The Greatest God Debate In History | Jordan Peterson vs Matt Dillahunty
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2024
- Due to thousands of requests, we are uploading this discussion again with enhanced audio.
#jordanpeterson #jordanpetersondaily #jordanpetersonquotes #jordanpetersondebate #jordanpetersonshorts #jordanpetersonmemes #mattdillahunty #atheism #atheist #atheistviews #pangburn #pangburnphilosophy #debate #god
#buddha #buddhism #motivation
#hindu #hinduism #hindi #hindudeity
#exmuslim #atheism #motivation #inspiration #inspirational #religion #asmr #attitude #education #freespeech #foryou
Matt Dillahunty goes head to head with Jordan Peterson on God, Religion, Morality & more!
(No portion of this recording may be reproduced by any means without written permission.)
Join our discord server by using this link. This is a place to have good faith, helpful conversations with people from all around the world. All ideas are welcome to be discussed! discord.gg/VDE2UMuW8y
300+ of Jesus’s predictions (2000yrs ago) came true in the last 100yrs . Proof of Noah’s flood is all across the Usa like pyramids under rock lake Wisconsin, aztalan mostly buried pyramid , 120 mounds in Illinois (below grade pyramids). 6000yr old instructions about hepatitis “sleeping with whoreish women will pierce your liver like a dart”. Still true today (specific to the organ). Does this guy think he’s smarter than the Bible?? Bronze chariot wheels from Moses crossing, found at the bottom of the sea, contain copper that could only have been mined from the Michigan U.P. ,,,,
@@guysumpthin2974 "Proof of Noah’s flood is all across the Usa like pyramids"
How are pyramids proof of water? Pyramids are proof of pyramids.
@@MichaelAronson the 100s of feet of sediment surrounding them , and a pyramid under water , “proof of water” ? derp
@@guysumpthin2974 What is the name of this underwater pyramid?
@@MichaelAronson actually multiple, rock lake pyramids Wisconsin
Jordan Peterson explaining why gum sticks to the ground:
“Gum sticking to the ground, you know, it's a fascinating collision of human behavior and the tenacious qualities of urban materials. The gum, it's like a symbol of our society's desires, trying to stay connected, but then you have the pavement, so determined to hold onto it. When someone discards that gum, it's like a piece of their identity hitting the pavement, and the ground, it's not just passive, it's an active player in this whole drama. The struggle between the gum's stickiness and the ground's grip, well, it's a bit like the struggle we all face in life - between our dreams and the unyielding realities we encounter. So, next time you step on gum, just remember, it's a reminder of the delicate dance we do with the world around us.”
Very witty and well written! Love it!
This deserves a lot more likes!
This has more applied intellect poured into it than anything Peterson has ever said tbh
Like most things Peterson says I tune out pretty early into the rambling bs while I wait for him to get to a point. But unlike him, I absolutely enjoyed your comment.
what a quantum entangled photosynthetic response
“I may be wrong, but I think I am right” VS “I may be wrong, and if I am wrong I want to know”
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 which God are you talking about? Which God should I repent to? And why not the other one? Even fairytale are more consistent in their made up stories 😂
lol
@@JaguarBST Which fairytale has more merit than the known history regarding Jesus?
@@RA-ie3ss if your definition of known history is some references made about Jesus hundreds of years after his death than yes Jesus is a known historical figure I guess. But that means jack sh*t about the miracles he supposedly performed or that he was the son of god, or anything he told during his life time were true. He could just be just one of the thousands of charlatans claiming to be prophet around those time period.
Even Shrek has more consistency in its story than any religion you can name.
I just want to point out that my Dad decided to stop smoking one day, crumpled the pack containing his last cigarettes, and threw it in the can. He understood it could have negative effects on his, and his kids', health and made the decision that enough was enough.
Never smoked since.
you don't need chemicals, let alone supernatural interventions, to stop smoking.
This take has me baffled.
Dads are a thing aren't they- its amazing how many dads moms, aunts uncles , bus drivers walkers and cyclists- i gotta stop somewhere lol, Do this every day of every month somewhere, in fact in countries of tens of millions- hundreds of thousands stop every Year, Me ?
Oh I'm an Ex - smoker- and someones dad.
Am I Amazing, NO- Im just a Stubborn Brit.
he still had a point because just "thugging it out" and quitting cold turkey is not a demonstrably consistent method of quitting. willpower is a very transient thing and not everyone has the same amount of it to begin with
Its will power. He admitted to himself that is was not good for his health or the kids. God can take that and show him greater things.
God exist. God cannot be proven or said he doesn't exist. Were we there when God created ? The answer is no. So the real challenge is how do we prove or disprove God who has already existed. Would there be evidence ? Yes. Just look at all that has been created and how much time we spend on trying to figure out how it all works.
It’s the Holy Spirit that helped with that cause how else do you explain the epiphany
Jordan's nonsensical word salad and psychobabble really takes away from this conversation. Kind of a shock and awe treatment to the senses.
Believing this guy was smart was my biggest blunder🤣
@@shmeef279 I mean, he is still smart. But when it comes to this topic... Yup... Retard alert! Retard alert! Seems like no matter the evidence, he will still believe in god, reminds me of Kurt Wise (the Harvard geologist who believes in a young earth model based on the bible).
@@shmeef279 fell into that trap as well about a year or two ago.. I feel so stupid in retrospect lmao
@@baumann9551 Hey, better you got yourself out late than never. Personal growth is worth celebrating.
could you provide some examples?
For transparency, this debate took place in 2018. Just in case anyone believed this was a recent event.
It is recent it’s only 2 years ag… oh wait 6 years 😭
I also thought it was recent, but a closer look at Dr. Peterson's dressing and hair, I thought otherwise.
Time doesn't matter since we don't abrogate in whole religion.
@@KazbekMairbekTrue, but I believe Peterson's views may have slightly shifted since this talk, hence why context of time may be appropriate.
Only the atheist believes it was recent. Because that’s all you got. No science backs your ignorant bullshit.
I want a shirt that says "I may be wrong, but I don't think so"
I feel like it's a weak statement. The better statement would be, "This is the most comprehensive view I hold, but I'm open to finding a more comprehensive view".
@@meganmuellerno lol, that doesn't sound cool. You want a cool statement on your shirt
How about a shirt "I may be Right, but I think I'm Left !! lol
One thing I might think Right about is the way the average high controller Roller's Use their Vocals if they feel Challenged?
They Seem to abruptly, when Slightly challenged improvising a Belching Word that is closest to their topic or View to, over run any understanding? Yet, Seemingly Manipulative and Honesty is somewhere out at port in Religion Debates often enough.
@@qwertyvypez Peterson’s statement isn’t cool.
@@meganmueller Says "megan mueller" like anyone would give a shit about what you consider cool or not
Everyone: Matt won this debate
Jordan Peterson: well that depends how you define "won" 🤡🤡
One speaking abstractly and one speaking concretely. I think you missed his point
@@nicholasullery5129 Petersons abstractions have a pattern. It is the willful obfuscation between god as a reality and god as a metaphor. He wont even answer the most basic questions in a clear enough way to talk about them in any meaningful way. If he were stupid I would assume it was incidental. But hes a master of language. This is intentional, in line with a clear financial incentive to not distance the two sides of his audience.
Hes to vague to be called right or wrong. So hes wrong.
One always supposes the proposition of “win” implies the defeat or unremarkable characteristics of something in comparison. But upon what criteria is the winner chosen? When we speak of time, we say that it’s relative….
I swear, he’s got the most long-winded and verbose ways of arguing ridiculous points. Two and two does not make five, not matter how much word salad you dress it up with.
@@nicholasullery5129Well maybe he should stop the bullshit and speak concretely like we do anything else real.
@@flashraylaser157 Would you say math is real?
I'm not sure you can call this a debate. Peterson never had a single argument. He just forces Matt into increasingly minuscule pedantic definitions.
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363
You Just Said that If i sinned once, i end Up in hell, so whats the Point repenting after i sinned?!
Youre contradicting urself.
I don't know how people are not insulted by this tactic. Peterson appears to believe that he can spray out a mist of polysyllabic words and people will think he's answered their question. He knows damn well what he is being asked, he knows damn well he could provide a clear and succinct answer, he simply refuses to do so, and he figures he can get away with it. Evidently he's right.
@@ryanurban1 He became famous by debunking some feminists. Peterson is smart and verbally skilled. However he's lacking actual deep knowledge about many things he so confidentally talks about. Especially when he talks about philosophy.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363
how about I put my spinless righteousness on your mama
This really isn't a religious debate, its a linguistic debate.
WHAT IS HE MEANING OF LIFE?
To have a relationship with God on earth so you can spend eternity together in Heaven. So, what pushes me away from God? Sin (lying, unforgiveness, sexual sins from lust, dishonouring parents, steeling, taking the Lord’s Name in vain etc) which leads to hell. But Jesus died on the Cross and rose from the dead to give you the ability to repent and Believe in Him as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Fiddlesticks. Any god who would hold these things again me can kiss my proverbial ass.
That’s where Peterson lives
@@valley5617 And honestly it’s funny when you see Peterson try to employ tricks of linguistics and changing of definitions in order to hide the fact that he doesn’t have a solid an evidence-based argument. It’s also humorous when he tries to be philosophical, and he just face plants so hard his teeth burst out his ears.
His ramblings about metaphysical substrate were hilarious. He doesn’t even make an attempt to define what he means by metaphysical substrate because we know from his past interviews that he has a different understanding of certain definitions and even scientific concepts and even history. It’s hilarious watching him ramble on and on making things up as he goes along and people sit there slack-jawed and clap like seals acting like he’s some kind of titan of intellect.
@@theQuestion626 I can't believe I ever fell for Jordan Peterson's bill C-16 hype back in the day. He got me. He got me good.
