How else do you think he pays for all the fancy suits? He uses the money he gets from Christians in exchange for obfuscating important facts which they might find offense.
Christian: "We are all confused about the nature of divinity" Also Christians: "But we know if you don't accept the Lord as your savior, you can burn in hell for all eternity" Sounds fair lol
Exactly, I'm confused as to why Christians do not see that flaw in their logic. I am guessing it's out of necessity or childhood indoctrination or even to appease their parents?
Right...the whole system is ridiculous. The claim is: God designed us to be this way, doesn't provide any evidence for his existence besides an old book which says just believe I exist exclusively based on faith or else you will burn in hell for eternity. Make it make sense...
@@Akira-jd2zr It was a dark age view similar to eliminative materialism today. The difference being that we can understand the limitations of a dark age. What is harder to understand is the stupidity of the isms that prevail today in an Atomic Age and all of them are materialistic.
Jordan Peterson's core philosophy: If you can't dazzle em with brilliance...baffle em with bullshit. And NOBODY does it better than he. Embarrassing. For him.
At the end Jordan plays victim “You won” as if Sam is somehow playing a win/loose game and Jordan is not. Jordan made his name with “gotcha” debates, he is just out of his league against Harris.
Is consciousness fundamental, and mind; did it emerge with quantum events, or do you think it all began with biology. If it began with biology how did what came before arise and evolve? By natural selection? To what prototype? If the evolution of our galaxy was managed by the resonance between Jupiter and Saturn how exactly did that come about?
@@ALavin-en1kr ''If the evolution of our galaxy was managed by the resonance between Jupiter and Saturn...'' That *almost certainly* didn't happen. (thanks Sam, mate)
I think Jordan is playing to the Christian crowd for money. It is the same reason why his manager or whoever that was told him not to debate with Matt Dillahunty. Jordan is very smart, but like so many others, when it comes to religion, he turns into an absolute fool. He lost me when he told Dillahunty that he wasn't really an atheist. Anyone who makes a claim like that is full of themselves.
I am Christian but I'm glad Harris did this. Peterson is a grifter but not for money (even though he's made an absolute payday since he exploded on the scene). He suffers the complex of many cult leaders. He has a desire to be seen as brilliant and important.
Peterson says at the end “that’s a fine answer” but what he meant was “that’s a financer” bc he makes his money off of those who believe that he is a “believer “ in the way they are.
JP knows which side of the bread the butter's on. He's become an ideologue hero of the far right and makes a nice living out of it. Of course he doesn't believe the BS he comes out with, although it's fun to watch him trying to square the circle.
STOP WITH THE “Far Right” bullshit. The “far right/Alt right” HATE JORDAN PETERSON. You know what they call him? “Juden Peterstein”. They HATE him because he supports Israel and isn’t a rabid anti semite like them. Peterson is full of shit when it comes to religion, but stop the lies and misinformation.
“Look, I’ve never made the claim that what I’m talking about is like what other people are talking about. I mean it is in some ways but I’ve never made that claim.” - Jordan Peterson, modern Yoda
Jordan is honest when he says he's using theological terms in idiosyncratic and ambiguous ways. If only he would simply be clearer and use his own made up terms for his made up definitions. It's always safe to assume that when JP is talking theology, he doesn't mean what he seems to mean. That's because he's a clever liar, you see.
@@anirudhdwivedi6673 There is an underlying motive, for sure. Notice how JP often talks about the "divine spark": that's a gnostic term taken up in theosophy and occultism. JP is a neo-gnostic occultist, but he can't say so openly for risk of alienating all his conservative Christian fans and outing himself as a fringe crank mystic, as if he hasn't done so already.
Jordan Peterson's ambiguous answers about his belief in God intentionally exploit the Zeigarnik Effect and Curiosity Gap, keeping people intrigued and continuously engaged. By not providing a clear answer, he maintains an enigmatic presence that keeps his audience coming back for more, driven by the desire to fill the information gap. I see this strategy as deceiving the audience, as it keeps them hooked without ever providing a definitive answer.
I dont think its intentionally, i think its a sideffect of him avoiding exact answers so he can stay in a rather open position, kind of not getting trapped, because at some point he will like everyone else have to argue illogical points to stay in these debates as his options to argue get smaller and smaller the more he states his position.
In some ways it is frustrating watching the same content for the umpteenth time because of a different title, but at the same time I think we can be grateful that Pangburn keeps trying to reach new audiences. And one of the comments taught me something new.
