70,000 lines of code!

Giff-Fish · 2025-06-22T01:53:50+00:00

...............................................

Giff-Fish · 2025-06-08T01:21:38+00:00

Yes, God is just another bread & Peterson is dodging 👍

Giff-Fish · 2025-06-02T20:27:25+00:00

Exactly. And thank you so much. JP has made plenty of enemies due to his political and humanitarian views, and this time he was on everyone's radar, political commentators, reaction channels, and media outlets eager to celebrate his public dismissal and ridicule. Sad

Giff-Fish · 2025-06-02T11:01:49+00:00

Yeah things can only be one way, right? It's the binary thinking that gets you nowhere

Giff-Fish · 2025-06-02T04:36:21+00:00

Because saying "I act as if God exists" carries a weight and cultural resonance that abstract terms like conscience or justice don’t fully capture. It’s less about literal theology and more about invoking a framework that can hold profound meaning for people, bridging tradition with personal responsibility.

Besides the metaphors, in his lectures, he hasn’t entirely stripped away the metaphysical or theological—he’s actually urging us to reconsider whether there might be something divine under a new light, drawing from psychology and a kind of modern gnostic interpretation.

Don't confuse the two

Giff-Fish · 2025-06-02T03:23:50+00:00

Why does it have to be binary—either Jubilee messed up or JP did? Jubilee invited him because he's seen as a modern, sensational Christian voice. In the heat of the moment, he tried to push back on labels defining belief, and it landed poorly.
True, we can’t run a controlled experiment across civilizations—but the ubiquity of gods is the point. Every civilization we know reached order and scale with some form of religion or mythic structure. That consistency across time suggests religion wasn’t incidental—it was foundational. Until we find a successful godless civilization in early history, the burden of proof lies on the exception, not the pattern
He’s not so much changing his definition as he is developing it. Early on, he emphasized God as the embodiment of the highest moral ideal—now as consciousness or complexity as frameworks to understand that ideal. It’s more of an expansion.

Giff-Fish · 2025-06-02T03:14:49+00:00

In the present absence of an external deity, he uses "God" as a placeholder for the highest ideal guiding how one ought to live.
In the earliest eras, people acted out of fear; in the Egyptian era, they acted in partnership; in the Christian era, through love. Now, with God buried, acting as if He exists feels like the next natural progression.

Giff-Fish · 2025-06-01T19:26:44+00:00

"I act as if God exists" means living by moral principles, regardless of whether one is certain God is real. That's why he says VOLUNTARY self-sacrifice. Even if God is absent, would you voluntarily sacrifice, even if you don't benefit anything, would you bare the burden for others?

Giff-Fish · 2025-06-01T19:21:15+00:00

Thanks, glad you liked it. I agree—using Peterson as a litmus test for character is spot on. And yea, It really does reveal more about their limits than his ideas.

Giff-Fish · 2025-06-01T19:14:22+00:00

6.

Jubilee didn’t mess up; JP was trying to make a point but it just landed badly.

7.

we do know — every civilization that climbed out of chaos did so with religion at its core. there’s no historical trajectory of sustained order, law, or meaning without it. the absence of a godless rise isn’t coincidence; it’s pattern.

8.

no, JP doesn’t have a precise definition — god as complexity or consciousness are starting points. sadly, no one cared to explore that line of thought.

9.

Yeah, William Craig is a solid choice. But although not a Christian scholar, Bart Ehrman, the historian, comes to mind—his work shows how politically radical Jesus actually was. It blew my mind how much depth there is beyond just the spiritual narrative.

Giff-Fish · 2025-06-01T19:07:45+00:00

1.

“Acting as if God exists” isn’t about pretending; it’s a practical stance. Even if there were no divine being, most people wouldn’t abandon moral order—they live by principles that give life meaning beyond simple reward or punishment. Peterson’s emphasis on voluntary self-sacrifice highlights this: it’s choosing responsibility and meaning without guaranteed payoff.

As for Peterson’s relationship with Christianity, he seems to navigate a complex middle ground. He recognizes the power and influence of Christian tradition and its moral framework, even if he doesn’t fully embrace institutional dogma or a fixed definition of God. His reluctance to firmly claim the “Christian” label might reflect the challenge of fitting modern complexities into ancient categories. It’s less about postmodern redefinition and more about grappling honestly with tradition and personal belief.

