Famous christian preacher and idol of many, Jordan Peterson, chickens away for the third time an interview/debate with Muslim speaker Muhammad Hijab

T

ThatDjangoWalk

Zephir
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Posts
1,776
Reputation
3,248
Jordan Peterson, idol and face of the right wing conservative christians in the west dissapoints many of his fans and followers by chickening away and cancelling a conversation with traditionalist muslim speaker Muhammad Hijab for the 3rd consecutive time. I ask "Is this your hero?"

My theory confirms, people like Peterson, or Ben Saphiro who in his case rejected cowardly debate proposals in the past and sent his media army to attack Muhammad Hijab can't debate with a traditionalist religious person, mainly because their public is right wing conservative who considers itself religious, but they are not that truly religious, they just denonimate themselves part of a religion like if it was a football team and they somehow think that judeochristianity is compatible with 21st century western morality in some key and big matters. Therefore, for someone like Peterson or Saphiro debating with someone who has true knowledge of scripture and religious history would mean that: 1-They either have to abandon their "pro 21st century morality public" who at the same time considers itself conservative and pro religious without having true knowledge of scripture, and who doesn't either know or support many Biblical rulings like death sentence for many acts like adultery, homosexuality, etc (The biggest chunk of their public, possibly around 75% to 90%).

Or 2-They adhere to the religious traditionalist view which is strictly scriptural and abandon the pro '21st century morality' narrative that their discourse contains, which would mean that they would lose a lot of popularity and they will be attacked by the mainstream media because, of, for example, fomenting directly things like the death sentence towards homosexuals, or the death sentence to a raped woman which is a biblical ruling, etc

There is a 3rd option: Mantaining their current discourse i.e Being pro 21st century morality but at the same time acting like they are pro judeochristian values. The result of taking this position would mean that they will, most definetly, not only be destroyed in a debate with a traditionalist religious person who is kinda a "rival", but also humilliated, since adhering to both "pro 21st century morality" and a traditionalist judeochristian view is highly inconsistent and impossible to sustain.

So what is the easy way? Chickening away from the debate, not giving a direct rival publicity and audience, not exposing themselves with that person, etc. Also, let us remind to everyone that many speakers like Saphiro and Peterson are usually financed by many Zionist lobbies (This is no secret by the way), and the idea that those speakers might conversate with a traditionalist muslim speakers might not appeal to those lobbies, since that would mean opening the door to their adherents to different causes and narratives which are against them and their interests, like, among many examples, the Palestinian cause.

 
  • +1
Reactions: FailedNormieManlet, ✿👍col, Uglybrazilian and 6 others
Jordan Peterson, idol and face of the right wing conservative christians in the west dissapoints many of his fans and followers by chickening away and cancelling a conversation with traditionalist muslim speaker Muhammad Hijab for the 3rd consecutive time. I ask "Is this your hero?"

My theory confirms, people like Peterson, or Ben Saphiro who in his case rejected cowardly debate proposals in the past and sent his media army to attack Muhammad Hijab can't debate with a traditionalist religious person, mainly because their public is right wing conservative who considers itself religious, but they are not that truly religious, they just denonimate themselves part of a religion like if it was a football team and they somehow think that judeochristianity is compatible with 21st century western morality in some key and big matters. Therefore, for someone like Peterson or Saphiro debating with someone who has true knowledge of scripture and religious history would mean that: 1-They either have to abandon their "pro 21st century morality public" who at the same time considers itself conservative and pro religious without having true knowledge of scripture, and who doesn't either know or support many Biblical rulings like death sentence for many acts like adultery, homosexuality, etc (The biggest chunk of their public, possibly around 75% to 90%).

Or 2-They adhere to the religious traditionalist view which is strictly scriptural and abandon the pro '21st century morality' narrative that their discourse contains, which would mean that they would lose a lot of popularity and they will be attacked by the mainstream media because, of, for example, fomenting directly things like the death sentence towards homosexuals, or the death sentence to a raped woman which is a biblical ruling, etc

There is a 3rd option: Mantaining their current discourse i.e Being pro 21st century morality but at the same time acting like they are pro judeochristian values. The result of taking this position would mean that they will, most definetly, not only be destroyed in a debate with a traditionalist religious person who is kinda a "rival", but also humilliated, since adhering to both "pro 21st century morality" and a traditionalist judeochristian view is highly inconsistent and impossible to sustain.