I looked into Jordan Peterson. He is a massive grifter who does ALL the major grifts: supplements, self-help books, courses, MLMs, diet programs, and so on… and all while pretending he’s some kind of educated expert when he was merely a psych professor who failed in his field.
There's a much simpler way to critique this. If you have an idea, and you refer to that idea as "God", you are making a claim that your idea is equivalent to the older ideas that have historically been called God. There's some room for nuance but not as much as JP is claiming. There's a reason why JP doesn't refer to his belief as Allah or Jesus, because his belief doesn't relate to those things. He calls it God despite it not relating to any traditional idea of God, and that's either dishonest, or it's a one-man attempt to appropriate the weightiest term mankind has to offer - and that's strategically impoverished. If JP wants to redefine God like this, he's talking to the wrong audience. He wants to talk towards atheists and say God isn't really that big of a claim because it's just this cloud of stories and moralism. But if he wants the word to work that way in conversations with other human beings, he needs to talk to theists and tell them they are wrong about the nature of God. He uses their term to shield himself from their critique.
@@OurIntrepidVampires Not sure what you are trying to express here. The definition of God is: Consciousness; Existence; Bliss. Consciousness is the hard problem for philosophers and it will remain so as reason will never figure it out
@@ALavin-en1kr most people use "God" to refer to a creator entity. A secondary usage is to refer to a being of power beyond mortal ken, especially in polytheistic beliefs where a God is not necessarily the creator, but could be one of many entities possessing divine supernatural ability.
I am always amazed how such highly intelligent and educated people can waste so much time and energy debating ancient superstition. "God took the light away but we sacrificed a chicken and he gave it back to us" Uhh it's called day and night.
At the end Jordan doesn't know???? I know ! People are deathly afraid of dying being the end if it all as far as they are concerned. All they have ever known is being alive and so it is difficult for them to conceive of any other state of being. Not being alive somehow just doesn't seem possible to them.
The problem with giving an answer is that it still can be wrong. And when you declare it is almost certain you become biased. Plus I get Joedans point that it might not even matter that much because it doesnt mean that the teachings are false or wrong.
It changes a lot if you think you'll burn in hell if you don't behave. He's not honest, he knows he's full of bullshit but he doesn't want to lose followers and money so he won't answer... he's like a politician who doesn't want to give you a straight answer because he doesn't want to lose the election and is trying to appeal to the largest group of people possible.
It *does* mean that those teachings are false and wrong. There is no heaven, there is no hell, there is no afterlife, Christianity is a grift from the start. Jesus teaches the fishermen to be "fishers of men" which is to say, he teaches them to be grifters. To quote Wayne and Garth, "Fished in! Fished in!"
@@StephenCameron the whole dogma can be imaginative, and yet every or almost every advice it gives on how to conduct a proper life may be true. Much depends on what values you think have the priority. For example do you value justice or equality more, because you cant have both. The chirstian-european culture is the best of them all so far. And there is hardly any need to make a revolution just because some dogmas cannot be proven.
While some believe the etymology of “Bible” is from the Greco “biblos” meaning scroll, it is actually from the Middle English “babble” meaning incoherent nonsense.
JP wasn't lying when he said "I was was clear as I can be". Think about it! He's simply incabale of being any clearer than well as clear he is to everyone all the time!
@Pangburn: What's with these idiotic hitpiece-like titles? Why invite and host both of them, and then bash one of them in clips? It looks rather disreputable.
Instead of the standard "we know/there is reason/evidence, therefore we believe", since that doesn't fly anymore, JP is now "we don't know, isn't that mysterious, therefore we believe". And in a way that's probably a step forward for theists: admitting they don't know and that really it's simply the whole mystique that allures them.
To an extant no. But, seeing how JP has made an entire career out of being deliberately obtuse and needlessly pedantic-almost exclusively in the effort to pander to one particular group of people-then yes, JP is responsible for being perceived as an "intellectual" (note the ironic quotation marks) champion for the religious American right.
Super annoying. I had to watch all 300 hours, some of them multiple times. All in all almost 500 hours! Super turbo annoying. I just had to. It annoyed me to hell and back, but I just had to. Super turbo four wheel drive annoying!
3:09 Sad kermit starts losing the audience 😢 You can hear his heart breaking a little bit. They’re clapping because they know Sam is right on that Jordan’s version of “faith” is cheap and mostly has to do with human psychological behavior rather than also including the exterior reality.