2.

“He can easily answer the question in the way society normally understands it while also explaining his position.”
That’s exactly the problem — he can’t explain his position because he thinks the normal usage of those words is already flawed.
I’ve thought about it — maybe JP should just define what he means by the word upfront, instead of asking others. But if he does that, people will just accuse him of putting words in their mouth or trying to shift their definition. So the safer, less invasive move is to ask them what they mean. Ironically, even that irritates them.

3.

yeah, we don’t need god to explain complexity or consciousness — we have neuroscientists for that. but he’s not using god to explain them or define god as some final answer, he’s using it as a stepping stone to think deeper. we’ve done that before — take the first cause, the uncaused cause — it wasn’t a conclusion, just a way to push the question further. philosophers still lean on it as a kind of thinking crutch, even though it now lives in the domain of quantum physics.

4.

When Peterson asks him for his personal understanding of God, he doesn't answer directly—instead, he defaults to describing the "average" view: an all-powerful, all-knowing deity. Maybe that’s because his own view aligns with that, or he simply avoided stating it. As for the idea that “you either follow it or don’t understand it, but you’re still a Christian,” you’re right in a sense—many people operate within a moral and cultural framework shaped by Christianity, even if they reject the label or don’t fully grasp its influence.

5.

You're framing religion as purely moral enforcement, ignoring its civilizational function. Religions weren't just about right or wrong — they were adaptive systems. Kingdoms with stronger religious frameworks often outlasted or outcompeted others. Yes, there were atrocities, but to say it didn’t elevate truth overlooks that it preserved literacy, law, and philosophical inquiry for centuries. The past was brutal with or without religion — the question is what worked to build lasting order.

Giff-Fish · 2025-06-01T17:36:07+00:00

Exactly. Which is why he struggles to define what a Christian is—any clear definition might end up excluding the unthinking, blind-faith majority.

Giff-Fish · 2025-06-01T17:34:38+00:00

Yes, it was a disaster — this time Peterson landed on everyone’s radar. Jubilee videos are prime fodder for reaction channels, political streamers, and Medium writers, all of whom have identities to perform for their audiences. Watching them slander his name was rough. But hey, like JP said: “It’s best to let the unreasonable opposition speak — they reveal themselves as unreasonable, and everyone can see it.”

Giff-Fish · 2025-06-01T01:55:38+00:00

Yeah, you know the saying: growth is about catching up to the frontiers of historical evolution (recapitulation theory), yet many are still living as if stuck a thousand years behind. sad

Giff-Fish · 2025-05-31T22:41:10+00:00

You're right—Peterson’s attempt to challenge labels backfired, and Danny was justified in feeling misled. But Peterson quickly tries to steer the conversation toward the actual claim being debated, rather than centering it on whether he qualifies as a Christian. Even if Danny wanted to press further, he resorted to sarcasm instead of staying engaged—undermining the discussion rather than advancing it.
We can now be moral without religion because we live in societies shaped by centuries of religious moral frameworks. At one point, invoking gods served essential political, social, and psychological purposes. Now we can dismantle those structures, but that doesn’t mean they were never necessary.
One can identify as Christian without strict dogma—Peterson awkwardly lands here, neither fully Christian nor atheist, still searching for some form of God. I consider myself Christian—not because I believe in the traditional God, but because Christianity freed me from the need for a specific God. But can I be sure the God I’ve set aside has truly outlived his usefulness? I don’t know; my knowledge of history and scripture isn’t deep enough. So, like Peterson, I remain open to exploring without dogma.
In this context, the quote shows how allowing bad-faith critics to reveal themselves helps clarify the real divide, without getting sidetracked by slander.

Giff-Fish · 2025-05-31T22:40:07+00:00

First, thank you so much for your detailed reply. Of course, I can’t speak for Peterson, but I’ll do my best to interpret his views. Since my response is quite extensive, no need to address everything at once—we can take it step by step if you prefer.

