We gave away 8000 meals this Christmas 😊 Here is the video kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rcphhNlopuDZcqs.htmlsi=VBwdhN2tbt-DSQvw

As a semi truck driver these talks make my 16hr day effortless

I had to rewatch this series of debates and listen to Peterson's lectures on Maps and Meaning and his biblical series before I could even attempt to comment, but here goes: I think the main point that Peterson was trying to convey to Harris was that religion appears to have developed organically over the course of human history as a way to preserve and communicate abstract ideas and concepts that can reduce suffering and promote success in life in those who act them out. He tends to define these ideas and concepts as values (e.g. fairplay, honesty, etc), which we use in our daily lives as a moral compass for our actions. As a personal example, I train jiu jitsu every morning at 6 AM because I value physical fitness, fairplay, and strategy, which I hope will ultimately help me in my endeavor to live a meaningful life. The act of doing something we value is in Peterson's definition, religious. Therefore, he assets that even atheists tend to live a religious life because they act on values that they hold dear to their person. Harris seems to assert that we as humans, have the ability to extract the same values that Peterson defined without the need for interpretation of the stories in religious texts like the bible. On top of that, he cites that dogmatic and literal interpretation of some stories has shown to be disastrous throughout history-responsible for war and death. There are plenty of examples such as the Inquisition, the anabaptist revolt in Muenster, the Buddhist/Hindu civil war in Sri Lanka, and ISIS. Therefore, I believe Harris concludes that if we can assume that humans can synthesize the "good" values in life without the need for religion, we should- the risk is otherwise too great. Peterson's counter claim is that it is likely impossible for humans to be able to do away with religion and synthesize our own values. He's cited Nietzsche and post modernists like Derrida or Foucault often, claiming that social systems such as communism fail to address human impulsive tendencies and propensities for evil, which are not values, per se, but are addressed as vital and fundamental parts of most ( I say most because I'm not qualified to assert all) of the world's religions. Therefore, Peterson concludes that there remains significant value in respecting and acting out religious logos because they also help to recognize and reduce acts of malice. So they're talking past each other, in some sense. I think the real question is: Assuming Peterson and Harris are correct, how can we implement religions without devolving into literal interpretations? I think they found the answer when they agreed to it at the beginning- free and frank speech. I wonder if anyone will read this....

Jordan Peterson: *wiggles hand menacingly* Sam Harris: *eyebrow raising intensifies*

¡Suscríbete a nuestro nuevo canal en español! Our new Spanish channel will feature professionally translated voice acting & dubbing for all Pangburn Live Discussions. Please subscribe & share with your Spanish-speaking friends! ¡Esperamos que disfrutes! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mt2ZdNZ5zpaymmg.html

After carefully analysing both perspectives and most of the axioms upon which the ramifications of their arguments were constructed, I can accurately conclude that they were trying to call each other gay.

The winner is anyone who came away from the discussion having sharpened their thinking.

Clarity is key to communication, a smart person knows that.

Its awesome listening to 2 people that have vastly different opinions, even take little shots at eachother, but at the end of the day respect each other and their view. Refreshing to see ❤

Imagine presidential candidates having debates on complex topics like this.

When you're out with the boys and someone mentions the Bible

Pangburn always puts together the best debates. Im so tired of the opening statement, rebuttal form of debate and this is so much more interesting

I realized that I've never really had a conversation.

The winner in this debate is every viewer who learned something from both parties.

Ben stiller really evolved into a well read intellectual.

Jordan explained very well how god selects which sports team will win the league, and Sam explained very well that one sports team will win the league whether god exists or not

Watch Sam Harris & Brian Greene on stage FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a9aSe9aD356lZ6s.html

One of the few talks where the moderator is as intelligent as the interviewees and where he is truly able to summarize the positions of both in a common context. Compliments!

Everybody gangsta till Jordan Peeterson starts holding an invisible egg.

Gosh, we are so lucky to live in an age where we can access stuff like this so easily.

I'm playing a drinking game where I take a drink where JP wiggles his fingers while talking, or says "hierarchy", "axiom", or "presuppositions".

I think the tendency to pick sides between these two is a mistake. Harris is correct that religious fundamentalism carries the potential for serious danger and must be kept in check. Peterson is right that pure, unadulterated logic is not a sufficient ground for establishing universal ethics. The proper takeaway isn't to choose a side here, in my opinion. The proper takeaway is to be grateful that these two men are able to discuss these things in a rational, intelligent manner and that we are all lucky enough to learn from it. The world needs both of these men.

I always wondered what English sounds like to non-English speakers, so I just watched this video.

This is how we should have a discussion or debate. People on the opposite sides should learn more about each other.

Jordan had Sam on the ropes when he said he was doing his mom. But that comeback with "my dad can beat up your dad!" from Sam was S tier.

I don't like it when the audience mistakes an intellectual discussion with a rap battle.

