Jordan Peterson shared my article on Twitter! Check it out by clicking on the screenshot. Let me know what you think.
trying on a metaphor

⣠Chile in a Photography âŁ
One Nice Bug Per Day

JBB: An Artblog!
Sweet Seals For You, Always

â
wallacepolsom

@theartofmadeline
đŞź

Origami Around
Cosmic Funnies
styofa doing anything

TVSTRANGERTHINGS
AnasAbdin
todays bird

Kiana Khansmith

if i look back, i am lost

çĽćĽ / Permanent Vacation

seen from Australia
seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Sweden

seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from India
seen from United States

seen from TĂźrkiye

seen from United States

seen from Czechia

seen from Sweden
seen from Belgium

seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from Brazil
@modestproposals
Jordan Peterson shared my article on Twitter! Check it out by clicking on the screenshot. Let me know what you think.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
New at the Website: http://reasonrevolution.org/secularism-quotes/jordan-peterson-meme-3/
Jordan Peterson Meme
âPeterson sets the religious symbols of myth within Darwinian evolution, thereby laying the groundwork for a unifying theory of science and religion. The main contribution of this theory is that it enables us to abstract the functional significance of religious myths, and, thereby,âŚ
From my 10,000 word introduction to Jordan Peterson. @jordanpetersonquotes
New at the Website: http://reasonrevolution.org/introduction-to-jordan-peterson/
Why Tell the Truth: On the Curious Notions of Jordan B. Peterson
âAs a thinker, he sits firmly within the philosophical traditions spurred by Nietzsche, William James, and Jung. And as an influence, heâs a cultural force that we will not soon forget. Why tell the truth in our age of group-think and Twitter epigrams? Well, itâs our only hope for survival, and the only way for the hero, who speaks a freeing word that organizes chaos into novel order, to emerge.â
A 10,000 word article I wrote introducing the ideas of Jordan Peterson.
NEW EDITION OF CHRISTIANITY NOW
We have a new and improved website and new articles this month!
Our featured article is by Ben Garrettâ on cycles of violence in culture and how we organize church contributes to these cycles: http://christianity-now.com/the-devil-in-the-mirror/
We have a new type of article: the Long-form! These articles are more rigorous and in-depth. They extend over the 1,500 word maximum for typical articles to up to 20,000 words. The first article in this series is by Tylor Lovinsâ on the truth conditions of theological statements: http://christianity-now.com/might-silence-word-truth-conditions-theological-statements/
And last, but not least, Jacob Vangeestâ has written a very accessible and interesting introduction to Paul Virilioâs Christianity: http://christianity-now.com/introduction-paul-virilios-christianity/
Check out our articles on http://christianity-now.com for the latest! Weâll have new articles in January! #christianity

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
A modern philosopher who has never experienced the feeling of being a charlatan is such a shallow mind that his work is probably not worth reading.
Leszek Kolakowski, Metaphysical Horror
The best secularism, in my estimation, is the one that takes into account and integrates the best of all human thought, no matter where it may be found.
I wrote an article for Reason Revolution on recapturing the human element in the rationalist tradition.
The best secularism, in my estimation, is the one that takes into account and integrates the best of all human thought, no matter where it may be found.
That philosophers have championed either emotion or cognition for explaining the origins of beliefs is a mundane fact. That either of these two, apart from the other, determines belief by itself is an assumption, however. Perhaps the most useful way to conceive of belief-forming acts is in a confluence between emotion and cognition, between passion and reason, into a unified element called âmotivational state.â
When I teach theology classes, I often start with an exercise about various levels of theological disagreement. 1). âThis theological view is not mine, but Iâm glad itâs on the landscape to add variety and to challenge me.â - For me this includes process theology, narrative/postliberal theologies, etc. 2). âThis theological view is not mine, but itâs harmless enough that Iâm willing to let it slide without challenge.â - Non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy fits this slot for me. 3). âThis theological view is not mine, and itâs problematic enough to where Iâm going to devote my efforts to providing a better alternative in my own work.â - Denials of the Trinity are here for me, as is biblical literalism. 4). âThis theological view is so problematic that I think that itâs bad for humanity that anyone holds it, and adherents should be actively discouraged from believing it.â - Theologies that view the earth as ultimately disposable to Godâs plan of redemption are here for me, and of course any hate-based theology such as Westboro Baptist. I then ask them to provide an example of a theological statement (not a school or formal notion, unless they know some already) that fits into each category for them. Itâs a helpful exercise.
Robert Saler (via locusimperium)
Dictatorships and totalitarian states, and belief in the inevitability of this or that result coming to pass are, strange as it may sound, ways of denying the reality of time and the creativeness of the individual.
John Dewey, âTime and Individualityâ, The Later Works, vol 14 (via philosophybits)