Not sure if the intention of these headlines is just to draw the "right crowd", but neither Harris nor Peterson "exposed" anything in the other. It has to be noted that Harris and Peterson sometimes mean different things even when they use the same term. Peterson is very aware of this, which is why sometimes Peterson's responses seem elusive, but they are not. Quite the contrary, he is trying to be very precise. And you cannot be precise if you know what you say can easily be misunderstood unless you put footnotes around it. When Peterson gets asked "do you think that really happened", he usually asks -- and rightly so -- what is meant with the question. Because once you start to think about the nature of "reality" and what is "real", it becomes clear that the nature of what is real or reality is by no means the same for everyone and therefore you cannot simple pre-suppose these as being easily defined. When Peterson talks about "God" or "Christ" or "Atheism", he doesn't claim to "know" or to "believe", he is investigating claims. And even questioning whether or not "atheism" is real, which is a valid question. When some people claim to be "atheists", they think it is obvious that they mean by that, but it is not. Obviously, these are intelligent people who have given this some thought (and probably continually think about it), which is why they talk to each other, but all too often the supporters (on either "side") just turn to these videos to find their views confirmed rather than challenged.
＼(^_^)／ We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
People are deply confused about religion and god because Peterson creates the confusion first to define god into existence and then to redefine god as uniquelly christian. He creates a dense fog around the issue and them moves the goalpost whenever anyone get close to nailing him down. "Thats not what I ment" "I didn't say that" And then he goes right back to it.
“You’re saying we’re all deeply confused…” “No dude, just you. Everyone else agrees on a definition, and you’re claiming the question is confusing to you because the word is deeply confusing to you personally. You don’t need a bible you need a dictionary.” I loved the beginning of the first debate which was pretty much “I don’t believe in God. Do you?” The response began with “Well, that’s a problem” followed by 9 uninterrupted minutes waffling on a half dozen topics including the importance of all literature, and three debates later he still hasn’t answered the question of whether he personally believes in a literal god literally exists, as he just drones on about the figurative and how important the bible is because it’s an old book and has a few decent life lessons in it somewhere, but doesn’t actually say in any way that no, he doesn’t actually believe a real god exists, he thinks that god and Jesus are fictional characters in a book and he wants other people to believe in it because it has a few passages that that he finds meaningful and thinks old books are important simply because they are old books. He actually admitted it in another setting which wasn’t a debate or trying to sell his nonsense that lobsters and humans have the same brains and biology and instincts and reactions to pharmaceuticals as humans because he is dumb and has zero education in any of the subjects he has ever talked about because his PhD was in psychology specifically in the long term effects of long term alcohol abuse. Anything else is not in his knowledge base.
Jordan claims to be clear in his answers . Then he speaks word salad on the topic . He then gets called out. His response is “ I never said that”. Total conman
Funny how Peterson judges the audiences' applauding Harris' point. As if they had no reason to. Peterson really lives in his own makeshift world. Word salads and all.
I can’t say that Peterson didn’t deserve this. He did. And he does. He is too intelligent and sensitive to be an atheist, but somehow he is too scared to face the full force of truth and too arrogant to even admit that there is such a thing as Truth that doesn’t depend on any hermeneutics. He pays the price for his spiritual cowardice.
After Sam calls him out on being murky about his beliefs and the resultant applause I realized: Surprised Kermit is among the funnier sounding of the Kermits.
Harris has the advantage of reality on his side, and is more than equal to Peterson intellect. Jordan is extremely irritating and uses lots of fancy words to say very little. Sam uses plane English to make clear and valid points which are basically indisputable.
One of them IS spouting common sense, the other sophistry. But the ideological zombies who are confused will think it’s the other way around. I see a lot of value in Jordan’s psychoanalytical reading of The Bible. I think he’s onto something when it comes to understanding these texts as wisdom literature. But if he takes one step into Apologetics or Theology, he’s full. Of. SHIT.
The more intelligent you are the more you seem a fool to the less intelligent. Harris is clearly not in the same ball park as Peterson. Though he is a good debator.
Let us consider 10 "Be precise in your speech." Except Peterson is intentionally imprecise in his speech and then takes umbrage when anyone tries to get him to be precise And as a bonus 6 "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world." Sais the guy who clearly suffers from anxiety and depression, but keeps telling everyone else how to live their life.
