well the man ain't ideal, i didn't research every of his claim but I did suspect that some of them could be wrong or an exaggaration. Do you want my opinion on the whole supernatural thing?
Jordo pete is just a christian apologist with a phobia of being called that, a lot of what he says on those topics doesn't hold up but that doesnt matter this topic is about star wars and you keep glossing over clone wars new season and possibly this
It's easy to dismiss him as that if you don't go through the effort of at least attempting to acknowledge the psychological value of religion, just like the majority of the atheists seem to do, given their really strong allergy towards it. And also, the fact that he self-admittedly recognizes many of the major flaws of Christianity cannot make him just another Christian apologist. but whatever, dude. go on clinging to your narrow-minded reductionism for all I care.
getting addicted to painkillers works great against pain, but that doesn't make it a good idea. go huff paint/see a ghost.
lol, I say reductionism and you specifically do that again. couldn't be more typical of you, Geressen.
I looked over your post and it was still not star wars related. so I didn't care what it said. Also you havn't huffed paint to see ghosts yet, don't knock it till you try it.
I did MDMA and saw them, for your interest. but that was a really long time ago... and I did wayyy too much.
like how someone who doesn't know about evolution and animals might through intuition make the mistake of thinking a giraffe has more neck vertebrae than a mouse was it your intuition that told you your druggie dreams were actual ghosts? because that is how you decide things right intuition? why did it take you so long to intuit that this conversation is going nowhere because you are using your ass to think?
eh, I fully accept that it was just a hallucination. my psyche identified them as ghosts cause they just happened to look like them. oh and I totally agree that intuition can lead you to wrong places.
you mean you thought you saw what you called ghosts because of pop culture representation of ghosts do you think maybe religion is related? why are places that are more religious scoring so much worse on social ills? Why do you want to give religion a pass because of some good they do just because religions have a millenia long head start and secular organisations have bias against them because they don't hide behind a church door?
what kind of social ills? could you post the numbers here? because there is no way to gainsay religion -- it's a vital part of our psyche and if we don't acknowledge it, we become possessed by it without knowing so. I've got nothing against a secular viewpoint or atheism but I find it silly to deny religion any psychological significance because then those very atheists become religiously posessed but without any control over it. that's when science, technology, economics, money, ideology, nation (pick whichever one you choose or pick em all!) become their gods. And to me those gods lack any nuance or depth compared to the old religions in terms of their psychological value. there's no initiation for example and because of that a lot of men these days live with their moms or just don't psychologically mature. there's no sense of direction, no existential prop for man to lean on -- be it a fancy lie or not, it supported him in his life and even from an evolutionary standpoint was more effective since it ensured that man would survive instead of potentially killing himself due to an existential crisis. if you were to seriously study religion, mythology and psychoanalysis like I have with a decent amount of self-reflection, you would most like come to the same conclusions. (if you allow yourself to be open-minded of course.) oh and I really don't think that religions are the source of evil. People are and always will be. Religions are expressions of the national and cultural peculiarities of certain people ,-- some are better, some are worse --, all of them different, just like there are different cultures. So for me, psychic hygiene (which religion provides to a very good level) is much more important for the wellbeing of society than for people to know the so-called truth. (if I were to agree with atheism in that respect, although I think that both lack the full picture.) Yet, I do acknowledge that there is no way to turn back and reverse all that existential terror that man faced when god died, so the way I see it, there are only two ways to ensure we survive and don't go amuck because of all of our inner tensions and anxieties: 1. We reevaluate our current religions but strictly from a secular and psychonalytical viewpoint, understanding that religions provide us with great archetypal stories that have incredibly deep meaning and which if are embodied by us ensure a good and healthy life with a sense of direction and fulfillment and self-actualization. 2. We start practicing buddhism as it is the ideal kind of philosophy for mental hygiene and self-growth for secular people, especially given the fact that buddhists don't treat their gods as real beings but only products of their conciousness (the same view that psychoanalysis has). The second path is probably better, but it's not very likely that the majority of people are capable of going through it given the fact that buddhism has always been for the very few and never suffered from high proselytic ambitions.
Murder, Crime, teen pregnancy. etc It's not, it is a side effect. Moths orientate by light source keeping it in the same position to fly long distances as a side effect they circle flames untill they burn up. side effect.
heh for some reason I have alakhami blocked, so this thread looked like gerssen talking to himself and was trying to figure out what he was doing.
I can't wait until aliens show up and disprove every religion on Earth with the mere fact of their existence. As a bonus, it'll also silence people like Alakhami who seem to think human beings are the be-all end-all of sapient organisms.
