy of religion and pretty much knew everything that was going to fly out of Harris' mouth

I think that discussion is well above most people’s intelligence level

Perhaps...

Peterson's defenses of his faith position were pitiful

all the while when Harris opened his mouth i had to try very hard to keep myself awake lol

I understand where Jordan is coming from, its hard to pinpoint exactly where he is wrong. I think Peterson is wrong just because my beliefs align more with Sam’s but I haven’t finished part 2 yet

I love listening to Sam though he’s hilarious.

His analogies hit hard

One thing that I've learned from studying is that if it is hard to pinpoint where an argument is wrong, then the argument is not well understood, even by the person making it.

Peterson is no exception to this.

I agree. This is a difficult topic though. Been having arguments about its for thousands of years.

It’s a much more productive debate/conversation than most I’ve seen though.

So, that begs the question. If any argument can be made to be so strong that it becomes increasingly more difficult, if not impossible to point to a false premise, why believe in any argument?

And on the flip side, if one argument can be looked at as having all true premises and a true conclusion, yet any premise can be objected as being false, how can any argument be truly said to be sound?

Validity: an argument is valid if and only if the premises do not yield a false conclusion.

Soundness: an argument is sound if and only if all of the premises being true necessitate the conclusoin being true.

The problem here is that we have no idea if any premises of any argument are actually true so long as any premise of any argument can be objected as false.

In order for a premise of any argument to be true, it must rule out any and all possibility of it being false.

But, since it is not the case that any argument can rule out any of its premises are not false, we have a problem.

It remains to be seen if even a God(s) could solve this issue...

P> Q
Q>R
R>S
S>T
Therefore, T

Yet, even the first premise of the argument can be objected as being false.

Okay so how do you apply that to Peterson’s argument

Well... if you want to apply that to Peterson's argument, just plug and chug lol

He makes several claims attempting to defend the truth of scripture, yet when he claims truth, he cannot rule out every objection to any premise of his argument as not being false.

For example, let's say that premise 1 has a probability of being 5% false. Well, so long as there is a probability of a premise being false, it by definition cannot be true because true premises are not possible to be false.