So what is the easy way? Chickening away from the debate, not giving a direct rival publicity and audience, not exposing themselves with that person, etc. Also, let us remind to everyone that many speakers like Saphiro and Peterson are usually financed by many Zionist lobbies (This is no secret by the way), and the idea that those speakers might conversate with a traditionalist muslim speakers might not appeal to those lobbies, since that would mean opening the door to their adherents to different causes and narratives which are against them and their interests, like, among many examples, the Palestinian cause.


Nigga. You never got taugt to write proper sentences with . In the end? Noone’s ks gonna read that bs text of yours
 
  • +1
Reactions: RealLooksmaxxer
Nigga. You never got taugt to write proper sentences with . In the end? Noone’s ks gonna read that bs text of yours
Don't let that distract you from the fact that you readed my text and even gave me advise to improve it gramatically.
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: FailedNormieManlet, Gengar and Shrek2OnDvD
I used to watch religious debate videos extensively... the most common theme I could remember was that christian scholars would almost always get btfo by muslim scholars, and ex-muslim vs muslim was a 50/50 split depending on who got mad first :lul:
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: animo123, turkproducer, Gengar and 2 others
I used to watch religious debate videos extensively... the most common theme I could remember was that christian scholars would almost always get btfo by muslim scholars, and ex-muslim vs muslim was a 50/50 split depending on who got mad first :lul:
Christians are way smarter than exmoozies tbh. Exmoozies are a bunch of liberal leftist degenerates using useless moral arguments (remember: they make no sense under atheism) to attack Abrahamic religion.
 
  • +1
Reactions: animo123, Gengar, Lmao and 1 other person
I used to watch religious debate videos extensively... the most common theme I could remember was that christian scholars would almost always get btfo by muslim scholars, and ex-muslim vs muslim was a 50/50 split depending on who got mad first :lul:
Watch this thread i made some time ago, i saw it very befitting for this forum.
Christians are way smarter than exmoozies tbh. Exmoozies are a bunch of liberal leftist degenerates using useless moral arguments (remember: they make no sense under atheism) to attack Abrahamic religion.
Here the last debate, it was a few hours ago.


For debates i recommend this channel
 
  • +1
  • Woah
Reactions: Gengar, Shrek2OnDvD, Deleted member 7098 and 2 others
I used to watch religious debate videos extensively... the most common theme I could remember was that christian scholars would almost always get btfo by muslim scholars, and ex-muslim vs muslim was a 50/50 split depending on who got mad first :lul:
i watched them to have a comeback for non-believers challenging my belief until i somehow turned out basically atheist at the end, LARPing as muslim when I'm home visiting parents :dafuckfeels:
 
  • JFL
Reactions: sytyl
Mohamed hijab is a bitch
Hqdefault
 
  • +1
Reactions: n0rthface
Jordan Peterson, idol and face of the right wing conservative christians in the west dissapoints many of his fans and followers by chickening away and cancelling a conversation with traditionalist muslim speaker Muhammad Hijab for the 3rd consecutive time. I ask "Is this your hero?"

My theory confirms, people like Peterson, or Ben Saphiro who in his case rejected cowardly debate proposals in the past and sent his media army to attack Muhammad Hijab can't debate with a traditionalist religious person, mainly because their public is right wing conservative who considers itself religious, but they are not that truly religious, they just denonimate themselves part of a religion like if it was a football team and they somehow think that judeochristianity is compatible with 21st century western morality in some key and big matters. Therefore, for someone like Peterson or Saphiro debating with someone who has true knowledge of scripture and religious history would mean that: 1-They either have to abandon their "pro 21st century morality public" who at the same time considers itself conservative and pro religious without having true knowledge of scripture, and who doesn't either know or support many Biblical rulings like death sentence for many acts like adultery, homosexuality, etc (The biggest chunk of their public, possibly around 75% to 90%).