Whatever he might experience in his mind and heart is none of your damn business. You haven’t walked a mile in his shoes, so you have no right to criticise Jordan. Peterson as public figure, on the other hand…
@@claudiamanta1943 “Whatever he might experience in his mind and heart is none of your damn business. You haven’t walked a mile in his shoes, so you have no right to criticise” This is an interesting statement in the context… We are talking about a man who criticizes whole swaths of the population though he doesn’t know anything about them. We are talking about a man who uses his academic qualifications as justification to peddle clear and obvious lies. We are talking about a man who judges others endlessly. And you are saying “you have no right to criticise” Everything about Jordan Peterson is clear and obvious hypocrisy while all the while he judges others. “Jordan. Peterson as public figure, on the other hand…” And then we get to this. As a “public figure” he sais "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world." This is a key cornerstone to his public persona. But it is clear he doesn’t have his life in order. Again mind numbing hypocrisy.
The coming collapse of materialism: John 1:1-3 (KJV) 1 In the beginning was the Word,(information) and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. With quantum physics, conscious observation causes the wave function to collapse and information shapes your perceived material environment. DNA information is the primary factor in biology; organic chemistry is secondary. Imagine AI controlling avatars in computer games to the extent that avatars seem to exhibit independent consciousness in the simulation and act as if they are living in a material reality. They would be the materialist!
(^.^) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
@@theunknownatheist3815 the atheists pouting like a baby when someone actually knows how to debate the facts. The evidence isn't in the biology that wouldn't be moral for God to do.
Peterson's grift is semantics, word-salad, over-complication and JAQing off. There's very little practical substance to what he has to say or offer. He's like Waitrose Andrew Tate.
:-> Consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.
(^_^) The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of ''76 by The Alarm.
Shout out to the bolsheviks in the comments. You people are so peaceful and have never created atrocity. You have created many coherent societies. lmao
Peterson can't stand letting anyone else talk. He interrupts and tries to dominate. But Sam Harris is smarter than Peterson, and Peterson knows it. It's clear to anyone who watches this debate. Peterson acts like a silly, whiny child in response to Harris' intelligence and grace.
Full discussion here: ua-cam.com/video/jey_CzIOfYE/v-deo.html
Peterson doesn't like it when Harris threatens his grift.
How else do you think he pays for all the fancy suits? He uses the money he gets from Christians in exchange for obfuscating important facts which they might find offense.
"I was as clear as I possibly could be."
Dude is literally irony incarnate.
I was searching for this comment.
I laughed so hard when he said that. 🤣🤣🤣
Came here to say effectively the same thing, but I somehow knew I'd find that someone else had already said it
Thing is, it might be a true statement. Because his brain is soup.
Christian: "We are all confused about the nature of divinity"
Also Christians: "But we know if you don't accept the Lord as your savior, you can burn in hell for all eternity"
Sounds fair lol
Exactly, I'm confused as to why Christians do not see that flaw in their logic. I am guessing it's out of necessity or childhood indoctrination or even to appease their parents?
Right...the whole system is ridiculous. The claim is: God designed us to be this way, doesn't provide any evidence for his existence besides an old book which says just believe I exist exclusively based on faith or else you will burn in hell for eternity. Make it make sense...
That was a dark age view; there were a lot of strange views in the dark age.
@@Akira-jd2zr It was a dark age view similar to eliminative materialism today. The difference being that we can understand the limitations of a dark age. What is harder to understand is the stupidity of the isms that prevail today in an Atomic Age and all of them are materialistic.
You know???? Bullshit . . . you DON"T KNOW! You don't know anything about the subject . . . because you haven't been dead!
Jordan Peterson's core philosophy: If you can't dazzle em with brilliance...baffle em with bullshit. And NOBODY does it better than he. Embarrassing. For him.
@@traviskeeler5655 Poor Jordan the atheists are on full attack mode. What happened to tolerance? To rational communication without rancor.
Also, "When in doubt, deny all terms and definitions."
At the end Jordan plays victim “You won” as if Sam is somehow playing a win/loose game and Jordan is not. Jordan made his name with “gotcha” debates, he is just out of his league against Harris.
That’s the entirety of christian apologetics.
Jordan clearly knows what Sam is trying to point out here.
Is consciousness fundamental, and mind; did it emerge with quantum events, or do you think it all began with biology. If it began with biology how did what came before arise and evolve? By natural selection? To what prototype? If the evolution of our galaxy was managed by the resonance between Jupiter and Saturn how exactly did that come about?
We don't know. Yet religion claims a god did it and yet to demonstrate it@@ALavin-en1kr
@@frozentspark2105 A lot is not only not explained much less demonstrated. So different points of view will prevail. Nothing wrong with that.