I love how they both have evil villain chairs.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
It was almost distracting, every minute or so I couldn’t help but think “Damn, those are some nice chairs”.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363wow for god being a designer he sure does love making his designs evil
@@baz00katooth People underestimate hell, it is bad because it is separation from God. In a vision I was shown a person who claimed to be Christian but started fornication (premarital sex), He died relatively young and went to hell forever (1 Cor 6:9). God’s holiness means He will not coexist with sinners forever therefore Repent (Luke 13:3) and have a relationship with Jesus.
@@linuxramblingproductions8554 WHY DOESN’T GOD STOP EVIL ?
Suppose God were to get involved every time something bad were to happen. God can prevent fatal car accidents, child molestation, grape, murder etc This sounds good on the surface but lets dig in a little deeper. God is the epitome of holiness so He would prevent you from fornicating (premarital sex), lusting (watching pornography), swearing or taking His Holy Name in vain (so God would control your speech) , even eating certain foods or drinks (because God considers it to be junk food and it is destroying your health), hating someone ( so God would control your thoughts).
You have essentially been reduced to a robot (following instructions only). But the reality is, you were created as a free creature with the ability to choose right from wrong (freewill), the ability to stop doing sin (Repentance) and to Believe in Jesus (Faith).
The noise gate is insane
They actually enhanced the audio, check the description.
@@Observette The noise gate is the thing that blocks out small sounds and lets in loud sounds...
Like if you want to remove audio information below a certain amplitude - (like sneezes or coughs in the crowd) you can use a noise gate
I think what they mean is that the attack and release of the noise gate is quite sharp and noticeable.
Fixing the audio later wont change that.
Although they could have "enhanced the audio" by applying a noise-gate... in which case nevermind!
@@ObservetteAt most they take the original audio and boost/lower it. They can also apply a noise gate which means sounds below a certain level get cut out usually to stop background audio that they don’t want you to hear. Now it is possible the noise gate was awful in the original video meaning they can’t really fix that without some meticulous audio editing but regardless it doesn’t change the criticism that the noise gate is atrocious regardless of if it’s to blame on the source video or the edited reupload.
It actually is lol
Yep. I noticed that too.
Dillahunty is such a sharp debater. Very impressive to watch.
Guy believes a man can be a woman.
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 sounds like someone is GAY for Jesus.
@@Flornmonk John 3: 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
f anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!-1 Corinthians 16:22
@@Flornmonk For a society to function there must be rules. For instance, if there were no road rules there would be utter chaos on the roads, accidents and death would be the norm. If there were no laws society would collapse as there would be way too much suffering and death. God has given sexual desire for the male and female and the rule is to use it within the context of marriage between a Husband and Wife
(Research suggests married couples have better sex and Christians live longer than non Christians). Gain an upper hand by Repenting and Believing in Jesus today.
Jordan- "It's not an obvious fact!"
Matt- "That chopping off someone's head is not beneficial to someone's well-being?"
Jordan- "Well, that depends on how you define well-being!"
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Absolute classic Jordan response!!! I never thought he would take it that far!!!😂😂
Can't stand the guy. He obviously ain't as smart as Matt. Matt's arrogant af but chit he's smart
@@smokeydiamond489 Lol, you're ignorant
@@triedbythefire4777 Incredible, you have literally no arguments.
He should be removed from the stage for pulling this shit
@@smokeydiamond489 Pulled off the stage for thinking more than others? Pulled off the stage for not simply excepting axioms without properly understanding the implications? Pulled off the stage for not being lazy? You're calling that "sh**"? Listen to yourself.
Love this format of just having a conversation untimed, unregulated. As long as the people discussing our polite, it allows exchange of thought, and response so much more effectively.
What if it wasn't polite? Would that hurt your feelings?
@@MichaelAronson
Mike, why would you check in just to say something antagonistic and obnoxious? Are you ok there buddy?
Since it seems you have been unable to figure it out, polite exchanges allow the exchange of ideas where we can follow easily, as opposed to the two of them constantly talking at the same time, or yelling at each other, which is often the case in modern discourse... Not so easy to follow. Which by the way, is yet another downfall of Western society since it turned its back on God, which I dealt with in another comment you responded to. Don't worry, I'll give you the rebuttal you're clamoring for tomorrow, have a good night...
@@johnboehmer6683 "why would you check in"
Do you . . . live here?
"Not so easy to follow"
It just sounds like you have comprehension issues.
"yet another downfall of Western society"
People yelling is the downfall of western society? I guess that means it's been falling for all of human history.
@@MichaelAronson
You're unfortunately a miserable little man, clearly, you have my sympathy Mike, sincerely. It's got to suck being so empty and devoid of all decency that you can't refrain from pissing on a comment merely expressing a positive opinion about the format of the conversation. That's just pathetic buddy, how did you get this way?
I'll be waiting for you to check back in for yet more proof. Dragging atheists through the mud in the process. All the best to you, and all who know you, if you could pass along my sympathies to them as well, thanks.
@@johnboehmer6683 "a comment merely expressing a positive opinion"
It was a dumb comment and a dumb opinion. Maybe the internet isn't for you?
I quit smoking with no religious/mystical experience or drugs of any kind. You get beyond the first three days and don't hang around others that smoke and you're good.
My experience exactly.
Peterson is a self deluded fool. If it's in a book he believes it.
Yes, that argument is laughable.
What were you smoking that's not a drug?
You seem very confused about what was even discussed in the debate.
@@ActionGamerAaron you may want to ratchet the part they went over about quitting smoking.
It was said that you cannot do it without religion or drugs. I'm evidence to the contrary.
This is what you got from this debate?? Good luck in life and beyond.
Jordan, in this debate, is so desperately trying to compensate for his shortcoming with showmanship
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363"in heaven"
Is that a strip club?
he learned early in his life that spewing word salads would save him from ever having to get his hands dirty
I stopped smoking without supernatural intervention. My intervention was extremely natural in the form of my wife 👍
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
She helped me quit smoking too
Prove your wife's consciousness is real
@@jacobostapowicz8188 why?
@@michaelmorris1314 In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
Please tell me when JP actually answers a question
He seems to make a habit of promoting his own agenda whilst sidestepping any questions directed to him.
He's there to sell books, patreon subscriptions and other products, he isn't actually engaging.
Your just too dμmmmm to comprehend..🤦🏼♀️🤷🏼♀️
@@andresgarciacastro1783yeah I don't think he's a good representative of Christianity whatsoever. He's just here because he's popular.
@sirllamaiii9708 hes here because he's a thinker and a good communicator. He actively seeks the truth. I don't believe he's a Christian at all, though he does see the merit of its existence for society
Peterson: "I'm not trying to be difficult."
No, for some, that just comes naturally
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363
I don't know what people you're talking to, but I don't know anyone who thinks lying and stealing are "ok." In some cases, I'd argue that it is good to lie and steal. The world isn't all black and white like religion paints it. Disrespecting your parents isn't a serious offense. All kids disobey their parents. It's even a good thing if the parent is a narcissistic abuser.
Leviticus 20 9
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.
The God of the Bible is a monster who I do not want to be with for eternity. Fortunately, I don't believe in sin, the devil, God, or any other fairytale, so I don't have anything to be afraid of. I do what feels right in my heart with love and compassion. That is enough.
@@nathanmaxey2966 Obviously there are exceptions tothe rule, alady in the Bible hid 2 men and lied about hiding them, she saved their life , if your parents tell you to jump off a brdgge then you dont listen to them but when is the last time you were in such a situation?
People have bad hearts when people do what is right in their own mind we get corruption because humans need to be born again through Jesus Christ
@@nathanmaxey2966 God through the Holy Spirit has shown me several things relating to the afterlife with the purpose of convincing people like yourself. Stuff like Heaven and Hell, Angels, and evil Spirits the Lord Jesus (not worthy at all), a miracle happened to me that saved my life (thank you God) & so much more. I am more than happy to give further details.
@@nathanmaxey2966 I think I can explain the disconnect here. When JP, and others who think like him use the word "God" it as a job description, a position in someones life. It is this central tenant, set of principles, experience, person (such as empearor worship in imperial Japan or N. Korea), or even a literal physical object with some more primitive societies. So isn't this just changing definitions? No, Matt and other atheists confuse these two, they are so immersed in christianity that they do not understand the difference. They believe that if you can show that Yaweh, the abrahamic God isn't real, or that he is evil, or that there is no evidence for him that people would act in a more rational and moral manner. What you call morality is just abrahamic ethics. You all are so immerssed in this view that you believe debating whether or not Yahew is real matters at all. You think it matters because you just can't conceive of other gods, and there have been many many gods there for humanity. "But those are fairy tales, like Odin and Zeus aren't real", yes but emperor Hirohito was real, we have photographs to prove it, and he was a god. The Japanese knew that he wasn't omnipotent and could fend off the allies in WW2, they also knew he wasn't a universal god, yet he was still their god. The rivers are real, I've been in some to I'm convinced of that, and they are gods to many. Money is real (sorta), I have some in the bank, and it is a lot of people's god. A painter chooses their art to be their god. Art has been many people's god; many painter's basically live lives of poverty while they dedicate their time to their art god. A narcisist has themselves as their own god, they probably don't think about if their god is real either. You can be killed for these real tangible provable gods. And many many people have died and killed for them.
