Help a brainlet out /lit/

[Anonymous No.11425842]

What is the difference between "God tells me how to act" vs "my personal morals system tells me how to act".
>inb4 petersonbait thread
While I do agree that God is the personification of morals disocvered through evolution, I disagree with his "no true atheists" thing he seems to be repeating.
The function between morals and God seems to be identical. The difference must then be their nature? But what could it be? imo God has lasted through time so it is verified to work, unfortunately it must now adapt to the rapid technological/societal changes. But a personal moral system is how you get twisted sjw assumptions like: tolerance must obviously be good, why put any limits on it?And it could be said that the idea of God doesn't change as quickly as personal morals, but is the only difference time? I agree with picrelated but I need an answer to the first question.

[Anonymous No.11425847]

>>11425842
>twisted sjw assumptions
You're a true gentleman and scholar, my fellow Dr. Peterson follower.

[Anonymous No.11425854]

>>11425847
NEVER SHOULD HAVE COME HERE

[Anonymous No.11425862]

>>11425842
Peterson uses God very loosely here.
For him, science is about facts but morality is about evaluating those facts.
In a world of an infinite amount of facts, you still have to act which means you have to evaluate things between each others.
This task of evaluation requires a belief structure, which relies on the fundamental level on unprovable axioms reaching into the metaphysical.

Therefore acting out a belief structure is an act of faith because you are bound to be limited in your knowledge and your potency.

That's why he says "religion is what you act out". Acting out an axiomatic belief structure is similar to religious worship.

Finally, if you consistently act the same belief structure, the spirit resulting of this chain of actions is your God, or the resulting force of your highest value.

[Anonymous No.11425864]

>>11425847
>psst... nothing personnel kid... *teleports behind you*

[Anonymous No.11425871]

>>11425842
>God is a mode of being
yikes. we're in dire straits gentlemen.

[Anonymous No.11425874]

>>11425842
To go full pseud, dismiss it if you like, the gist of it is that this universe as it appears to us is incomplete; there's a point at the top we can't reach, because the top leads out. In this way God-as-morals is different from simply "morals", because morals are an evolutionary strategy contained within this universe and God-as-morals isn't.

A true atheist as Peterson is defining it is a nihilist, a shirker of all values. Most atheists retain some kind of value system, they just no longer root it in God; to theists, this is folly.

[Anonymous No.11425878]

>>11425842
>disocvered through evolution,
first only the humanist scholars and their plebeians followers in secular humanist universities care about evolution

anyway the difference is that humanists and other rationalists love to externalize, to objectify [meaning to create an object] their personal views to feel good about themselves and to believe that they realize their fantasy of objectivity, like when you say ''this orange tastes good'', instead of saying '' i like the taste of this orange'' [which is just better but still very bad], instead of saying ''there is a good taste (in the mouth) from this orange''.
Then the retards share their views and they claim that a consensus of views or believes. among a few humans is the truth. The most retarded retards goes deep in ther autism through the quanitzation or mathematization of their notions, concepts, ideas because according to them, numbers are objective and therefore a building blocks of a clear communication where ''''''''''''''''''''''''''feelings'''''''''''''''''''''''and '''''''''''''''''''''''''personal views''''''''''''''''''''''''' have no basis.

Of crouse, the truth has nothing to do with believes, faiths, views, opinions. Only rationalists cling to those things and only secular rationalists love to claim that the plebs must care about their fantasy of truth through consensus, consensus through '''''''''''''''''''''debate''''''''''''''''''''''''

[Anonymous No.11425895]

Problem is, God is a person who exists independently of the human personality or psyche, individual or collective. By reducing God down to his moral teachings or even morality itself, Peterson is violating those very moral teachings and rejecting morality by committing the sin of idolatry.

[Anonymous No.11425916]

>>11425878
Stop attracting more attention to this spiritually deficient intellectualoid ragdoll.

[Anonymous No.11425921]

>>11425895
Peterson isn't reducing anything, in fact he advocates preserving religion simply because he believes more teachings can be extracted from the religious stories. He is only articulating

[Anonymous No.11425925]

>>11425916
meant for op

[Anonymous No.11425933]

>>11425874
Why is God as morals different? What do you mean by not contained within this universe? Almost no one believes they can become God, including the religions involving rebirth. This is what I meant: just because you believe something is beyond the universe doesn't change the fact that you act like someone whose morals are purely an evolutionary strategy.

[Anonymous No.11425937]

>>11425925
>Spiritually deficient
How? Do you mean deficient in the spiritual element of Christianity?

[Anonymous No.11426007]

>>11425878
So let me get this straight
It would be better to say "there is a mutually beneficial result from this social interaction". In this case the consensus wouldn't be a few humans, but every human who has ever had mutually beneficial situations arise from acting according to religious doctrine. Certainly these values are not fantasies with their trakc record

[Anonymous No.11426114]

>The function between morals and God seems to be identical. The difference must then be their nature? But what could it be?
Read Kant's religion within the bounds of reason alone. A lot of it has to do with that.
The biggest difference between the two though are that the three major monotheistic religions don't just offer a moral system which one mostly feels intuitively anyway within a scriptural and/or institutional context to bring communities together or something. That's a pretty picture, but the reality is that the god of those three religions also rewards good behavior with the highest conceivable pleasure and punishes evil with the worst possible pain. So god not always, but typically isn't the mode of being you one values the most, but the one above us who decides what is most valuable and has absolute power to enforce it. Humans generally don't think of themselves as competent enough to decide what mode of being is most valuable, so they defer to their superiors. They either live in obedience or freely, and use god to deliberately not to be free.

[Anonymous No.11427118]

>>11425921
wow deep

[Anonymous No.11428157]

>>11425862
Good post

[Anonymous No.11429197]

>>11425862
sounds like secular trash

[Anonymous No.11430315]

>>11425864
more like

>psst... nothing personnel BUCKO... *teleports behind you*