Or 2-They adhere to the religious traditionalist view which is strictly scriptural and abandon the pro '21st century morality' narrative that their discourse contains, which would mean that they would lose a lot of popularity and they will be attacked by the mainstream media because, of, for example, fomenting directly things like the death sentence towards homosexuals, or the death sentence to a raped woman which is a biblical ruling, etc

There is a 3rd option: Mantaining their current discourse i.e Being pro 21st century morality but at the same time acting like they are pro judeochristian values. The result of taking this position would mean that they will, most definetly, not only be destroyed in a debate with a traditionalist religious person who is kinda a "rival", but also humilliated, since adhering to both "pro 21st century morality" and a traditionalist judeochristian view is highly inconsistent and impossible to sustain.

So what is the easy way? Chickening away from the debate, not giving a direct rival publicity and audience, not exposing themselves with that person, etc. Also, let us remind to everyone that many speakers like Saphiro and Peterson are usually financed by many Zionist lobbies (This is no secret by the way), and the idea that those speakers might conversate with a traditionalist muslim speakers might not appeal to those lobbies, since that would mean opening the door to their adherents to different causes and narratives which are against them and their interests, like, among many examples, the Palestinian cause.

Don't let that distract you from the fact that you readed my text and even gave me advise to improve it gramatically.
No. I stopped reading afte the first sentence and gave up. You really have no clue how to write a readable text
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 15899
i watched them to have a comeback for non-believers challenging my belief until i somehow turned out basically atheist at the end, LARPing as muslim when I'm home visiting parents :dafuckfeels:
I don't like to confess my sins since it's haram and it leads to normalizing the degeneration of society, but my case is almost the contrary.

Learned a lot about religion, atheism, philosophy of morals, theories of the universe, etc etc and decided to become a lot more practicing. Go to Jumuah prayer, step by step Insha Allah, anything ask me on PM.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Albeacho and Deleted member 7098
Bro i think haqiqatju Daniel is a hypocrite he talks about sharia this sharia that but lives comfortably in USA with all the human rights
 
  • +1
Reactions: Enfant terrible
Peterson isn't Christian lol. He's not even religious. He believes that the mythology in Christian texts can provide a framework with which to conduct yourself in the world. He denounces dogma and literal interpretation of religious texts.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Gengar
Peterson isn't Christian lol. He's not even religious. He believes that the mythology in Christian texts can provide a framework with which to conduct yourself in the world. He denounces dogma and literal interpretation of religious texts.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 15899 and Gengar
Peterson isn't Christian lol. He's not even religious. He believes that the mythology in Christian texts can provide a framework with which to conduct yourself in the world. He denounces dogma and literal interpretation of religious texts.
 
Islam hates me because I'm white
 
  • +1
Reactions: HowAmIAlive123
Peterson isn't Christian lol. He's not even religious. He believes that the mythology in Christian texts can provide a framework with which to conduct yourself in the world. He denounces dogma and literal interpretation of religious texts.
He is very inconsistent. When asked if he was a christian he said: "I suppose the most straight forward answer to that is yes".

He has given too many contradictory answers in regards to his views, once he also said that he didn't believe in God but he was afraid if he existed, other times the contrary, etc etc

Anyways, that's why i don't (usually, not always) call people by what they define themselves, it's like that apache helicopter joke, the person might feel like an apache helicopter but he isn't necessarily an apache helicopter.
 
Last edited:
Niggas like Shapiro and Peterson often have 0 knowledge about the things they criticize, they may speak ill of Islam but pretty much any muslim scholar would destroy them in a debate because they have no clue on islamic intelectual tradition or scriptures.
 
  • +1
Reactions: HowAmIAlive123 and ThatDjangoWalk
Niggas like Shapiro and Peterson often have 0 knowledge about the things they criticize, they may speak ill of Islam but pretty much any muslim scholar would destroy them in a debate because they have no clue on islamic intelectual tradition or scriptures.
>a Marxist
>simping for Islam

JFL
 
  • Hmm...
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Uglybrazilian, HowAmIAlive123 and Deleted member 15899
Jordan Peterson chickens away from literally who?