With this in mind, does asking whether Yaweh is real or not matter? To me it makes it seem like a big waste of time. No one can prove anything about things outside of perceivable reality. The better question asking what should be our god? Maybe we should also ask if we should have one or multiple gods, which I beleive JP has discussed before. JP is asking the latter questions because he understands this. Matt is focused on the first because he can't see the lineup of candidates out there waiting to assume the position of god. He thinks if we throw out Yahew because he isn't real then that's it! We are done! No more god!!! But this is false. To you Yaweh might be a monster, and you are glad he isn't real I assume. But there are many monstrous things out there that can become god too, and they are very very real. Trying to prove Kim Jung Un is fake won't get you anywhere with a north korean. You have prove he should not be their god. This is why JP just tells atheists they do have a god, and it is Yahew. Yahew is occupying the position of god to a western atheist, they just don't believe he is real, and they think he is an evil asshole. Yaweh is so firm in that position that the western atheist just can't see anything else being god.
Thank you for posting this - without a bunch of interrupting commentary; or inserting dumb images and or music. Just the discussion. Thank you.
No one does that
quik and simple god is your jewish pagan god Yahwe(יהוה).
why?
The nation of Israel believes in a fake god (Yahweh - יהוה) who is at rest.
If your fake god is at rest, who then controls the Universe and all creation?... To control all creation, the True God is needed. It turns out that if your fake god (Yahweh - יהוה) is resting, then he is replaced by another of the same fake god, and he is also resting... And so on ad infinitum, this is repeated. It turns out that in fact the Jewish fake god (Yahweh - יהוה) does not exist.
@@vlogshd2081
In your experience
@@vlogshd2081 Really? What rock do you keep your head under? There are THOUSANDS of videos - doing just that! One example - ua-cam.com/video/ZZZFJn6L64Y/v-deo.html but they certainly are not hard to find or run into - when delving into a topic.
Yeah i always find that annoying
Jordan seems to have forgotten about the pre Greek scientists found in Egypt, in Sumeria, who built pyramids, developed writing, built ships, chariots, and had other ancient technological and mathematical knowledge long before the Greeks appeared on the scene.
People like Jordan always "forget" when it's convenient for them 🤷🤷🤷
One of my biggest issues with JP whenever I was interested in his lectures was that he really just ignored everything outside of his care, even though it would have been perfectly relevant and substantive to his philosophies. He’s very willfully ignorant.
What’s your point?
Peterson would probably say that it's because of the Gods that they had being an approach to the devine that exists. All of our social fabric existing is based on that and even 10000 years ago when tribes began evolving at a higher rate, it was due to moral standards based on solidarity, which is based on an approach to find God or to communicate what God is and all of that makes sense because of our modern understanding of God xD
This is what this clown would probably say because he went in that direction xD
Are you not confusing science with engineering?
Jordan’s whole career is based on the simple premise that you can rationalise anything if you try hard enough.
Jordon Peterson literally folding himself into a pretzel, sticks his head out from under his leg behind his ankle, his voice pitched to super human levels, finally completes his 3 hour response to the question “What is your name?”: ”…but that depends on what your definition of well-being is!”
Jordan Peterson calling atheists not atheists was like an Uno reverse "No True Scotsman"
What do you mean by uno reverse? I'm not sure I understand that part. If that part were left out of the sentence, I agree.
The "atheists are not atheists" argument is so old and dishonest. I'm surprised that Christian theists continue to use it.
@jestes7 it's a card game.
@@lukedegraaf1186 Uno reverse isn't a card game. Uno is. Reverse is a card in that game. People use the term uno reverse to mean comeback. Which doesn't make sense here. Using a fallacy as a "comeback" isn't a comeback at all.
@@jestes7I get why you're confused, but you're too hung up on the mechanics of the actual uno reverse card. He's using it as a rhetoric device to make fun of how Peterson makes an absolutely unreasonable argument by shifting the goalpost. He changed the definition of what an atheist is by saying that through our morals we all unconsciously believe in God or something like that. It's like a kid that says "No, you" to a certain extent. Imagine you tell someone you don't believe in God and he says "Yes, you do because you believe killing people is bad". You could also use a YuGi Oh reference, saying that the mirrored his ass. There's sarcasm involved. From Peterson's perspective he believes to understand something deeper about the concept of God, but to anyone, who can somewhat think critically, he's asspulling stuff in a fashion of a uno reverse card, in an outrageous way, which makes me laugh xD
The metaphorical substrate is strong in this one. May the Force be with you!
😂
😂😂😂
👍😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂
i was gonna comment in the metaphorical substrate and jungian archetypal hierarchy.......but you beat me to it.....well done!
Isn't it fascinating, that two people, who recieve so much hate on a daily basis about reportedly being disrespectful, debate on a topic to which they have opposite views, and yet they agree on so much and demonstrate an amount of respect towards each other that I haven't seen in public debate in years? This should at least in part in any debate seminar as an example on how it's done.
As a leader in any field you can only go so far if you have thin skin.. debate clarifies
@@stickitupyourasteric Sadly perspective skewes the perception and influences said clarity to favor preconcieved notions, but of course, you're right.
@@waldemarkirszniok298 "perspective skewes the perception"
All perception is from a perspective. It can't "skew" perception. It's part of the same thing.
@@MichaelAronson It is. But there are different perspectives with their respective biases. Or do you disagree.
@@waldemarkirszniok298 Perspective conditions perception to certain degree, that's a fairly acceptable statement, there can be no objective perspective and therefore all perception goes through a skewed prism which is perspective.
The hypocrisy of peterson is to demand definitions of anything someone else says, but desperately dance around any reciprocity of that. He purposely keeps things as vague as possible to not reveal the fact that he doesnt really have a point or a true stance.
It is actually impressive how peterson is able to derail sinple questions. He desperately doesnt want his base of support to learn that he doesnt believe in their god
To be fair, this was 6 years ago. Judging from his debates in the last 2-3 years I can tell this interview did him good. He uses way less jargon nowadays and barely does any interruptions. I believe his views might've slightly changed as well on certain points. As they should of course, when presented with new logical and true information
@@sicapeo you know what's a bummer? He made more sense in this era in reference to literature and psychology. He panders way way too much to a base that funds him now. Totally understand the position he's in and why he would pander to them, but it feels cheap as someone who used to respect the principles he spike of in the past.
The dude should stay far from convos on religion though
TITTY
You are the hypocrite.
"define 'wellbeing', let's hear it". Also Peterson: because the metaphysical substrate argument...
When you use magical thinking, things are self-evident and self-defining
I wish I was a student in Dr. Peterson's class when he taught at university. For every test question I would reply with "well its really really really hard to explain" or "what do you mean by that?" He would have to pass me because he does this every time he gets asked a straight forward questions in a debate.
Dr. Peterson; master of equivocation.
You have to understand the context of that question in relation to the metaphorical substrate of critical analysis. 😅
Not really. A debate is a much different format than a test. Much of what goes into a good debate includes defining of terms and clarifications for the people of participating in the debate and for the audience. Yeah, this can be a bit tedious, but it's essential for a quality conversation like this, especially when the two people debating are coming from very different perspectives and trying to find some common ground to work from.
He's insufferable. He just just likes to hear himself talk. He rambles and panders to the point of boredom. I think he blacks out when he talks, and only comes to when he's run out of words and/or forgets what he's even talking about. Either way, he's completely expecting you to be so amazed with what he thinks is a profound and well thought out response. He's too used to preaching to college kids in a classroom. It's good to see him get his foot put in his mouth.
@@RyanGetLowiPad baby, your a joke.
@@RyanGetLowiPad baby?
"I don't believe in God" Matt
"Well if you take drugs you might!!!!" Jordan
Everything with a name exist
@@dkhan88942 Does Batman exist?
@@MichaelAronson in the same world god and all other fantasy dudes live.
@@dkhan88942 my imaginary friend has a name
Yeah you’re so much smarter than the guys in the debate.
I am glad there are people tough enough and willing to have these discussions. Respect to both participants.
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
They ain't volunteering, friend. You'd find the toughness (though I'd dispute the necessity of that quality) and the willingness too if you were earning at the rate these discussions permit.
@@hughmac13 You may be right, but I find it just a tad cynical, but be that as it may, I find them useful and instructive, thanks for the feedback
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 ok, fine I would hope I have the courage to stand up and fight for your right to believe as you do and put voice to it...I, however, found Hitchens (and others) arguments more compelling on why their is no evidence that what you are saying is true, even though, sometimes, I wish it were
We’ve been having this conversation for eons. There’s no proof god exists let’s move on
"metaphorical substrate" ROTFL 😅😅😅😅😅.
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 you have no evidence
@@nohaydeque334 Ok but inn return have some faith
Creation (puppies, trees, animals and humans) proves there is a creator
Demons come out in the name of Jesus therefore Jesus is God
WHO GETS ALL THE ATTENTION?
Evil is against good, which religion or God is attacked the most? Whose Name gets taken in Vain? There are 2 million gods yet Jesus is attacked the most, why do you think that is?
Rev 1:18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.
As a computer scientist one thing I found very odd was Peterson's statement that AI are not rule based systems. Ignoring the fact that he meant machine learning not AI (most AI systems are rule based in the classical sense) but even ML systems are rule based, we just allow them to change their rules while they learn, and often the rules they generate are not easy to interpret, but that in know way means that they are not rule based. The standard ML model is to multiply the input by a value, add a value and then pass it through a function. You do this a certain number of times and the result is the output of the model. I see no reasonable way to describe that as not being a rule-based system. Perhaps he means that human minds are not capable of discovering the proper rules on our own, but to Matt's point, we are doing what the ML systems are. We guess at what the rules are, and if a rule makes a bad outcome we change it. This is the exact way the ML algorithms act intelligently
I too really opened my eyes at that part, because computers are my background, too -- educationally and professionally. He's flat-out wrong -- but what it does show you is that Peterson is happy to talk authoritatively about topics he has no knowledge about. Quite embarrassingly, actually, in this case.
I thought this. ML really just a way of capturing rules mathematically that are too complicated for us to linguistically (verbally or in code) express. Though neither of them seem to appreciate this, I think there may actually be a good analogy here with what Peterson was saying about brain hemispheres.
