There is no rational reason to believe there is a soul. Phineas Gage and numerous other cases and all brain studies have shown that there is a physical explanation for all brain activities, including personalities, emotions, etc.

Meaning is something we choose to give to our lives. You can foist it off on an imaginary god or jesus, but I prefer to use a rational understanding of the world to find my meaning.

We aren't on different planes. One of us is choosing to base beliefs upon poorly supported or clearly non-existent myths, and the other on things we can rationally know and understand.

If you can't read that and clearly understand how delusional Peterson is from it, you aren't paying attention.

He's a pyschologist playing with poorly defined terms and poorly supported science to mix a word salad devoid of meaning.

Again, this is a filter. Until you consciously choose to value meaning over rational truth, then you will be stuck.

There is no going around it. You either value meaning highest and pass through the filter or you stay stuck.

To tie this thread together with the OP, asking the father for his spirit is the same as valuing meaning above all because it’s through meaning that the HS communicates with you. To choose meaning is to choose the HS.

Tranquility attained through the conscious decision to take on worldly suffering.

Irrational yet true. How? Because you’re being upgraded at the ontological level by unifying with a higher being / version of self.

I don't know how to put this simpler if you ask the Father for his spirit he will give it to you.

But does this require a genuine desire for it? I tend to think so. It can't be half-hearted.

Nope. You have no reasonable evidence for your claims, just the same junk Muslims and a thousand other religions claim.

So u believe the truth isn’t (or shouldn’t) be link by a common reality we live through all together ?
Hence the needed “universal truth” to be real for everyone and accept laws , facts and moral based on a basis that everyone sees equally ?

No wonder religions wars happened …
Can’t even agree on what is real and true .
We don’t live on a different plane we actually accept the “highest” truth is (should) be on the common plane of existence that everyone lives on ….

Not if morality is based on survival of the species .
And when n u do you realize many religious morals , ethics and atheist morality end up the same based on that .

But we don't all live together in a common reality. That is not possible. If you're talking about objective reality (the world, basically), then yeah, we all have that in common. If you're talking about us as individual beings, then we don't share a common reality because we have different experiences, values, goals, etc. This is true even if you take religion out of the equation. Atheists aren't some hive mind that all share the same beliefs about morals or politics or much of anything else for that matter.

A small percentage of wars throughout history were motivated by religion. Of course religion can be bent and used for evil purposes, but the kind of dogma and mob mentality you detest in religion exists within secular populations just as easily.

The problem of having meaning from irrationality is the irrationality itself .
Especially when u live in a tangible rational world .

Life requires adaptation.

Which is why I asked Zeno for a permaban. Hopefully it goes through; been spending way too much time online these past few weeks, but it was nice knowing ya.

Likewise

He gives his spirit liberally to anyone who asks, I don't know what else to say. You might be turning down eternal life by not asking.

I hear the same thing from Muslims, Hindus, etc. And the opposite from legions of former Christians who prayed for years and cried out for God to give them a sign only to get <crickets>

And you might be turning down eternal life by not worshipping Allah.

I'm willing to engage with you on this if you could be more specific.

What are these poorly defined terms?

Name one thing in that quote that indicates he's delusional.

Why is it word salad and/or devoid of meaning? (The response was intelligible and thoughtful, even if you disagree with him or he's wrong on some points.)

He makes a few scientific references (and his theories are well-supported):

1) Religious language has developed as a consequence of evolutionary processes.

2) The right hemisphere looks like it's responsible for processing the unknown and the left hemisphere for processing the known.

3) The instinct of meaning appears to be grounded in the orienting reflex.

Nope. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time.

We don’t process the unknown or the known. The brain reacts to stimuli, whether familiar (similar to previous stimuli) or unfamiliar.

Pure speculation and pop psychology.

The claim wasn't that religious language is evolution.

The second sentence is essentially what he expressed in the quote. Otherwise, from an AI overview...

The orienting reflex is an involuntary shift of attention that allows us to evaluate the meaning and significance of a stimulus, and decide if we need to act on it. Both novelty and significance of a stimulation are implicated in the generation of an orienting response. Specifically, the emotional significance of a stimulus, defined by its level of pleasantness, can affect the intensity of the orienting response toward focusing attention on a subject. When our attention is drawn to something new or important ("novelty and significance"), we exhibit an "orienting response," which is a natural reaction to focus on that stimulus.

Do you see why this could be thought to be associated with the discovery of meaning and one's drive to purse it? It's a theory (not "pure speculation"), and he was careful to offer it as an opinion. He made a case for it in Maps of Meaning.

I'm going to leave it there.

Engaging the desire for meaning is what connects you to your higher purpose, what connects you to Christ. In order to more deeply engage the desire for meaning, you have to go deeper into desire in general. This is what it means to be tempted by the devil on the journey to heaven. Fascinating.

I’m not dodging you. These are good points, and I think you’ve shown I need to spend more time reading him and thinking about what you wrote before I respond. But I’m very busy, so it will be a while before I can give you a worthy response.

No worries. I can understand why a lot of people are quick to dismiss him. He's had some bad takes and is kind of unhinged on Twitter. That said, his early lectures are really interesting. This is a shorter clip that touches on some of the same ideas from that quote.

I see someone who thinks his mouth should be open and believes he has 12 million things to say that are vital for the legions to hear. I was guilty of saying that though he is a hard driving intellectual wannabe type, he certainly has some very good points here and there. Got roundly shyt on for that one. One of his great points is at about 6:10 in here: the point about being versus non-being, "Are the problems and suffering of being worth it to exist." Around that question is built a sense-of-life, a philosophy of the human spirit, a psychology of resilience or capitulation.

It doesn't get much more seminal than that for the life of human beings: despair over existing versus joy in being. And you don't need any blood sacrifices, any supernatural kings, any stand in saviors, any holy scapegoats ... none of that. A spirituality of human life exists right at the point where we aspire to be the hero of our story to the best we can, or sacrifice this high potential to any manner of surrenders and religions.