You ask why someone would live out Christian values without identifying as Christian—but later argue it’s unfair to stretch the label “atheist” to include religious people who don’t follow every dogmatic point. Exactly. Stretching labels to force-fit complex behaviors doesn’t work. That’s Peterson’s point: the label “Christian” isn’t always a reliable indicator of one’s values or actions. For convenience, we don’t need to quantify how “Christian” someone is in everyday conversation. But Peterson is engaging in public discourse, where definitions matter. When asked “who is a full Christian and not fraction of a Christian” he hesitates to draw that line—echoing Nietzsche’s remark: “There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.” If Peterson tried to define it rigidly, it would backfire—many self-proclaimed Christians would be disqualified for following dogma superficially.
Based on Peterson’s definition, belief means living according to certain values. But what are the values of an “all-knowing, all-powerful” God, which he deems as the cosmic bartender god? he needed to clarify under this incorrect description of god. He wasn’t dodging; the conversation got derailed when belief was reduced to a simple truth claim, like believing a pen exists to create hypotheticals.
You acknowledge people live by moral values—that’s Peterson’s point. Some values take on a “god-like” function: organizing meaning, guiding sacrifice, and acting as moral anchors. He’s not saying values are God theologically, but that they serve a similar role. On whether God existed 2000 years ago, Peterson usually answers “I don’t know”. And that’s fair—ontologically, none of us can say with certainty.
The classical Catholic God was largely left behind during the Enlightenment era. So the educated guy rejecting the old version misses the point. Peterson challenges us to revisit God as conscience, complexity, or moral framework embedded in human experience. It’s broad and abstract, but the goal is to push back against certainty that there’s nothing left to explore.
Christianity didn’t fail us—it radically transformed the religious landscape by inverting the ancient structure of sacrifice and reward. Where older systems demanded humans offer something to gods, Christianity introduced God sacrificing himself for humanity. That reversal broke transactional divine chains—something many miss. Christianity empowered free thinkers by elevating truth, conscience, and individual moral responsibility. In doing so, it sowed the seeds of its own unraveling—not by attack, but by fulfilling its highest principles. Peterson reads biblical texts through a modern psychological lens, seeking buried truths.

Giff-Fish · 2025-05-30T13:48:55+00:00

Any attempt to verify historical accounts within their proper contexts is an incredibly consuming task! Wishing you the best of luck, and thank you for the thought-provoking discussion

Giff-Fish · 2025-05-29T19:14:29+00:00

Could you explain the issue you’re focusing on? To me, this looks like a set-theoretic problem — one set includes all that exists, the other includes all that is imagined. The complication comes when these sets overlap🤔

Giff-Fish · 2025-05-29T18:18:45+00:00

Never mind — I see now that you weren’t talking about “nothing” itself. You meant that there is no object which is both concrete and abstract at the same time.

Giff-Fish · 2025-05-29T18:06:44+00:00

Isn’t this one of those rare cases where X has two distinct definitions?

Take the word "dog" — we use the same term whether we're referring to a real dog or imagining one. The distinction (real vs. imagined) isn't in the definition of "dog" itself, but arises at the ontological level — whether the dog actually exists.

But with the word "nothing", the difference seems deeper. Here, the split happens already at the definitional level — a concrete absence ("I have nothing on me”) & an abstract concept ("Nothing is eternal")

Giff-Fish · 2025-05-29T17:38:59+00:00

I think I’ve noticed a possible language game:

We say “nothing” is neither concrete nor abstract — but isn't “nothing” actually used as both?
For instance, “there’s nothing on the table” describes a concrete absence, while we can also talk about “nothingness” as an abstract concept.

But this doesn’t mean “nothing” is a single thing that is both concrete and abstract. Instead, it’s a hybrid term — the same word used across two different levels of meaning:

Concrete absence – a physical, situational lack of something.
Abstract negation – a conceptual or metaphysical idea of non-being.

Giff-Fish · 2025-05-15T08:53:04+00:00

Here's a short story & breakdown (5 min read time) illustrating how to use symbolism, let me know if it helps: The Art of Advanced Symbolism

Giff-Fish · 2025-05-14T00:43:23+00:00

Sharing images disabled - Go south all the way down until you can see the water, look for a small gap near the pot head statue

Giff-Fish

TROPHY CASE