If the answer to the Fermi paradox is that we are one of the first beings to advance to this level of technology then we should try to survive as a species and devellop more to become the aliens that show up on planets of younger civs. if the answer is most life gets ( itself) killed... yikes. that does sound like something I'd do. my great great great great great grandniece has a half sister who is married and has had 4 babies in as many years, their religious beliefs makes her husband and inlaws expect her to have yet more. that sort of thing is not something a woman in her early twenties should handle so quite understandably she needs psychiatric help. instead of getting proper psychiatric help they go to a religious thing to just pray, and pray and pray. first consider that a placebo works even when you know they are placebo, you just have to convince yourself, now do the same with these stories, you do not need religion to have stories. you reminded me of something with your view on budhism, turn subs to english:
i'm going to watch these......so help me god if they are a bunch of bible twisting BS or some other pseudo science crap I will be quite through with giving you the time of day -.- 1)well off to a great start....first line of the first video begins with an ascertion that he was wrong about c16 with no arguments....this will be fun -.- 2) followed next with a blanket insult to all of his fan base. 3) clip show taken out of context with him essentially saying the word jew without context or listening to what he had to say afterwards to insinuate he's an anti-Semite only a minute and 30 seconds in so far 4) surprisingly and accurately states he has an opposing view to the far right(edit- he laters spends a third of the video claiming how he and the far right share all the same views and links them to him...) 5) insults him for sharing a common view point with many that people are shaped by there surrounding because it wasn't "original" enough 2 minutes in. 6) ascerts he has a lack of knowledge with no evidence thus far or clips thus far to support his points, claiming his points are garbled because of it...again with no quotes to support it..at least to this point. 7) He shows some clips from a class room discussing Hitlers actions throughout the war and a what if scenario for how he could of a won, a common thing to do really, though at the end of the day many scholars have copied this game of thought, but Hitler always loses as of today nobody has devised any winning strategy for Hitler to win that war....does't mean people should stop examining his actions and how things could of played out....time to listen to how he finds a problem with it.... 8 a) insinuates that he doesn't know the difference between the ****'s or the 4th reike....which maybe I missed it but does't seem to be a thing in that clip, at worst he's bunching them together, but it doesn't really effect his discussion anyway. b) tries to use his lack of being politically correct against him...which in no way is relevant to a conversation or topic about his knowledge about ****'s as is the topic, regardless we all already know peterson isn't politically correct and he obviously isn't trying to insult anyone in the way he is speaking here. c) so next he attempts to debunk his discussion by claiming historians don't do it the way he is talking which, may be accurate I cannot say, as like Peterson I am not a Historian, he is a psychologist quoting Jung who is a philosopher. I don't know the context of this class, but it's obviously all hypothetical and since Peterson is talking it's likely about psychology, thus they are free to explore any train of thought. d) mentions post moderm theory without quotes or citations as such I have no idea if the comment is actually accurate to post moderm philosophy, his statement is somewhat accurate regardless in how Petersons point of view could result in inaccurate conclusions. e) does some pretty basic virtue signalling on his comments about enslaving Jews and then makes an interesting assertion "all society is built around the biological conflict of races" i mean his comments are all valid in this...but since it's all a hypothetical discussion his point of view on what would of "won the war" is about as accurate as Peterson and about just as meaningful really. 9) so the crux of this point of the video comes down to what would be considered a victory for the nazis, both peterson and this person in the video agrees on what that victory would be i.e the total destruction of the Jews and "Gypsies", peterson says to actually remove them after the war is won when it is more practical, this youtuber believes they'd never of done that because it goes against their believes at the time....which is accurate but peterson is talking about what would of been more logical as a hypothetical...so I fail to see his point at least from his initial stance. 10) historical stuff...quite interesting but largely irrelevant for the discussion Peterson is having. about half way through. you might wonder why I say irrelevant so let me clarify, since the ascertion on his part is "Peterson doesn't understand ****'s" these comments add nothing to that topic, they are simply off topic, all these facts do is show how well he understands the history of the war and those involved, but do nothing to show Peterson lack of understanding. 11) man he should just right a documentary....he just keeps going...waiting for more point against peterson... 12) finally he brings it back around, so his comment is that the Germans had a logical reason for killing the Jews thus it should not be called "mayhem"....I guess he has a point? Peterson should probably of used a different word when oversimplifying the Germans motivations in alternative to his hypothetical, though to Petersons point he considers the slaughtering of jews to their end goal at this point is Mayhem, even if done for the right reason and this makes sense since Peterson is not viewing the german actions through a post modern lense and to us(non-post modern philosophers) this would appear as mayhem 13) well...he makes a solid point on finances here, one that at first I thought put a nail in Petersons theory, and it still may. claiming not needing to feed dead people saved them money, and stolen assets earned them by today's standards up to 214 billion. that said how much would these people have earned the nation had they been left alone or enslaved, how much food could they of produced, how much money could of been made...without more facts I cannot say which i right at this point. it's a fine discussion to have though and likely the point of the class to have such discussions. 14) insinuates Peterson is a ****....he was doing so well =/ 15) more trying to link peterson to the far right and **** philosophy, at least with some evidence this time....though it's mostly because he claims extreme leftists don't want to discuss their points of views....which I believe to be accurate of most extreme groups, ask anti fa to sit down and discuss their points on white privledge see how much useful debate occurs. 16) lol....links Peterson to ****'s several times in the video then ends by saying "I don't think he's a facist" comical summary - a very well informed historian, his points about history are accurate and well informed but his points on peterson are few and seem to miss the mark since this (at least out of context) does not seem to be a history class, and is likely a psychology class, if I'm wrong then his statements even hypothetical should of been from a more accurate historical point of view. I give it a 5/10 not the worst hit piece I've ever seen and quite a bit of valid points even if largely off topic.
2: lol you don't like the joke about: clean your rooooom = clean your miiiind -> shut it MOM-> okay Jordan 3;hes not insinuating jord is antisemite, many of his faans keep aasking him the jewish question, are you really this bad at watching vids?