@@ALavin-en1kr ''If the evolution of our galaxy was managed by the resonance between Jupiter and Saturn...''
That *almost certainly* didn't happen. (thanks Sam, mate)
@@furtdrven2512 It is science; it did happen.
Jordan is not equipped to debate Sam.
Or Matt Dillahunty
I don’t think he’s exposing Jordan’s atheism. I think he’s exposing most Christians atheism.
nope, Jordan Peterson doesn't want to admit what he believes because he would lose a lot of followers and with that a lot of money
I think Jordan is playing to the Christian crowd for money. It is the same reason why his manager or whoever that was told him not to debate with Matt Dillahunty. Jordan is very smart, but like so many others, when it comes to religion, he turns into an absolute fool. He lost me when he told Dillahunty that he wasn't really an atheist. Anyone who makes a claim like that is full of themselves.
I am Christian but I'm glad Harris did this. Peterson is a grifter but not for money (even though he's made an absolute payday since he exploded on the scene). He suffers the complex of many cult leaders. He has a desire to be seen as brilliant and important.
When did you meet him?
Too much money on the line for JP’s televangelist schtik.
Peterson says at the end “that’s a fine answer” but what he meant was “that’s a financer” bc he makes his money off of those who believe that he is a “believer “ in the way they are.
JP knows which side of the bread the butter's on. He's become an ideologue hero of the far right and makes a nice living out of it. Of course he doesn't believe the BS he comes out with, although it's fun to watch him trying to square the circle.
STOP WITH THE “Far Right” bullshit. The “far right/Alt right” HATE JORDAN PETERSON. You know what they call him? “Juden Peterstein”. They HATE him because he supports Israel and isn’t a rabid anti semite like them.
Peterson is full of shit when it comes to religion, but stop the lies and misinformation.
“Look, I’ve never made the claim that what I’m talking about is like what other people are talking about. I mean it is in some ways but I’ve never made that claim.”
- Jordan Peterson, modern Yoda
👏👏👏🍀🍀🍀
Jordan tries so hard to play both sides, its honestly kind of embarrassing.
Not only embarrassing, it’s dishonest and disrespectful
As Sam Harris himself pointed out, "This is how you play tennis without the net!"
Peterson wants to have the cake and eat it. He embarrassed himself big time irrespective of what type of christianity Sam referred to.
how often did this clip get re-uploaded now under another title? 10? 20?
Be grateful that Pangburn keeps trying to reach new audiences.
Its lazy. There are other ways to reach new audiences
@@higginswell95 youtube isnt about fishing with the same lure over and over, you use a net
Jordan is honest when he says he's using theological terms in idiosyncratic and ambiguous ways. If only he would simply be clearer and use his own made up terms for his made up definitions. It's always safe to assume that when JP is talking theology, he doesn't mean what he seems to mean. That's because he's a clever liar, you see.
He's a good liar. So good, it's possible that there's an underlying pathology.
@@anirudhdwivedi6673 There is an underlying motive, for sure. Notice how JP often talks about the "divine spark": that's a gnostic term taken up in theosophy and occultism. JP is a neo-gnostic occultist, but he can't say so openly for risk of alienating all his conservative Christian fans and outing himself as a fringe crank mystic, as if he hasn't done so already.
@@anirudhdwivedi6673In Peterson’s vocabulary there is no such a thing as a lie because there is no such a concept as truth.
I'm just peering in to thank you for saving me 5 minutes or more with the thumbnail chosen.
Jordan’s hand gestures are soooooooo annoying.
Jordan Peterson's ambiguous answers about his belief in God intentionally exploit the Zeigarnik Effect and Curiosity Gap, keeping people intrigued and continuously engaged. By not providing a clear answer, he maintains an enigmatic presence that keeps his audience coming back for more, driven by the desire to fill the information gap. I see this strategy as deceiving the audience, as it keeps them hooked without ever providing a definitive answer.
I dont think its intentionally, i think its a sideffect of him avoiding exact answers so he can stay in a rather open position, kind of not getting trapped, because at some point he will like everyone else have to argue illogical points to stay in these debates as his options to argue get smaller and smaller the more he states his position.
Would you say that those, or at least the Zeigarnik Effect, are at play in driving Eric Olson in the Wormwood docudrama?
In some ways it is frustrating watching the same content for the umpteenth time because of a different title, but at the same time I think we can be grateful that Pangburn keeps trying to reach new audiences. And one of the comments taught me something new.