The linguistic left hemisphere maybe is more like a standard piece of code with simple verbally expressed rules. If Sam angers me then don't throw him off the stage except if there's a fire. Not sure we humans really act much along these lines.
Then the extra-linguistic right hemisphere maybe is more like ML that is trained by exposure to the world, its culture, narratives, art, symbols, etc. When we feel in our gut that we shouldn't throw Sam off the stage, there's surely some learned rules at play there that are a lot more complex, but it's really just the "sum" of our input/experience. Maybe one day with a brain scan, we could extract this learning as a table of numbers.
If anyone can connect any of this thought splurge back to whether Peterson believes in God or not, please go ahead. I still don't know what he means by God.
He needs to stay in his lane.
😂😂😂 that's what you took from the whole discussion
I am happy to see someone else point this out. For a while I was dabbling with A.I. before I set my interest on Game Development. I had read many, many things on A.I. development with most of its categories. As far as I know, every single program of any kind needs to be rule based because without rules, a computer simply doesn’t know what to do or how to do things.
Hearing JP say his thoughts opened my eyes to just how phony he really is. He speaks on things he knows nothing about with great authority quite often.
Ask anyone with a little bit of programming knowledge the question if a program can not be rule based and they will answer with a “no”, everybody knows this
I love how much they used the ‘throwing Sam Harris off the stage’ analogy for the core of the argument/question 😂
Yeah, that was enjoyable.
If you throw the Deity off the stage all that remains is the word GOD.
@@NMSUNSETGOURMETYou can't throw deities. They don't exist.
@@MichaelAronson
Not throwing imagined Deities.
Throwing the things that we subjectively define off the stage to see what can be objectively defined, by what we can measure with truth.
When I say the word GOD exists, its meant in an absolute way, as it needs to exist for you to see it included in the sentence.
The only thing left to measure when we accept the Deity sacrifice from the word GOD is the word GOD.
When we choose to use it, we can see it.
If we can see it, we can choose to give the picture that the word uses to build its objective property.
To give the word requires we draw it, simple truth.
Rather than place the imagined pillar of spaghetti, having no objective truth.
That's why I've given the word GOD the definition that's seen without the Deity, for a division of time.
The argument of subjective things is division, not Holy measured.
The Sacrifice of the Deity value from GOD exchanges the subjective for the objective property.
That being a claim requires I demonstrate that objective truth with GOD as a measure.
So here it is again:
Kneel to trace picture children.
G is an incomplete whole with one square angle drawn in Earth.
O is a whole measure.
D is a split whole with two square angles drawn in Earth.
Sacrificed, Holy measured.
That is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me GOD.
@@NMSUNSETGOURMET Please learn English. This is so sad.
Matt keeps getting better at this. His communication skills are off the charts.
Yes matt is getting better, but Jordan is the teacher and matt is the fat kid in the class who is amusing without substance. I guess Jordan is the skeptic and matt is an atheist with a following of atheists, Jordan has a following of those from both sides, but importantly, aren't seeking confirmation bias.
I do hope matt gets better as his mentor harris seems to have gone the way of nietzsche and I'm not sure harris has a mother to calm him.
@@paulthomas4917 Silly !
@@Aurealeus No really matt is getting better I know what you mean by silly though, but that is just matts expresion, in another life he would have been a clown or maybe a ventriloquist dummy,
@@paulthomas4917 No, you don't know what I mean. I meant your comment is silly.
@@Aurealeus Dillahunty is a victim of weak/absent father syndrome. It's a familiar motif to many atheists.
"I am not trying to be difficult." - *Peterson trying his best to be difficult*
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” - W.C. Fields
I feel neither baffled nor dazzled, just vaguely irritated.
@@kentonbaird1723 vaguely is good. It's positive. 🤣
Wow, what an thoughtful, resounding, and insightful analysis of the arguments. You really addressed the pragmatic argument Dr. Peterson made for example, that effective beliefs imply true beliefs. You also had insightful commentary on how this argument is usually used by scientific materialists and it's ironic that Peterson is using it in favor of arguing for God. So well done addressing his actual arguments.
@@saintsword23 are you copy-pasting this onto every comment that judges quack Peterson too harshly?
@@kentonbaird1723 I'll do it for any comment that ad hominem's Matt too. I'm not a JBP fanboy and I agree far more with Matt in this debate. I'm just sick of seeing ad hominems and stupidity EVERYWHERE I GO. Debate the actual arguments. Have a conversation of substance rather than "whose expert has the biggest dick."
Imagine a political debate that could be even 1/10th this informational, honest, and polite. Two great minds, that I heavily respect.
"this informational"
What information did you perceive?
@@MichaelAronson You didn't receive a single piece of information from this 2 hour debate? They both are informing us on their beliefs, and doing their best to dissect and converse on the other person's beliefs.
@@jackredden3445 "They both are informing us on their beliefs"
Opinions and beliefs aren't information.
@@MichaelAronson really? So to know that Hitler believed Jewish people were less than human, and his opinions on how they should be treated, that knowledge isn't information? I believe you are an annoying troll, and my opinion is that you should get a new hobby besides trying to annoy people online. Hopefully this informs you of my belief and opinion. If that's even possible in your brain.
You owe me some pants
Damn Dillahunty really sliced through JBP's sophistry...
right! it was pretty shocking to see hahaha
Sophistry is the absolute best word to describe JP in this debate.
You mean what is what? Didn't hold water for you? Let's debate the verbage of wellbeing and it's implicit expectation as it applies to people in general because exceptions exist... Man JP is an idiot. I can't have a discussion on the merits of generally excerpted principles, because then I wouldn't get to say I have a PHD. Like yes or no, do you think it's better to be a millionaire asshole only respected by tools, or just be a moderately reasonable human being... We all know how JP answers, "let's define a millionaire, like are we talking specifically from 1 million up to $999,999,999, cause until you give me an exact number that I agree upon is a millionaire..."
Guess you didn’t watch the same debate haha
@@hurtingmurphy please point out a statement where you think Jordan Peterson made a good point?
Noise gate feels like I'm deaf when the silence comes again
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 bruh who invited this guy
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 if God is real then why is the world so fucked up and so much evil, corruption, and suffering? Why does God allow for all the innocent people to suffer ? You have millions of children who born and live their whole lives starving, dirty and horrible diseases , worms inside their skin, inside their brain, and then they die. What's the point of that? Why God allows that? Ive seen so many cases of people with horrible diseases or accidents, where's God? The fuck God's done about all this suffering? What about the insane corruption that goes on in our world, the people in power are stealing lying and brainwashing the masses and cause insane suffering, and people who try to rise up and do the right thing they get shut down, censored and humiliated? Where is God in all this? Why has God allowed communism to thrive for so many years and starve and kill more than 100 million people and ruined whole cultures. Do you understand the damage , soviet countries are so diseased they look like cadavers, like carcases, entire cultures ruined, entire countries ruined. For what? What God allows that? There is only one conclusion: Either this God is an evil fucked up sadistic God that allows this cancerous abomination of a world to exist, or it doesn't exist. You're gonna come with the bullshit afterlife assumption? What actual proof do you have of that? Beside a random book? What makes your religion true? Your God true, and not the other major or minor religions or God? Why is your God and book the real true one? The arrogance. You know what baffles me about you people? The sheer arrogance in you, to be sooo sure about all these thing. Like you know better. Your arrogance is insulting. Why is your book the real one and not the Quran ? or Hindu ? If you were born in india you would be a hinduist , believing that Shiva is the one true God. We live in hell bro. The difference between me and you is that I have the guts to accept with without any pathetic crutches and fantasies and I can live on and be a good person despite all of that, and you don't. And also i'm not so arrogant as you to know for suuure that what im saying is true to the point where i'm so arrogant I go telling people "the truth". F off.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 right sure but the noise gate tho
@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 didn't god appear to Moses? Cause Moses like committed murder which is a pretty big sin and he kept on living.
Kermit sure loves his word salad ffs
just because his words gloss over your smooth brain doesn’t make them incorrect
@@BmacBro you're not the one bruh keep pushing
Well, how else you gonna make sky daddy sound reasonable?
Who hurt you sweetie?
Being incorrect is what makes him incorrect 😅
Both of these gentlemen are such powerhouses. Even though they're both in disagreement, it's such a pleasure to listen to two enlightened gentlemen on opposite ends have a constructive argument. I don't agree with Jordan Peterson, but I'd still love to see more conversations with him and Matt.
Peterson is a simpleton.
One enlightened gentleman my man .Peterson is just a meme
Peterson makes no sense.
@@gloriaf6971 Peterson makes no sense but boy oh boy does he produce word salad by the tons for the millions of his followers who love to eat it all up.
@gloriaf6971 Peterson isn't an apologist, like James White or Jeff Durban, but he actually used their arguments. Not only that, Matt ended up defending Jesus' teaching 'do unto others as you want others to do to you'. That's when he was talking about morals. Matthew 19:17-19 & 22:36-40
Peterson is flawed but he's on the right path.
You can literally write a formula for what AI systems will output based on the input after training. Just because we didn't hard code the rules doesn't mean there aren't rules.
JP is a joke
Yes i didnt understand his point there. Computers (unless maybe quantum computer) are not working on principles. They are working on on and off, which are then translated to more complex binaries. The ai simply studied the rules of each scenario until it knew the rules of each stance in chess stages, hence knew all the answers in advance. It didnt operate on principles at all, It calculates mathematically everything and therefore governed by the rules of hardware and software. Machines operates only by rules one puts into them. Principles implies they have some kind of autonomous living judgement.
Its not that easy. AI models are somewhat of a blackbox right now.
@@Midg-td3ty This is incorrect, the models they're still running on Turing complete hardware that means that with enough time you and I could perform the same RAM manipulations by hand even and get the same output.