Maybe he jus doesn’t want to give cloat to some inbred terrorist
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 15899
Why would he do a debate with a muslim when he hasn't done one with a jew or christian. This post makes no sense
 
  • +1
Reactions: n0rthface
>a Marxist
>simping for Islam

JFL
Islam just like Christianity(and many other religions, such as hinduism, buddhism etc) has a deep, profound intelectual tradition and history that deserves respect. I do not respect only materialist philosophies. Marx himself was influenced by many idealists such as Hegel.

Peterson is very fond of criticizing things he knows little about, remember he has become famous for being a giga anti-marxist but on his debate against zizek he admitted he had never read Das Kapital or any book written by Marx. I cant respect such an "intelectual". I wouldnt be surprised if he is giga anti-islam and yet never read a word of the Quran.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 16384
Islam just like Christianity(and many other religions, such as hinduism, buddhism etc) has a deep, profound intelectual tradition and history that deserves respect. I do not respect only materialist philosophies. Marx himself was influenced by many idealists such as Hegel.

Peterson is very fond of criticizing things he knows little about, remember he has become famous for being a giga anti-marxist but on his debate against zizek he admitted he had never read Das Kapital or any book written by Marx. I cant respect such an "intelectual". I wouldnt be surprised if he is giga anti-islam and yet never read a word of the Quran.
Religion will not exist in your Marxist “utopia” correct?

Marx himself said religion was opium for the masses, meaning they use religion to heal their suffering, which is apparently caused by the “elite”.

in real life, Marxists have been very negative towards religion, the Bolsheviks looted and burned churches, the Chinese destroyed Buddhist temples and the atheist regime in Afghanistan attacked mosques.


I’m not defending Peterson btw, I dislike him.
I don’t support his cucked views.
 
Religion will not exist in your Marxist “utopia” correct?

Marx himself said religion was opium for the masses, meaning they use religion to heal their suffering, which is apparently caused by the “elite”.

in real life, Marxists have been very negative towards religion, the Bolsheviks looted and burned churches, the Chinese destroyed Buddhist temples and the atheist regime in Afghanistan attacked mosques.


I’m not defending Peterson btw, I dislike him.
I don’t support his cucked views.
Marx was a materialist so he did not believe in God or Religion, rather he used to see religion as a regular phenomenon caused by material conditions. However, its important to say that Marx has never advocated for violent persecution against religions or a religion ban. He believed religion would simply decrease as material conditions got better(which is supported by empirical research). Communist persecutions against religions were mostly politically motivated, since the church and religions in general all tended to side with reactionary forces.
 
  • Woah
Reactions: n0rthface
Marx was a materialist so he did not believe in God or Religion, rather he used to see religion as a regular phenomenon caused by material conditions. However, its important to say that Marx has never advocated for violent persecution against religions or a religion ban. He believed religion would simply decrease as material conditions got better(which is supported by empirical research). Communist persecutions against religions were mostly politically motivated, since the church and religions in general all tended to side with reactionary forces.
I don’t agree with marxs.
Kuwait, Saudi Arab and UAE are very well off economically yet they are still deeply religious.

Liberal capitalism makes people become materialistic consumers, not the materiali conditions themselves.
 
death sentence to a raped woman
 
death sentence to a raped woman
:lul:
 
Islam just like Christianity(and many other religions, such as hinduism, buddhism etc) has a deep, profound intelectual tradition and history that deserves respect. I do not respect only materialist philosophies. Marx himself was influenced by many idealists such as Hegel.

Peterson is very fond of criticizing things he knows little about, remember he has become famous for being a giga anti-marxist but on his debate against zizek he admitted he had never read Das Kapital or any book written by Marx. I cant respect such an "intelectual". I wouldnt be surprised if he is giga anti-islam and yet never read a word of the Quran.

But you support communism. Marx was influenced by Hegel but he only used the method of hegel, the dialectical method ( theis, antithesis and synthesis ). The content of Marxism is based on materialism instead of idealism. Marxism is based on dialectic materialism, I don't see how you can be a marxists communist and not respect materialism.
 