I looked into Jordan Peterson. He is a massive grifter who does ALL the major grifts: supplements, self-help books, courses, MLMs, diet programs, and so on… and all while pretending he’s some kind of educated expert when he was merely a psych professor who failed in his field.
There's a much simpler way to critique this. If you have an idea, and you refer to that idea as "God", you are making a claim that your idea is equivalent to the older ideas that have historically been called God. There's some room for nuance but not as much as JP is claiming. There's a reason why JP doesn't refer to his belief as Allah or Jesus, because his belief doesn't relate to those things. He calls it God despite it not relating to any traditional idea of God, and that's either dishonest, or it's a one-man attempt to appropriate the weightiest term mankind has to offer - and that's strategically impoverished.
If JP wants to redefine God like this, he's talking to the wrong audience. He wants to talk towards atheists and say God isn't really that big of a claim because it's just this cloud of stories and moralism. But if he wants the word to work that way in conversations with other human beings, he needs to talk to theists and tell them they are wrong about the nature of God. He uses their term to shield himself from their critique.
@@OurIntrepidVampires Not sure what you are trying to express here. The definition of God is: Consciousness; Existence; Bliss. Consciousness is the hard problem for philosophers and it will remain so as reason will never figure it out
@@ALavin-en1kr that is not what most people mean by the term God, it's your own personal tortured definition.
@@OurIntrepidVampires What does most people mean then? Explain it.
@@ALavin-en1kr most people use "God" to refer to a creator entity. A secondary usage is to refer to a being of power beyond mortal ken, especially in polytheistic beliefs where a God is not necessarily the creator, but could be one of many entities possessing divine supernatural ability.
Peterson thinks he's the artful dodger, but he's not fooling most and looks the clown.
I am always amazed how such highly intelligent and educated people can waste so much time and energy debating ancient superstition. "God took the light away but we sacrificed a chicken and he gave it back to us" Uhh it's called day and night.
Mumblejumbleson still trying to understand 😅😂😂😂😂
At the end Jordan doesn't know???? I know ! People are deathly afraid of dying being the end if it all as far as they are concerned. All they have ever known is being alive and so it is difficult for them to conceive of any other state of being. Not being alive somehow just doesn't seem possible to them.
Jordan Peterson would take 40 hours to answer the question, 'what time is it?' He could have fed the 5000, with one of his word salads!
JP has done a lot of good for free speech. But, when he talks about religion he is not speaking clearly or honestly in my opinion.
Funny how even knowledgeable people like JP don't realize how much their emotional needs affect his "rational" thinking process...
It takes JBP 20 minutes to admit anything.
*Here's an ironic oxymoron.* Jordon Peterson is an educated Donald Trump.
Give Donald Trump an education and he'd morph into Jordan Peterson.
The problem with giving an answer is that it still can be wrong. And when you declare it is almost certain you become biased. Plus I get Joedans point that it might not even matter that much because it doesnt mean that the teachings are false or wrong.
It changes a lot if you think you'll burn in hell if you don't behave. He's not honest, he knows he's full of bullshit but he doesn't want to lose followers and money so he won't answer... he's like a politician who doesn't want to give you a straight answer because he doesn't want to lose the election and is trying to appeal to the largest group of people possible.
It *does* mean that those teachings are false and wrong. There is no heaven, there is no hell, there is no afterlife, Christianity is a grift from the start. Jesus teaches the fishermen to be "fishers of men" which is to say, he teaches them to be grifters. To quote Wayne and Garth, "Fished in! Fished in!"
@@StephenCameron the whole dogma can be imaginative, and yet every or almost every advice it gives on how to conduct a proper life may be true. Much depends on what values you think have the priority. For example do you value justice or equality more, because you cant have both.
The chirstian-european culture is the best of them all so far. And there is hardly any need to make a revolution just because some dogmas cannot be proven.
While some believe the etymology of “Bible” is from the Greco “biblos” meaning scroll, it is actually from the Middle English “babble” meaning incoherent nonsense.
Why do people still give Peterson a platform? 🤦
I agree
JP wasn't lying when he said "I was was clear as I can be". Think about it! He's simply incabale of being any clearer than well as clear he is to everyone all the time!
Dude, how many times are they gonna recycle these talks
Be grateful that Pangburn keeps trying to reach new audiences.
@Pangburn: What's with these idiotic hitpiece-like titles? Why invite and host both of them, and then bash one of them in clips? It looks rather disreputable.
It takes Peterson 20 minutes to count to 10
This explains why he never went for fancy eye wear and instead raided Don Cherry's closet.