@@andrew_stamps Well I just relay what AI engineers are saying. Who do I believe? UA-cam comments or Ai engineers? Though decision.
I've been following JP for years now, and I suppose I'd be described as a 'fan'.
But, recently I feel like I'm shaking off the illusion that he's always right.
This is the first time I've seen him squirm with discomfort, clearly aware that his clever linguistic party tricks and convoluted arguments are simply outgunned by common sense.
I hate to admit it, but MD outclassed the master here, without resorting to smoke screens and straw-man arguments.
After this debate, JP won't debate Matt again.
@@andresgarciacastro1783 I'd heard that. Although, to be fair, I did only hear it from MD. I suppose you never what happens behind the scenes. 👍
"Outgunned by common sense ". Nailed it.
Why do even like JP at all if you think he uses "Clever linguistic party tricks and convoluted arguments"?
Those aren't the behaviors of an intellectual who wants to have an honest conversation in the pursuit of truth and mutual understanding. They are tactics of someone who just wants to win a discussion and sound superior by using word salad. Something JP lives on and his fans eat up.
@@xMaGuSx888 Because life and complex topics are not black and white. Sometimes he's right; sometimes he's wrong.
If you see life through such a simplistic lens, you never learn anything. 👍
"It's not just mysterious; it's really mysterious." That was hilarious. 😂
I usually don't care for the Q&A section of debates (the questions are often poorly framed and/or have ulterior motives behind them), but this is a rare case where I think it was the most interesting part of the debate. Fantastic questions with fantastic answers.
I totally agree with you.
These questions was just amazing and sincerely asked with curiosity. Which is very rare. I really liked the introduction of Matt to the Q&A session. Haha.
It seems to have done the job and brilliant persons stood up for asking pretty relevant questions.
@@FilDoyon In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 I already believe in him man.
@@FilDoyon Make sure as a you are a repentant Christian. Read the Bible daily and pray often throughout the day, the devil is trying to make lukewarm Christians everywhere (Rev 3:16). Join us in spreading the good news of Jesus Christ.
If you tell everyone that you are a mechanic but day in and out, you do the work of an accountant are you truly a mechanic? No, you are an accountant. Likewise, a Christian by name who lives contrary to Jesus’ teachings by living sinful/worldly is not a real Christian.
JP shows what happens when you didn't know the exam was today
I don't know man, seemed like there were a lot of disconnect the last time I watched this. JP was explaining things through his symbolic views and Matt didn't get it so it didn't really get anywhere aside from surface level.
@@eanieilias9739 that's not what happened at all. JP spewed a lot of meaningless gibberish, useful to confuse pseudo-intellectuals, and MD called him out on it.
The audience member's simple question about god existing after we all die just shows what a fraud JP is when asked to give a simple answer. He can't.
Excellent observation. And as I remember being told on some of my written papers - you waffle: you have written what you don't believe and you don't believe what you have written. This is classic Peterson vacuous hot air.
In calculus class the girl behind me was always blown away caused I'd never know when the tests were. But I didn't need to know.
@@eanieilias9739 Word salad isn't any level.
You should go easy on the noise reduction for the audio because at the moment it’s too aggressive and it sounds like there is something wrong with the audio the way it keeps ducking in and out.
Idk if you heard the original audio debate back in 2018, but this is actually a HUGE improvement. Audio was trash, super quiet and still unbalanced.
@@awkwardcapgun6131 Sure, I’m not disputing that. But the fact remains that there are now many dead silent sections between the talking which is unnatural and unsettling. No noise is nearly as bad as too much noise. It’s really not that hard to get right. I’ve done this sort of thing a lot.
I'm glad you said the original was trash, I was annoyed about this audio until I heard that. Sound guy had an off night I guess.
Definitely could use some adjustment on the compression, but I'm glad it's at least improved now.
@@MobiusVideo I've always found it amusing how the majority of live recorded events like these tend to have poor audio production. This is far from the worst, but as a hobbyist broadcaster I feel I could set up and run the majority of these events way better and I'm no where near being an audio engineer.
The problem is that JP doesn’t debate. He just wants to dig and pontificate.
…and he’s wonderful to listen to ❤
@@mikelikesmee It just sounds like you didn't understand anything he said.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 this drivel is boring
@@mikelikesmeeUNTIL the second time you listen to him and use critical thinking skills.
His debate game is trash. He constantly moves the topic goalpost. The good debaters pick up on this, navigate thru the world salad bs, and blow his theories outta the water.
I was looking for a video of Kermit the frog reading the dictionary in a stream of consciousness that never reaches it's conclusion and I was not disappointed.
Best comment! That's great.
...the best part is the waving hands while he ribbits
...so captivating.
cmon bro you can do better than name calling, cant you?
Well, I can't. Fuck jp and the shoulders his dumb head rode in on.
@@phutureproofKermit the Peterson doesn't deserve better.
I stopped smoking after 30 years cold Turkey. My mystical experience was the price of life insurance if I continued to smoke. Never had any mushrooms though. My brother too just quit, same as eating carbs and getting fat, three words “just stop it” works.
Me too. Went cold turkey about 20 without any kind of aids or anything metaphysical. So his comment is crap on that example.
I’m JUST NOW noticing how much JP sounds like Kermit the Frog.
😂
😂 I loved Kermit and I love Peterson.
you're like 20 years too late
@@whizthesugoi well I was 11 when “maps of meaning” came out, so my exposure to him has come in the last couple of years.
Also, you don’t need the “too” in your reply. “20 years late” implies “too late.”
Be well!
@@NickBollingerMusic I always saw people using too late so I just use it like that, and that wasn't a jab at you, it was supposed to be funny
Peterson is so out of depth, it's like listening to tooth ache.
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Zero evidence of god
@@Morticide. Suspension of disbelief in your point is the god-based people's problem, it is because 'faith' which just means blindly believe or suspend disbelief.
Peterson isn't qualified to take on Dillahunty. I suggest Professor Walter Veith!
@@mikeoz4803 In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
The guy that laughed when Jordan said “there may be artists who think they’re godless” made my night haha
Peterson is the most annoying man that I have ever seen. He always talks as if he knows it all and that whatever he says are facts.
Same here 😂
What a stupid concept to elude to.
@@zarrok9857hm yes zarrok the let's play UA-camr is capable of discerning what's stupid
@@viola308He obviously can, your judgemental little brain obviously can't.
Whynis artist a God given talent? Cause I haven't made any money from my art or my martial arts but ppl who like the young ones is still doing it today this is all bullshit life is what it is good bad doesn't matter
Matt knew it was over when he said metaphorical substrate
Lol that phrase alone really gives up the whole game
He said "metaphysical substrate", he was trying to get to the heart of Matt's axioms, because Matt was making self evident claims that were not self evident in a philosophical sense. A great example is his first claim, that death is preferable over life, this is not self evident. Think of samurai code or Aztec and Mayan sacrifice....the claim that death is preferable over life is not a universal self-evident axiom to build any moral architecture on....Matt is happily playing 2d checkers while Jordan is wrestling with a 4 dimensional chess board. It's not an easy thing.
@@jonathanmunyi5549 It is self-evident to prefer life over death because we are all born with the instinct to survive. The objective is to avoid death. If you posit that death is preferable to life, then there is no life in question. It's not a matter of implicit "value". I do not wish to live because I think I have some divinely imposed value upon me, I do so because I was born and living creatures have an impulse to survive and thrive as much as possible to continue reproducing and keep the cycle going, so to speak.
Furthermore, you are flat out agreeing with Matt in your final statement. To quote you: "the claim that death is preferable over life is not a universal self-evident axiom to build any moral architecture on" - Yeah, this is exactly what Matt said. Nowhere in this debate did Matt say "death is preferable over life" was a self-evident universal axiom. He advocated the opposite. If what you mean is that it is not self-evidence to universally rule out this axiom, then please refer to the beginning of my comment.
@@williamhorn363 Thanks for your reply. What I was saying is that it is not a universally self evident truth that life is better than death, and since you agree with me that this is not a universal self-evident truth then all reasoning from this as a principle is shaky. Something cannot be true most of the times or true yet untrue in the same sense. Matt saying we can create a self-improving morality, by simply defining rules for life and the goal of life, is not as trivial as he would lead the audience to believe. The great thing about the physical world is how well designed it is, infinite forms of being can be expressed based on finite laws. In metaphysics, philosophers try and reason out or discover the finite laws on which we can base everything including being, knowing, beauty, goodness etc. Matt suggests that we can swap out our axioms on the fly as our knowledge of things improve and that is never going to work because everything else that has been reasoned from a faulty axiom will be trash as well. So we constantly have to start from scratch every time we discover a faulty axiom.
@@jonathanmunyi5549 I appreciate your response as well. With all due respect, I disagree with all of these points. I'll try to address all my counterpoints:
"since you agree with me that this is not a universal self-evident truth then all reasoning from this as a principle is shaky"
I agree that the axiom is "shaky", but that does not follow that the principle is faulty. The purpose of this foundation of logic is to filter out the axioms from which no constructive progress is made toward a thriving society. The fact that we can agree that this is a dud axiom, is proving the efficacy of the principle. We can now throw it away and start from a stronger premise.
"Matt is saying we can create a self-improving morality, by simply defining rules for life and the goal of life, is not as trivial as he would lead the audience to believe"
I agree. This is not a trivial task, but it is one that is worth the effort. As such, it should be adaptable, otherwise we would still be living the barbaric lifestyle of our ancestors.