Having enough knowledge to sustain a debate like this for hours on end must be an intellectual goal of life. There are a very few select number of people alive who can do it. By 'it' i mean debating on philosophically deep ideologies and notions. Here i am, on my bed, trying to write this comment with as much literary flair as possible, waiting for my noodles to cook.

I miss this Sam, what a legend!

I’m blown away that we can watch this for free..

I wanted to watch this, but first I had to define what I meant by 'Watch' in a post visual hypothetical society. Once I had redefined the word to a point that I could recognise it's value in what was now a quasi religious experience, I discovered that I had rendered language devoid of any real meaning, and had to imagine what was said through a veil of treaties from modernistic idealogues of an imagined apocalypse.

I do love the conversation. I do wish our politicians would discuss issues this deeply and thoughtfully.

Idk why but I found Sam to be especially hilarious in this one. 😂

You know the moderator is good when you forget that he's there

Brett: "You've got two minutes." Jordan: "Well it depends on what you mean by minutes."

Both of these guys are great. I appreciate both. Having followed the four horsemen for years and being a fanboy of Christopher Hitchens, Sam cut his teeth with that great man albeit no one will ever hold a candle to Hitch. Jordan Petersons invocation of religion to explain his points were lost on me and were jarring due to being an atheist, but I am starting to understand that he more sees it as a framework from which truths and values can be arrived at. From this point of view I am starting to appreciate the view point. From a growth mindset point of view, I absolutely love JPs work. I think you all need to check your biases and understand they are both explaining worthwhile content and both can in many ways be true at the same time. Listen.

As a teacher, a father and a theologian fascinated by humanities phycological desire for theology and also humanities desire to move beyond theology and God. I thank Jordan and Sam for celebrating the power of 'the dialectic'. This is a celebration of what we are capable off, what we should strive towards, respectful discorce, respectful argument and the desire to gracefully move forward rational debate and provide our children the ability it find there voice and start there journey towards there own debate, there own 'dialectal' journey.

The moderator is amazing. After one hour of back and forth discussion he just steps in and in 5 minutes makes everyone agree.

I've never watched a debate between two intellectuals and thought...Thank god the moderator is here to provide an interpretation.

Best discussion I’ve heard. Loved the moderator, I didn’t know about him before. Absolutely loved and agree w Sam and I’m glad to see Jordan being more clear than ever maybe. Thank you for a great experience ❤😊

it's crazy how much I love the type of communication sam and jordan manage to achieve.. so much understanding of the other, respectful teasing, the ability to go in and out of various types of metaphors / wordings.. the *best*

and you thought you were having deep, well articulated conversations with your friends, drunk at 5am

The interviewer was asking the right questions at the right moments, i enjoyed his eloquence

No matter what your beliefs are, and who you support; we all are (if good faith and honesty mean something) capable to recognize that they are both prime examples of respectful, heartfelt and honest intellectuals.

Thank you two Gentlemen for the thought-provoking discussion. The difference between Mr. Peterson and Mr. Harris is: I like how Mr. Peterson says things, and I like Mr. Harris for what he has to say.

Whoever put this together, recorded it and released it... helped more people than they realize.

This is "so what you're saying" done right. Not used to attack but used to understand the position of the person you are having a conversation with.

A wonderful demonstration of the art of conversation that is so rare between differing points of view.

If Jordan were applying his religious method as an astrophysicist, his method for discovering time travel would be to start by saying time travel is real, and then working his way backward through fictional texts to it's discovery

conversation does not require applause

Weinsteins instinct to spot logical inconsistencies is really useful here.

I think I’m starting to comprehend more deeply the idea that “God made us into his own image” much more of a self defining roadmap to eliminating/diminishing personal suffering. Sam seems to accept there’s perfectly logical psychological truths in the text but also argues that the roads in which the texts are paved on manifest malevolence, which is also true. Jordan’s literary background, as well as psychological background, make for this discussion with Sam so fruitful.

loved this discussion. I think I am more of a Spiritual believer than focused on God although I have often been on my knees praying to a Higher Being many times. It's hard to defend the Bible. However I look at society and we cant agree on so many issues. I think it's a good thing or at least beneficial to hold oneself accountable to a higher being or maybe some would call it a conscience.

I spilled alfredo sauce on my shirt while watching this. I’ve never felt more stupid than in that precise moment.

the fact that i'm not a native speaker of english but yet able to enjoy this conversation. learning the language is one of the best things I've ever done in my life.

In my search for truth and proof on either sides of the coin, I enjoy these videos and conversations. The ability to see both sides with an intelligent point of view is much more impactful than maybe 30 yrs ago or more!

Sam can answer a question , or make a point, in a sentence or two. JP never does either, he just goes round and round! It’s meat and potatoes versus a pretty, but non- nutritious word salad!

Other than how phenomenal this discourse is, it's so nice to see intellectual, even-tempered people in the comments. It's a very rare thing on the internet.

I enjoyed hearing both Harris' and Peterson's points of view. But I was really impressed with Brett Weinstein's ability as a moderator here.