But you support communism. Marx was influenced by Hegel but he only used the method of hegel, the dialectical method ( theis, antithesis and synthesis ). The content of Marxism is based on materialism instead of idealism. Marxism is based on dialectic materialism, I don't see how you can be a marxists communist and not respect materialism.
I do respect materialism, Im a materialist myself. But the big religions such as Islam and Christianity have long intelectual traditions, Peterson talks shit about things he knows little about. He does not shows any respect towards things he doesnt even knows if are wrong or right. As I said, I wouldnt be surprised if he is giga anti-islam and still never read a word of the Quran just like he used to do with Marxism. Thats not a posture you would expect from a honest man.
 
But you support communism. Marx was influenced by Hegel but he only used the method of hegel, the dialectical method ( theis, antithesis and synthesis ). The content of Marxism is based on materialism instead of idealism. Marxism is based on dialectic materialism, I don't see how you can be a marxists communist and not respect materialism.
I do respect materialism, Im a materialist myself. But the big religions such as Islam and Christianity have long intelectual traditions, Peterson talks shit about things he knows little about. He does not shows any respect towards things he doesnt even knows if are wrong or right. As I said, I wouldnt be surprised if he is giga anti-islam and still never read a word of the Quran just like he used to do with Marxism. Thats not a posture you would expect from a honest man.
 
  • Love it
Reactions: Deleted member 16384
I do respect materialism, Im a materialist myself. But the big religions such as Islam and Christianity have long intelectual traditions, Peterson talks shit about things he knows little about. He does not shows any respect towards things he doesnt even knows if are wrong or right. As I said, I wouldnt be surprised if he is giga anti-islam and still never read a word of the Quran just like he used to do with Marxism. Thats not a posture you would expect from a honest man.

Ngl I respect you for not being arrogant and respecting religion and recognizing its important role in history and society. Peterson isn't trained in philosophy, he is a half arsed jack of all trades, master of none. His field of qualification is psychology. I have the same opinion as you, his understanding of philosophy is really simplistic. He is just a symptom of a big disease ( popular philosophy )
 
  • +1
Reactions: Uglybrazilian
Islam a mental illness
 
Ngl I respect you for not being arrogant and respecting religion and recognizing its important role in history and society. Peterson isn't trained in philosophy, he is a half arsed jack of all trades, master of none. His field of qualification is psychology. I have the same opinion as you, his understanding of philosophy is really simplistic. He is just a symptom a disease ( popular philosophy )
He is a good psychologist and it is easy to see that. He knows how to ask questions and when to ask them, that is his speciality.

But as @Uglybrazilian said, he is (or was, Allah Knows Best his current way) very ignorant in certain matters and holds a very inconsistent criteria to criticize other positions.

And yeah, @Uglybrazilian is more decent than the average user, Brazilians remind me a lot to North Africans, we share a lot of traits. @Beetlejuice is also Brazilian i think. For some reason they are more good people than 99% of this forum and tend to be respectful towards Islam.

Anyways, the Muhammad Hijab and Peterson talk took place some weeks ago and became quite popular


Something must have happened with Peterson life because you can see him more emotional.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Uglybrazilian, Beetlejuice and Deleted member 16384
He is a good psychologist and it is easy to see that. He knows how to ask questions and when to ask them, that is his speciality.

But as @Uglybrazilian said, he is (or was, Allah Knows Best his current way) very ignorant in certain matters and holds a very inconsistent criteria to criticize other positions.

And yeah, @Uglybrazilian is more decent than the average user, Brazilians remind me a lot to North Africans, we share a lot of traits. @Beetlejuice is also Brazilian i think. For some reason they are more good people than 99% of this forum and tend to be respectful towards Islam.

Anyways, the Muhammad Hijab and Peterson talk took place some weeks ago and became quite popular


Something must have happened with Peterson life because you can see him more emotional.


He was depressed, he has some mental health issues and is probably still undergoing treatment. He has family problems as well. A heavy burden indeed. I haven't seen Hijab interview with him but from what l heard of it, it went really well and Peterson was respectful

But l generally stay away from popular philosophy etc.
 

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top