"Matt suggests that we can swap out our axioms on the fly as our knowledge of things improve and that is never going to work because everything else that has been reasoned from a faulty axiom will be trash as well"
Firstly, that depends on the intensity of the change you're making to the axiom. If you start from "stabbing people is bad" and you realize this isn't specific enough, so you generalize it to "killing people is bad", then some (if not all) moral reasoning derived from the initial axiom still remains a subset of the new axiom. As time goes on, the adjustments you make to your initial axiom(s) should get asymptotically smaller.
Secondly, if a new axiom should take the place of the old one and it completely uproots the moral foundation of a society - trashing everything it once knew - why is this a bad thing? Would it be a slow and controversial transition? Sure. But a bad one at that? Of course not. If tomorrow we find a solution to free infinite energy, that would surely change the world and cause all sorts of controversy and uproar, but ultimately it would push us as a society much further along. We have seen this time and time again throughout history, both technologically and ethically speaking. This truth emerges from nature, not from humans.
Kermit the Frog has let himself go.
Great debate. I hope Jordan and Matt do it again.
Matt has already said that Peterson, after initially agreeing to another talk, he now refuses to do it on advice of his manager. Apparently the manager thought Matt was too effective at debunking Jordan’s arguments.
It confirms that Peterson is a narcissist. Not sure what’s so ‘great’ about a whiny theist who won’t admit it trying to keep up with a well informed humble nuanced gentleman.
JP had his 15 min of fame - now he’s just a tired apologist like hundreds of others. He likes to fancify his speech by using what Dan Dennett called ‘deepity.’
I still prefer the 403 / whatever debates where everyone talks over each other before rage quitting
Can you do Sam Mat and Jordan 😂😂😂
Sir, with due respect, I am damn sure Mr. Peterson won't want to do another debate with Matt.
that portion where you were discussing societies,chess, and computers was incredible. Explaining humans and our behavior in such an understandable way
Not really. Because the chess rules are already established. Matt cannot come to that conclusion with life, because we have nothing giving us rules. He’s still wrong
God reveals the laws that make human existence worthwile and purposeful, which aligns with the truth@@raven09r1
@@raven09r1 Matt can't even get around basic science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, energy can only change forms, energy creation/destruction can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@raven09r1 We have a full set of rules that we learn from members of our tribes and families plus we have inherited the neurobiological capacity or aptititude to incorporate all this cultural info and then once grown we can extrapolate the same value judgement system onto previously unkown problems that we face. These rules are what has given us the best shot at being here alive now. possibly/hopefully have childre and . And provide the next generation with the tools they need to keep it going. These rules, traditions, folkways, periodic social activities: We could do Apollo 11 because 2 milllion years ago or whenever a handful of protohumans formed and alliance that defeated an adversary. Even it the adversary was just hunger. The individuals who were not building a culture are extinct.
@@2fast2blockYou keep copying and pasting this everywhere. It seems you don't understand what you're pasting.
I feel that the crowds presence and reactions to their discussion was counter productive in this situation. I would have liked to see them debate/discuss in a one on one setting. Their laughs were misplaced and creates the wrong perception of what they were saying to each other
I think JPs debates with Sam Harris were intellectual blockbusters. You could feel the aggression via audio.
This was a drunken convo but easy going and I'm glad Jordan is chilling. Good to see him laugh
I'm not so sure about that.
I think this debate is worth listening and many people should listen to that.
I think the public and their reactions add to the funny part of it and it will be easier for many people to listen to that simply because of that.
And they were interacting with the public. I think it might be good
@@FilDoyon I agree with almost everything you said, but I feel that it amplified the argumentative state of this debate. What seemed like pretty standard answers from Jordan changed into more aggressive sounding statements because of the crowds misplaced laughs and reactions. I don't think he was trying to be that way much of the time but the crowds perception and reaction made it seem like his responses were more argumentative than he intended and it changed the dynamic of the conversation. I agree with the benefits you stated though.
@@GuitarDiddlerJP15 fair enough. I think you're right. But what I'm not sure about is the fact that it is wrong.
Indeed, it might have changed a little bit the perception of Jordan's arguments, but when you know Jordan, you know that it was not his intention, like you've said, and if you don't know him, even if it might have sounded a bit more aggressive than the reality, Jordan's reactions to Matt answers throughout that part of the debate was so funny that I don't think it will depict him as someone's interrupting or being too much aggressive.
"I might be wrong, but I don't think so" 😋🤣 hahaha
100%, and the ones that say no are the ones whoe will be laughing and clapping with every dull statement. Sorry.
Does Jordan think using these words improves his argument? I feel like I tune out and lose every point he is trying to make. His charismatic, but he makes no sense.
I usually have no problem following him and think he makes good sense. I think he's pretty verbally intelligent and has a high mastery of words, and tries to be precise in his language.
This is not a debate, is just Matt explaining , very patiently, basic knowledge to Jordan.
I agree....
Is Matt wrong about his current wife (7:16)?
@@robberlin2230 why would you suggest this?
@@SeekingTruth2023 do u know his current arrangement
@@robberlin2230 No I don't...
Help me give the exact timestamp where JP actually answers the questions where it matters without going around for 30minutes
Good luck!
How do you actually define an answer, or a question, the young men in south Asian prehistoric society had different answer for what a question is , I see that as an immutable fact don’t you agree?
J.P., probably
He always pulls this crap. It's a debate technique called the "Gish Gallop".
Here is the complete list:
I wish all debates could go just like this one. I’m only half way through, but so far the back and forth is great. Doing it this way, each person has a chance to rebuttal each thing without some saying a gamut of things and then only have time to have an answer for a couple of questions and not having the time to answer the other 20 questions that one person has spit out to try a sway that one side. At the end of the day, one person asks a question and the other has there answer. Then the person that just answered the question now throws out there question for the other to answer, as a result way more questions get addressed 👍👍
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
You have no idea the history of your religion do you.@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363hell sounds fun
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 And Superman shoots lasers from his eyes, thats way cooler
@@CaucasianLopez Peole do wrong things in the name of Christianity and they will be held accountable
THE CHURCH IS FILLED WITH HYPOCRITES.
it’s true the church is filled with Hypocrites; they are pretenders, not genuine Christians. The Bible speaks often of false converts sitting alongside those who are genuine in their faith (goats among the sheep, tares among the wheat, bad fish among the good fish, etc.), and assures us that God will sort them out on Judgment Day. Why let the pretenders keep you out of Heaven?
Jordan looked so anxious and stressed in this debate, his constant fidgeting looks like hes overcome with nervous energy. Id love to hear the conversation in a more subdued environment without a crowd. It was quite painful to watch.
Just a tip for the next ones: You shouldn’t have put the noise gate at 100%. With headphones, the total absence of background noise from the room creates cuts in the audio that sound unnatural.
Yeah it’s insanely annoying
Agreed insanely annoying
It's probably so it can be used as a podcast equivalent.
I thought the video was buffering haha
Thought it broke multiple times or ended on a random note… 😂
To simplify petersons view as "youre not really an atheist or youd be a murderer" really shows his lack of familiarity with the abstract.
What is abstract about murder?
JP claim wasn't "you're not really an atheist or you'd be a murderer" his claim was "if you really were an atheist, you have no good reason not to have moral relativism and murder someone if the circumstances are optimal, as happens in the book", the character had all the good reasons and even then hi fail not exactly the same.
Explain it better then, so we can all understand. How does that example in a novel make Matt not an atheist?
His claim boils down to affirming Matt is not really an atheist because of his morals. But if you really think about it, this cannot be more wrong. 1. If you believe there is a god, you can do anything and everything and then just pray for forgiveness, since the lord is so all-mighty and powerful. If you did not have the cushion of a promised eternal life, you'd value the life as you know it, since you know your time is limited. Pretty sure you wouldnt want to spend that time in jail. 2. Morals dont come from the bible or any other religious books. Men wrote these, so humans wrote these values and morals based on their own humanity at the time, hence why slavery is condoned and supported in the bible. This was an acceptable practice back then. 3. You can get morals from literally everywhere else, watching movies, reading stories, even interacting with people. Claiming that we can only get morals from the bible is undermining our own desire to create a better place. 4. If you are christian, and if you are a good person SOLELY on the basis of fear of divine punishment, then are you really moral? Sorry for the essay lmao.
@@DanielRodriguez-zj5il Haha I agree. I always find it funny when people think that without God you can't be a good person. Like what? Are you projecting? If anything, I'm a good person because I want to be, not because of any ulterior motive like pleasing God, receiving blessing, or the fear of hell.
“It’s like REALLY mysterious”
😂😂❤❤
And this guy is a professor? How embarrassing...😆@@mr.t993
@@julietannerino446 I don't think there's any loss of credibility when he emphasized the word 'really'. While watching the interview, it was evident that his vocabulary skills are not a problem. However, my question is, why are you using one moment to define his entire profession? Are you feeling insecure about something?
The legal definition of grievous bodily harm is 'really serious injury'. That's a definition derived from a Lord Chancellor of the UK who was also a prosecutor at Nuremberg. Sometimes 'really' is the only appropriate adjective.
And sometimes it's just pithy.
@@kylekitzman"his vocabulary skills are not a problem"
Obfuscation of meaning is most certainly a problem.
@@MichaelAronson Some answers may seem obscure or ambiguous, but it's incredibly complex to speak on topics like God and things beyond this realm with our limited human knowledge. We must avoid getting stuck in the loop of “you don't understand it, and I can't explain it.” Philosophy allows the scientist to think beyond what is observable, and Science allows a philosopher to identify what is real. Both roles are essential for humanity to advance as we Carry a piece of the truth. It will always be more accessible to critique the philosopher, who will always have a disadvantage in debate.
I was expecting better from JP. It came down to a 'no true scotsman' fallacy for everything. If you do something objectively moral, you must believe in God regardless of whether you think you don't, and if you are an actual artist, you have to believe in God even if you think you don't because no artist or moral person doesn't believe in God.