This is one beautiful discussion to watch About the holy people that are so worshipped because of the effect they had, you don't need to be holy for that. When I was 12 and a very depressed angry emo kid, I got pulled out of that because of the loving and caring attitude of 1 female friend, I think it's people who can spread that love can have a profound effect on people.

Jordan Peterson is delightful and his style of debate is playful and not too serious. He gave Sam credit where credit was due and agreed when appropriate. He's a gentleman debater, nice bow to Sam Harris to end the debate. Thoroughly enjoyed this.

It doesn’t matter “who won” what matters is that these topics are being conversed in a healthy, mature and intellectual way like so.

The audience made it sound like a damn sitcom

This kind of debate only happens when both parties have the skill and intellect to debate and present ideas clearly and with respect. Too many times one side doesnt have the required skill or persuasiveness and often resorts to repeating the same argument or insulting the other side. Sam and Jordan are modern day titans, a joy to watch

Peterson would be better understood if he spent more time making his point and less time framing it.

I think Ben Stiller made some good points.

never have i seen a moderator grab our attention so much while just doing his job. that man is a legend.

Aargh. Soundman off the top. Feedback dude! Good lord. Over 8 minutes

Ben Stiller here is a very smart person, I had no idea… and so is Canadian Willem Dafoe.

The fact that a video like this has 3.1 million views (July 2020), actually makes me very happy and hopeful about today’s modern society and admiration for genuine hunger towards truth.

a two hour lecture/discussion between top scholars with over 2million views. that's wonderful! we're not all lost after all

2:05:15 First time in about a decade of study that I have heard someone accurately explain the intuitive essence of existence properly

The question regarding religious totalitarianism versus secular totalitarianism by Peterson was the pinnacle of this discussion.

JP: "What's all the applause about?!" Crowd: *Applause*

There is no good reason to cheer or boo in a debate between two people. All it does is distract and interupt.

Sam: made a good point Jordan: i agree with you, but... Sam: made a good point Jordan: i agree with you, but... Jordan's urge to make everything more complicated than it is, is an attrition tactic on his part.

The most constructive moderator I've ever seen; Without him, everybody including the debate parties would have been lost within the first 30 minutes.

I really hate this format of debate with cheering crowd like it’s a sporting event

This video is worth watching !

When you’re half way through and realize there’s a part 2 🤯

Literally the only thing I didn't enjoy about this is the crowd Edit: fellas, this was just a passing thought during a good debate. It's a minor grevience. It doesn't take away from the debate entirely and it definitely doesn't warrant calling the audience dumb or "imbeciles".

This debate should have been held now, with covid-19 restrictions taking the audience away...

What a video. 😍The whole 2 hours were a tour de force.

These are so brilliant man

These sorts of discussions are so profound, that I can happily blame my procrastination on them

Jordan's answer to what a prayer being answered would look like reminds me of the time a Wiccan told me, "I have a great spell for getting a job: work on your resume, study your craft, dress well and show up early with the necessary paperwork, offer a strong handshake with good eye contact, and really listen to the interviewer."

you have 80-90 years in this universe put it to the best

There are simple truths, unfortunately when they are over complicated, everything becomes complicated!

The amount of applause after almost every statement really takes away from the discussion.

90's Quality Cameras, Constant Feedback Humming on the Background. That's the exclusive and high priced Pangbumm quality.

Wow. That introduction. It tells us exactly what this is about.

JP seems to hide behind verbally complex sentences and terms to avoid answering philosophical questions than need answering. I agree with a comment I read about JP's "word salads" (cracked me up, thanks!). The issues that are being discussed here are already complex, so they need more clarity, not more verbal overcomplication. We get it Jordan, you're smart and your vocabulary is amazing, but these issues have to be put as simply as possible, as a matter of fact they concern the majority of the World's population, not only intellectuals such as yourself.

I learned like 10 new words listening to this

Man this is the first time I saw JP actually getting excited talking to someone and challenged! Love to see

Listening to them just solidifies the meaning of yin and yang everything exist while nothing exist at the same time. Persoective is what brings everything to life through the "lens" of consciousness perciving itself as seperate from itself while still being connected through "notingness"

Would be interesting for them to have this discussion in 2023 with the events in Israel.

The audience seems to clap at the most anticlimactic of times, almost like they don't understand when someone has made a valid point. If it takes Jordan and Sam 5 seconds or so at least to think through what the other has said, I doubt everyone in the audience has figured out if what was said is correct almost instantly. I suspect they don't really understand what is being said, but just clap if it sounds like a good point is being made. It makes me cringe at some points.

This is fantastic. We are so lucky to be able to hear this type of higher level thinking discussed openly an made available on KZfaq. Long live long form dialogue via Podcasts, KZfaq, etc. The death of biased CNN and FoxNews is near and we will all become smarter as a result.

This is the greatest discussion I’ve ever heard.

So respect this discussion. I really wish Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins discussion could have been like this.

THIS is what an honest discussion looks like. Nobody falling back on bad faith arguments or trying to smear the other persons character. Honesty, integrity, compassion and respect.