Instead of the standard "we know/there is reason/evidence, therefore we believe", since that doesn't fly anymore, JP is now "we don't know, isn't that mysterious, therefore we believe".
And in a way that's probably a step forward for theists: admitting they don't know and that really it's simply the whole mystique that allures them.
Sir your title is unnecessarily provocative. I know titles are hard but you can do better than that.
to say that billions of people can be wrong about [a claim] is perfectly reasonable. sam got him at the end.. nice work.
I think Jordan would say to believe anything that gives him a larger audience.
"If my answer results in a small chance that I'll lose support from the bible thumpers, I'll stall instead of answering." - JP, paraphrased
Are we responsible for how other people see us or interpret what we say?
To an extant no. But, seeing how JP has made an entire career out of being deliberately obtuse and needlessly pedantic-almost exclusively in the effort to pander to one particular group of people-then yes, JP is responsible for being perceived as an "intellectual" (note the ironic quotation marks) champion for the religious American right.
Yes. Yes, we are. We don’t talk to hear ourselves.
You've posted at least 300 hours of clips from this 90 minute talk. Super annoying.
Super annoying. I had to watch all 300 hours, some of them multiple times. All in all almost 500 hours! Super turbo annoying. I just had to. It annoyed me to hell and back, but I just had to. Super turbo four wheel drive annoying!
Be grateful that Pangburn keeps trying to reach new audiences.
😆
Are you annoyed at him for posting them or annoyed at yourself for watching them all voluntarily?
is this your first time on youtube?
When did the conversation happen? JP used to be an atheist but it seems that he has moved a step closer to God.
God's Grift to the World more like
I missed the part where Jordan Peterson's atheism was exposed
3:09 Sad kermit starts losing the audience 😢 You can hear his heart breaking a little bit. They’re clapping because they know Sam is right on that Jordan’s version of “faith” is cheap and mostly has to do with human psychological behavior rather than also including the exterior reality.
SCHOOLED!!
Grifters don't like to be pinned down on anything.
Not sure if the intention of these headlines is just to draw the "right crowd", but neither Harris nor Peterson "exposed" anything in the other. It has to be noted that Harris and Peterson sometimes mean different things even when they use the same term. Peterson is very aware of this, which is why sometimes Peterson's responses seem elusive, but they are not. Quite the contrary, he is trying to be very precise. And you cannot be precise if you know what you say can easily be misunderstood unless you put footnotes around it. When Peterson gets asked "do you think that really happened", he usually asks -- and rightly so -- what is meant with the question. Because once you start to think about the nature of "reality" and what is "real", it becomes clear that the nature of what is real or reality is by no means the same for everyone and therefore you cannot simple pre-suppose these as being easily defined. When Peterson talks about "God" or "Christ" or "Atheism", he doesn't claim to "know" or to "believe", he is investigating claims. And even questioning whether or not "atheism" is real, which is a valid question. When some people claim to be "atheists", they think it is obvious that they mean by that, but it is not. Obviously, these are intelligent people who have given this some thought (and probably continually think about it), which is why they talk to each other, but all too often the supporters (on either "side") just turn to these videos to find their views confirmed rather than challenged.
＼(^_^)／ We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
When someone popular become suddenly a great believer is sooooo fishy.
It's like it's like
People are deply confused about religion and god because Peterson creates the confusion first to define god into existence and then to redefine god as uniquelly christian. He creates a dense fog around the issue and them moves the goalpost whenever anyone get close to nailing him down. "Thats not what I ment" "I didn't say that" And then he goes right back to it.
“You’re saying we’re all deeply confused…”
“No dude, just you. Everyone else agrees on a definition, and you’re claiming the question is confusing to you because the word is deeply confusing to you personally. You don’t need a bible you need a dictionary.”
I loved the beginning of the first debate which was pretty much “I don’t believe in God. Do you?” The response began with “Well, that’s a problem” followed by 9 uninterrupted minutes waffling on a half dozen topics including the importance of all literature, and three debates later he still hasn’t answered the question of whether he personally believes in a literal god literally exists, as he just drones on about the figurative and how important the bible is because it’s an old book and has a few decent life lessons in it somewhere, but doesn’t actually say in any way that no, he doesn’t actually believe a real god exists, he thinks that god and Jesus are fictional characters in a book and he wants other people to believe in it because it has a few passages that that he finds meaningful and thinks old books are important simply because they are old books.