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
I think he means that what we call objectively moral is deeply tied to our collective culture, which again is related to religion, at least our version. Other than that, art and various kind of experiences can often have a 'spiritual' component to them
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 average schizo rage bait
@@dariogotti8123 People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
That's exactly what JP was arguing. That was where he truly lost it.
Petersen: "I want there to be something more than this." Dullahunty: "okay..."
The issue at hand is sin and God’s nature of being just. Sin brings suffering (the pleasure is short term, and the suffering is long term-on earth and in hell forever). God brings Righteousness (may have short term suffering followed by long term pleasure- on earth and in Heaven).
If you love yourself repent of your sins (lying, hatred, unforgiveness, sexual sins, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, stealing, dishonouring your parents etc) & believe in Jesus for forgiveness of sins. (Jesus died on the Cross as a sacrifice and defeated death by rising from the dead)
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 That shit is all made up.
Sooo… what’s your point.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Why should I believe?
@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 there is no issue at hand. You're making baseless claims. Suffering is subjective.
Thank you for reuploading this with higher volume.
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
This is how a debate should be. You can still have common ground while being on opposite sides. Most debates seem to be about destroying the person who opposes you pretending as if there is no value to anything they have to say.
I dont precive this conversation as a debate. Thats why it is so learning and positiv to listen to.
They're not even on opposite sides.. Peterson isn't a Christian per se
There was no debate here whatsoever. JBP simply does not allow for it.
This is a debate, its just, we are accostumed to what politics do in debates
@@brandondill5640 but Peterson doesn’t really know how to debate. I’ve watched him in the past and I’ve watched him on interviews. He has these tired rhetorical tricks that he employs where he makes sweeping generalizations, bold claims and doesn’t present any evidence to support his arguments. He rambles with a lot of academic jargon and talks and talks in order to avoid being pressed to provide proof.
He also engages in a lot of epistemological games in order to further muddy the waters and confuse his opponent. And he also does this so that he can do that little giggle of his and say “I didn’t say that.” The joke being here that he doesn’t really ever say much of anything of relevance or validity.
Also Peterson seems to take every form of interaction as some form of competition that he must dominate. Dillahunty is treating it as this is, a conversation. Peterson is walking up as if this is a fight to be won. His smug
“Ready to go?” when Matt welcomes him onstage was a clear giveaway.
Jordon Peterson never had a coherent thought. He dresses up his remarks with big words but still makes no sense. Matt makes him look so stupid.
These two guys are always fighting in my head.
Jordan Peterson is the stubborn childish ideologically submissive beta side of me, Matt is the logical, stoic pragmatic and reasonable chad side of me
Dr Peterson is always fighting with meaning on youtube.
Ali vs Frazier
@@shabbaranks7968tell me you don't listen to Peterson without telling me. His whole fuckin thing is to not be idealogically submissive
@@shabbaranks7968 Matt might be logical but definitely not stoic. He has pretty poor emotional regulation and loses his patience often. EDIT: agree with your opinion of Peterson though, that man speaks like a cult leader. His followers worship him like some Christ figure, it's really bizarre. Peterson is just a grifter monetizing outrage.
I love the comments. They display perfectly how people can hear the same thing and receive it so differently. We all apply our filters, our bias and our experience and then align it with Matt or J.P. And then both sides GENERALLY (not completely) decide the other is just wrong for any myriad of reasons.
I love this comment. It displays how people can notice any pattern, regardless of how small and insignificant, and project their own bias and experience onto it and then make broad generalized statements that present no new information about the topic.
I don't understand why conservatives can't learn simple writing etiquette. You don't write random words in block letters. It sounds like you're a maniac shouting at the corner of the street about the end of the world.
I'm amazed at the number of people that casually hate Jordan Peterson. It reminds me of how someone that spoke love and peace was also hated a couple of thousand years ago.
@@thomascromwell6840 I think it’s Reddit, not necessarily conservatives.
People on Reddit *love* emphasising CERTAIN
@@realphoenixkingI don't think anyone 'casually hates' Jordan Peterson. I think they purposefully dislike him, because he twists facts to sustain his general narrative.
The 'ethos' he values shouldn't be more valuable than the truth; yet he clearly believes this to be true.
To him, illustrative examples (true or false in themselves) are just props for a grander (instrumentally valuable) narrative.
To 'enlightenment folks' this sounds like the tail wagging the dog.
In my experience, most people who like him approve because he tells them a nice story that makes sense of things. People who disapprove dislike him because he stepped onto a subject that they studied OUTSIDE of a grand narrative.
@11:24 Peterson refers to a study on psilocybin and the effect of a mystical experience that induces someone to quit smoking. I found the study, or trial. But it isn't a trial. I would call it a vague, inexplicable observation. It didn't come up to even one of the number of standards that would constitute a trial. There were only 15 subjects (trials require at least 100), it was not randomized, it wasn't double-blind, there was no placebo group, and it didn't list any possible bias nor conflict of interest that could diminish the strength of the conclusion. In any case, the trial never concluded that it proved the existence of mystical experiences.
Peterson betrayed his biased ignorance with that bit of nonsense. I've been an atheist for decades, and recently quit smoking. Cold turkey. No drugs, no deity, no magic, no mystic experience, just a decision made and followed.
Prove me wrong, Jordan, you pedantic obscurantist!
Yo, I know people personally with mystical experiences. I had a friend Mike who began fervently believing in God and aliens after taking acid regularly for months. This is definitely a thing. Anyone who's been involved in psychedelics knows people who have been "changed" by a profound, overwhelming psychedelic trip.
Anecdotl, yes. But still come on. This is obviously a recurring phenomenon.
That being said, I've done all kinds of psychedelics. I don't believe in the supernatural. But I get how these drugs could essentially do the opposite of PTSD. So, there ya go
@@phillystevesteak6982 Let's review. You've taken lots of drugs and it has advanced your critical thinking skills to such a high level that not only can you evaluate yourself correctly but all the others in your social group.
@@phillystevesteak6982 Having a "mystical" experience while on psychedelics in no way demonstrates anything supernatural. All it demonstrates is one of the effects of consuming psychedelics. Nothing more.
Read the VERY end paragraph of my comment @@MisterG2323
That sound gate is so aggressive I keep thinking my audio is going out
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 LOL
I wonder if I'd have to define "hi" "my" "name" and "is" to have a conversation with Peterson.
"define "define"", he would ask. He seems to struggle understanding the meaning of most things, even the simplest of things.
He would probably still tell you that you're wrong.
It's just infuriating because jp is an atheist and just refuses to admit it because his fan base is mostly Christian conservatives and they would be furious. So he just goes into rambling word salads trying to skirt around giving a straightforward "no" when asked if he believes in God. At best it's disingenuous and at worst it's a flagrant abuse of his followers for personal gain
Just say you are dumb 🤦
The infuriating thing is not that he does that, but that he himself then avoids, dodges and refuses defining any of his terms.
Debate topic: Does god exist?
JP: Lets make this about linguistics
Ok but how do you define linguistics????
@@dooby1445
What do u mean by "define" exactly?
All religious debates of sufficient depth become linguistic.
@@TommyTombstone no, most religious debates become linguistic not because of depth, but because of lack of any sort of evidence other than the interpretation of words written in a fiction novel.
@@Vplaytg Got it, so you're not intellectually sophisticated enough to nail down the definitions of words, so instead you resort to poking fun and talking shit because it's easier than addressing the arguments.
Thank you for putting JP’s ego out on display for everyone to see. Not that it’s hard to do.
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
Jordan Peterson is an evasive blowhard and he knows it. I have to give home credit though… I’ve seen him be asked about his personal relationship to faith/religion/god dozens and dozens of times and every time without fail, he manages to give a completely new 2 thousand word nonsensical freshman psychology student lit on high concentrate THC dabs kind of answer. It’s truly a unique and covetous talent he’s developed. And his simpleton fans who just want a daddy that will send them to their room because they’ve been bad, buy it hook line and sinker.
Humans talking about GODS❎
Humans should discuss about A GOOD HUMAN BEING ✅
Hard to deal with not willing to be wrong. I enjoyed Matt's perspectives.
Albert Einstein said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" ......... Is what I would tell Jordan Peterson! At times I felt like I understood and at times I was just lost in his vocabulary! It was always so refreshing when Matt would speak, he was clear and coherent, and he used great examples and analogies to support his perspective! In my opinion Jordan can learn alot from Matt in terms of the way he explains himself.
I know exactly what you mean, which is more than i can say for Jordan Peterson.
Never forget this is the guy whose "12 Rules for Life" included the rule to *_be precise in your speech._*
@@MichaelAronsonthe irony! 😅
Yeah Jordan Peterson honestly seems like he was full of crap but he knows he's gained a lot of Christian followers so he wants to sound smart and not go against what I think his intellect nose is true about the lack of evidence for a god. It's almost kind of annoying because you see him pause and then just start saying a bunch of weird words in a row as if they are valid. He's very opening thing saying that it's not taken serious biologically intellectually all this stuff what is he talking about? It's not taken serious the fact of considering if there's a God that's the stupidest opening line ever of course it's taken serious it's taken way more serious by atheist than this by any religious
The man was perfectly coherent to me. Although I’m the type of person that learns new words for fun. I’ll summarize what I heard in simple terms:
1. The concept of God seems to be a result of biological and cultural development. It developed as a necessary means for our ability to communicate and to move beyond pragmatism.
2. Matt’s view is simple pragmatism on the back of the work that faith has constructed. Pragmatism does not give you the power to dream and to enter into danger, chaos, or the unknown. There is no good reason to do so unless forced by a greater foundational narrative.
3. Values are shaped in our intuition to believe in God and purpose. It is the majority of people’s innate operating systems. It explains why we should value ourselves and others.