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Kneeling, the flag, and the debate
I'm not sure what to think about all the Facebook and social media discussions surrounding the national anthem/kneeling issue. It seems like, for the most part, everyone is just talking past each other. I have two questions I'd like to ask people that asserted/defended the kneeling protest:
(1) If you think sitting or kneeling during the national anthem in protest against police brutality or Trumpian politics is what the NFL players are doing, whether you think they are right or wrong to do this, what are you trying to do when you assert this position over somebody who thinks sitting or kneeling is offensive or disrespectful to the military or the flag? Are you trying to control a narrative, win a political battle, assert the truth, stand up for people, or what? This part in particular makes it look like people are not genuinely interested in discussion with each other, just in creating or joining echo chambers.
(2) Why would it be useful to use a document to define what "respect" for the flag means that nobody referenced beforehand to make their minds up about what "respect" for the flag means? (See "US Flag Code" arguments). Are you trying to define what "respect" means in a way that is different from and nullifies the associations people have of what "respect" for the flag means? Are you trying to say that people who hold a different kind of "respect" for the flag are wrong or misguided about their kind of respect if they don't take the Flag Code into account? If either, you still aren't engaging in dialogue, you're simply redefining terms.Â
Although I am glad so many players participated in the protest, and I appreciate and agree with the points of the protests, I stayed out of discussions because they seemed counterproductive and disingenuous.Â
The only freedom that is of enduring importance is the freedom of intelligence, that is to say, freedom of observation and of judgment, exercised in behalf of purposes that are intrinsically worthwhile. The commonest mistake made about freedom is, I think, to identify it with freedom of movement, or, with the external or physical side of activity.
John Dewey, Experience and Education (via philosophybits)
It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus, Neither Victims Nor Executioners (via philosophybits)
A follow-up to âHow the Rise of Identity Politics Indicates the Decline of Religionâ
About three weeks ago, I wrote a polemical against identity politics, situating it in the philosophical movement of nihilism. (You can find that here: http://christianity-now.com/how-the-rise-of-identity-politâŚ/ )
Yesterday, I finally put my follow-up article on Medium. In an attempt to be more objective, I try to give a brief overview of identity politics and where I see it lacking: https://medium.com/âŚ/a-brief-overview-of-identity-politics-âŚ
Recently I've been thinking about the profusion of inspirational and pseudo-profound quotes on the internet.Â
In a society where relationships to people, things, and ideas are established by a cynical distance from them - as kind of irony, where authenticity to the moment is established by a distance from it - inspirational and pseudo-profound language enable the clear-conscienced perpetuation of the status quo, because the abstract and commodified language(^1) reassures that as long as you believe in your heart that the modern world is lethal, unsustainable, and disingenuous, you may continue on as a fractured self, unable to take responsibility for or give an account of the portion of the world you've helped create. The good person remains a spectator, to both the life that might be lived, if only taken up for a moment, and the world that devours. ^1. Language as a museum of art - entirely and irreversibly separated from the forms of life in which they arose, beliefs are hung up on the white walls of sanitized space paid for by subsidies from a system that operates on inequality and exploitation.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
The new episode of Reason Revolution is available on SoundCloud, iTunes, and YouTube! Itâs my conversation with @christianitynowtodayâs @tylorlovins.
Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/reasonrevolution
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1249583097
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/thedailyclark
Check out the new Reason Revolution blog. All episodes and additional content are available there: www.reasonrevolution.wordpress.com.
#reasonrevolution #reason #atheist #atheism #news #politics #podcast #podcasts #podcasting #religion #agnostic #agnosticism #humanism #humanist #skeptic #skepticism #secularism #secularist #pennjillette
I was recently on Justin Clarkâs podcast Reason Revolution. Check out our discussion!
We should be wary of identity politics to place value in the attainment of group traits, where belonging to a group bestows epistemic or moral superiority.
In the lengthiest article weâve published, Tylor attempts to give an account of the recent spate of campus protests that have resorted to violence and the no platforming of speakers.