4. Without God we can only have facts and opinions but not truth. Truth is necessary for the formation of society.
5. The functional benefit of God and its universal metaphysical power can serve as a type of evidence for its reality. For example…we conceive of circles so much so that we intuitively make use of them. To argue about if they are a thing in reality is silly. We conceive them therefore the question is irrelevant.
6. Atheism have no unifying narrative to challenge the evil that seems to be innate in all of us. At best it can give us pragmatism but not moral duties…this seems to him to be possible evidence that we know God is real in some sort.
Those were a few of his points. There were a lot more. Matt was arguing that you can’t prove God exist beyond the shadow of doubt to call it objective truth. But Jordan seemed to be arguing that is irrelevant because you can’t live functionally without the concept. Matt was getting angry when Jordan was trying to highlight that when he presented his working system for human wellbeing.
I tend to agree with Jordan. Matt himself acknowledged that the work of thinking through a grounded functional worldview and value system…most would never do it. They will default to superstition or being told what to believe. That system needs to create empathy and creativity and boldness while restraining human “evil” in a potent way. That’s what religion does…atheism does not have the capacity to do that. We all know you can’t prove God in any absolute sense. But most people aren’t interested establishing anything in an absolute sense because most things we assume can’t be proven…for the theists and atheists alike.
I've never seen Matt behave so well in a debate. I appreciate this side of him.
They probably told him look dude, your attitude ain't good for business
yeah because he knows if he looks like a fucking moron like he normally does on a big scale with a much larger name in Jordan Peterson, that he will lose all of the little respect he has in the debate community. I'm actually shocked that Peterson even chose to do this debate and it's very satisfying to watch Matt get his little sneaky roundabout smokescreens cleared and pressed through like he did at 40:45. Fucking poetry in motion watching the self-proclaimed "debater" get pie faced in front of the peanut gallery who kept falling for his cheap tricks.
He’s going against another well educated person whom he has some level of respect towards
Yeah, it wasn't about him behaving well for the debate. Peterson may be wrong in his viewpoint, but he presents at least somewhat reasonable arguments relative to what Matt usually has to contend with. He just doesn't have patience for outright stupidity.
They disagree but Matt has respect for Peterson. I think he believes where Peterson is coming from is a good, educated, honest place. It's in good faith is what I'm trying to say I guess lol
You can’t stop smoking with out any supernatural intervention 😂
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Nicotine patches worked pretty well for me.
@@Leebo13 In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363you are seriously annoying
Would be nice if you had the date of the debate somewhere in the title or description.
Sometime between January and April 2018.
I agree. I assume they don't put the date in there intentionally to make it look like it's a recent recording when in reality it's at least 5 years old stuff. Very unprofessional.
@@svn_ysrk Classical Click Calculation.
@@svn_ysrk sure worked on me!
@@svn_ysrk- that’s exactly why they do it.
It's so nice to watch the two of them having fun even though they disagree!!
That is the only way humanity will move forward.
Yup, freedom from religion is essential for our species sanity
@@joeking6972 Move forward from what?
@@MichaelAronson I can already tell this won't be a productive discussion...
@@joeking6972 We don't have to discuss anything. Just answer my question.
"Consciousness is not just mysterious, it's like *really* mysterious"
-Blue Raja- errr Dr Jordan Peterson.
Hahaha, I didn't know the Blue Raja reference.
Jordan Peterson has never proclaimed a belief in god.
It seems Sam Harris got the raw end of this debate.
he probably threw himself off a stage after he watched this.
Sam hasn’t been doing his own reputation any favors lately either. Poor guy!
Haha!! Indeed.
@@iymspartacus7089 Well, he hasn't tried to ruin his reputation as much as Peterson, Rogan, Crowder and the likes. Almost mentioned Shapiro, but he never had much repuitation to begin with
@@fredrikfjeld1575 So it's all about politics eh?
JP’s psychedelics argument seemed self-defeating. If physical plants or drugs derived from them can cause experiences that people describe as “mystical,” wouldn’t the most obvious explanation be that those drugs are causing a physical response in our brains or bodies that trigger that mental experience? And if it can be triggered by physical substances to cause physical reactions in our brains, then you don’t need anything supernatural in that equation to explain the “mystical” phenomenon. To me, psychedelics are more evidence for naturalism.
That could easily be an inference.
As we go on, it may then lead us to ask what really is defined as supernatural. For instance, assuming 'ghosts' of dead people really do exist in this plane: if we become able to observe 'ghosts' with a technological tool, would we then call them natural entities?
So, my question on this is that: the moment a normally 'supernatural' phenomenon tries to prove 'itself' to us by becoming subject to our 'natural' sense organs, what would stop us from rebranding them as natural?
We may have to agree on what qualifies as 'supernatural', I think. That may then help us define the acceptable evidence to demand of religionists or proponents for the supernatural.
@@krystophyryour ghost example is a very good one 👏
I think JP was saying people have said similar things about supernatural experiences while on psychedelics.
This argument sounded surprisingly unintelligent to me. Our brains share the same fundamental structure. We know enough about this structure to understand that you can do X to this region of the brain and expect to affect Y. Everything that you are or can experience happens in those three pounds in your head. It doesn't seem like a stretch to first explore how the chemical changes the brain's function and if activity in that region or system could explain why we experience the things we do when we take different drugs.
I don't understand the leap from, "You think you're seeing God, and you might taste the color purple and see sound." to "If you do see God, though, that's real."
"That's kinda like evidence, ya know." Uh, no. I don't know, Jordan. Seems pretty shoddy to me.
@@krystophyr I guess JP is trying to approach it like a doctor that, look, here's a medicine that provides cure to the "insert issue here", so that itself shouldn't be overlooked as a possible source of evidence..for supernatural.. this way of thought doesn't really sit with me, but anyway.. wanted to say, I like your take on supernatural vs natural here. Reminds me of the argument of what is natural and what is artificial.. it's like, say, mollusks building a shell around their body, that is a natural phenomena, but humans building skyscrapers is an artificial one, almost suggesting that how we humans think and act is not just another voice of nature. Makes me think, these problems appear to be mostly based in the language we use instead of the reality itself
How is the thought of humans not existing too hypothetical? We didn’t exist at one point, now we exist, and at some point… we won’t exist. That’s the most realistic thing you could say about the human race.
Epicurus said over 2300 years ago “I was not, I am, I will not be.
@@Bungaloo “I don’t care” ;)
It's actually a tougher question than you think, philosophically. We don't, and can't, actually know anything when we aren't observing said "thing".
@thesemicolonclub Perception is not reality. We can perceive things that aren't there and miss things that are there. Perception doesn't tell you what is true.
@@crimsonguy723 Observation doesn't impart knowledge either. We observe the Sun moving across the sky. That doesn't mean we know the Sun moves. It doesn't.
24:20-26:30 He did exactly what he said you shouldn't do. He closed off to the possibility that consciousness could come from an external source, without having evidence for that belief, when he should have just said "I don't know" and been open to that as one possibility until he had evidence to the contrary.
"consciousness could come from an external source"
It couldn't.
If only presidential debates could be this civil
Or this intelligent
Funny how we can have these amazing discussions with such intellectuals still and end up in the exact same place we started: with fundamental disagreement.
Because these aren't amazing discussions. They don't go anywhere.
@@MichaelAronson So why don't you be the change you want to see?
@@RA-ie3ss I don't want to be your boyfriend, fash. I want you to find your own boyfriend.
@@MichaelAronson Oof not anywhere and no substance as usual.
@@RA-ie3ss Your future boyfriend is out there somewhere. Go find him, fash.
My wife says to me everyday. “I’m not always right, but I’m never wrong”
my wife says to me everyday. "Im right all the time because i let you speak for me, thank you honey"
That sounds like a toxic relationship.
@@SleepyMatt-zzz It's hard to tell with people. Could be an ironic slogan, like one on a Walmart shirt, but it could be a sign of an underlying issue in their relationship
@@SleepyMatt-zzzoh get a grip
If she were good, she would have said, "Maybe I am right or wrong, but I'm trying to improve."
Jordan is seemingly unhinged.
It's Jordan Peterson defending the position of God's existence! How good can this be? It would be a miracle.
I do wish Jordan would let people finish their points.
The penchant of the narcissist. It's involuntary.
@@fgoindarkgI think he's a narcissist, too. Nobody in my country (Canada) gives him a second thought. 🤨
@@fgoindarkgthank you! I used to kinda like Peterson but he's gone off the rails years ago. All his arguments boil down "we need God because societeh"
46:08 the bottle oppening at the end of that statement and then the silence was so funny 😂😂😂
The issue at hand is sin and God’s nature of being just. Sin brings suffering (the pleasure is short term, and the suffering is long term-on earth and in hell forever). God brings Righteousness (may have short term suffering followed by long term pleasure- on earth and in Heaven).
If you love yourself repent of your sins (lying, hatred, unforgiveness, sexual sins, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, stealing, dishonouring your parents etc) & believe in Jesus for forgiveness of sins. (Jesus died on the Cross as a sacrifice and defeated death by rising from the dead)
@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Wow this is actually kind of a comedic response, good job on that
Setting aside the validity of your comment for a moment, but responding to a humorous observation with two paragraphs of argumentation is very much in my wheelhouse
Genuinely applaud and thank you for the distraction from the fresh pain of my recent breakup
(and you see now what I did there is to make it serious again, thus bringing us full circle)
@@sad_doggo2504 Sorry for your brak up it must b heart breaking tosplit fromsomeone you once loved, how do you think the Lord feels since He loves you dearly yet many don't love Him back, as you know a relationship is 2 sided you give love and receive love back Oly those who Love Jeesus go to Heaven
“Consciousness isn’t just mysterious, it’s like really mysterious” give me a fucking break 😂😂😂😂😂