âWe may have all the abstract and technological prowess in the universe, but if we lack soul, weâll lose the spark of divinity, and perhaps ourselves. Religious conceptions just might be the key to resolving the disparities between groups and individuals while safeguarding the distinction between the two.â
Iâm only reblogging this because I just posted a long explanation for why New Atheists like Richard Dawkins decry âidentity politicsâ and blame âidentity politicsâ for Charlottesville. And here we have someone on the opposite side doing THE EXACT SAME THING.
If youâre still using âidentity politicsâ unironically, omg, please stop. It doesnât mean anything sociologically real. You might as well substitute a word like âshenanigansâ for it and your argument would be exactly the same.
Thanks for the comment! This article was actually written a month before Charlottesville, and the author doesnât believe identity politics was the cause of the violence there, nor does the author believe identity politics is the ground of white nationalism, supremacy, or that white supremacy is somehow playing the same game as BLM. This has nothing to do with Charlottesville.
Youâre welcome, and thanks for clearing that up, but I think the piece still has everything to do with Charlottesville. If the author has changed his mind after Charlottesville, great, but just look at this passage:
And it is no accident violent protests at universities against free speech, and no-platforming against scientists and conservative speakers, have become commonplace, for the social sciences have told us we can change anything when we work together. The question remains whether by sheer willpower we can change the the realities science reveals in its methods. Although some higher education institutions are stepping up to the challenges these recent developments pose, others have capitulated. It appears even Google has deferred to the ideological order when challenged with scientific viewpoints.[4] Why? Listen to any of the multitude of protests, conducted by so called âSocial Justice Warriors,â[5] filmed and uploaded on YouTube typically by the protestors themselves.[6] Youâll find a harrowing reality, where no evidence is given for assertions, virtue-signalling is the only virtue, and logic and reason are received from opposing parties as weapons of violence. In fact, speech itself is understood as violence.[7] This is a strange new world, yet hardly brave. We should be wary of the attempts of identity politics to place our value as persons in the attainment of group traits, in the assertion that mere belonging to a group bestows epistemic or moral superiority. We should be wary, that is to say, of any wisdom we havenât earned.
This is the same kind of nonsense that leads to the âboth sides are at faultâ cowardice that excuses Nazis. The alt righters who marched through UVA screaming âJews will not replace usâ believed the same thing: that they were defending âfree speechâ (another word just as meaningless as âidentity politicsâ and âpolitical correctness.â)Â
I appreciate the civil tone of your response but that article is still smug, stupid, wrong, hypocritical, and also deeply offensive to my own religion, Buddhism, as well as to most other non-Christian religions. Every time the writer uses the word âreligionâ he should have used âmy own brand of white sorta-liberal-but-not-progressive Christianityâ because most of the ways he characterizes âreligionâ are completely false. Like thisââWhen we forget religion, will we lose our souls?ââBUDDHISM EXPLICITLY REJECTS THE CONCEPT OF A SOUL. These are gross, ignorant, manipulative generalizations and as a religious person I NEVER want the author speaking for me.
Hello @solacekames , thanks for your engagement with my ideas!
I donât think my line of reasoning necessitates what you have said it does: I think Iâve got a reasonable analysis, and I hold my analysis as at least partially correct (where I am incorrect I would be very happy to find out how) and I donât believe what the Alt-Right or Neo Nazis do. I think Neo Nazis are despicable and should be shamed and pushed out of the public sphere. Their ideology has no place in the modern world. I am deeply committed to life, liberty, equality, justice, and the pursuit of happiness for all. No group that opposes these ideals have a legitimate political claim in our society.
I can see how my passage could be mistaken, especially after what has happened in Charlottesville. But my piece is only about the protestors on college campuses, as I say and give links for. I admit, the voice is polemical, but I certainly didnât mean it to be condescending. I think sometimes polemics is a good thing, however, to construct a singular view on an issue.Â
And for your point about âreligionâ and my overgeneralization, I thought I made it clear why I used the word âreligionâ in my footnote:
Thanks for your honest opinions and I appreciate your concerns here, I really do. As a liberal myself I donât want to delegitimize the genuinely good and just movements of feminism, Black Lives Matter, and the like. I am simply trying to honestly analyze what is happening on college campuses and offer my perspective on how things got this way.Â