He actually admitted it in another setting which wasn’t a debate or trying to sell his nonsense that lobsters and humans have the same brains and biology and instincts and reactions to pharmaceuticals as humans because he is dumb and has zero education in any of the subjects he has ever talked about because his PhD was in psychology specifically in the long term effects of long term alcohol abuse. Anything else is not in his knowledge base.
Hey Jordan, now that you've "owned" it, now PROVE IT!!!!
JP you are so clear like at least muddy waters
Jordan lost my sub when he started using religion as a mean to more popularity instead of an actual belief.
I am atheist.
This is the game that lead to relegation.
Jordan claims to be clear in his answers . Then he speaks word salad on the topic . He then gets called out. His response is “ I never said that”. Total conman
Deflect deflack deflect
The way Sam dismantleJordan is brilliant
Thank god for people like Sam ..... oh wait .... 🤣🤣
Peterson always takes 1000+ words to answer a yes or no question.
Get some new content, please.
Sam Harris playing "rope a dope" on Jordan Peterson.
Imagine losing a debate to Sam Faggis
Funny how Peterson judges the audiences' applauding Harris' point. As if they had no reason to. Peterson really lives in his own makeshift world. Word salads and all.
JP is manifestation of Christians mysterious belief God
I can’t say that Peterson didn’t deserve this. He did. And he does. He is too intelligent and sensitive to be an atheist, but somehow he is too scared to face the full force of truth and too arrogant to even admit that there is such a thing as Truth that doesn’t depend on any hermeneutics. He pays the price for his spiritual cowardice.
Peterson..’I was clear as I could possibly be..’ Peterson being. ‘clear’ is an oxymoron!
3:28 duuuuuude
After Sam calls him out on being murky about his beliefs and the resultant applause I realized: Surprised Kermit is among the funnier sounding of the Kermits.
Yeah not quite.
Harris has the advantage of reality on his side, and is more than equal to Peterson intellect. Jordan is extremely irritating and uses lots of fancy words to say very little. Sam uses plane English to make clear and valid points which are basically indisputable.
What a weasely little liar, dude.
Jesus Christ, Jordan can’t answer anything straight. What a goof.
One of them IS spouting common sense, the other sophistry. But the ideological zombies who are confused will think it’s the other way around. I see a lot of value in Jordan’s psychoanalytical reading of The Bible. I think he’s onto something when it comes to understanding these texts as wisdom literature. But if he takes one step into Apologetics or Theology, he’s full. Of. SHIT.
The more intelligent you are the more you seem a fool to the less intelligent. Harris is clearly not in the same ball park as Peterson. Though he is a good debator.
Let us consider
10 "Be precise in your speech."
Except Peterson is intentionally imprecise in his speech and then takes umbrage when anyone tries to get him to be precise
And as a bonus
6 "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world."
Sais the guy who clearly suffers from anxiety and depression, but keeps telling everyone else how to live their life.
Whatever he might experience in his mind and heart is none of your damn business. You haven’t walked a mile in his shoes, so you have no right to criticise Jordan. Peterson as public figure, on the other hand…
@@claudiamanta1943 “Whatever he might experience in his mind and heart is none of your damn business. You haven’t walked a mile in his shoes, so you have no right to criticise”
This is an interesting statement in the context… We are talking about a man who criticizes whole swaths of the population though he doesn’t know anything about them. We are talking about a man who uses his academic qualifications as justification to peddle clear and obvious lies. We are talking about a man who judges others endlessly.
And you are saying “you have no right to criticise”
Everything about Jordan Peterson is clear and obvious hypocrisy while all the while he judges others.
“Jordan. Peterson as public figure, on the other hand…”
And then we get to this. As a “public figure” he sais "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world." This is a key cornerstone to his public persona. But it is clear he doesn’t have his life in order. Again mind numbing hypocrisy.
People clapping and people sitting on stage and debating makes it a cringe fest.
jordy the grifter
The coming collapse of materialism:
John 1:1-3 (KJV) 1 In the beginning was the Word,(information) and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
With quantum physics, conscious observation causes the wave function to collapse and information shapes your perceived material environment.
DNA information is the primary factor in biology; organic chemistry is secondary.
Imagine AI controlling avatars in computer games to the extent that avatars seem to exhibit independent consciousness in the simulation and act as if they are living in a material reality. They would be the materialist!
@@yacobus2206 Very well put. Just about explains its.
A bald assertion does not make for a good argument dude.
Grifter Peterson exposed.
(^.^) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
How many times you gonna post this lie? 🙄
@@theunknownatheist3815 the atheists pouting like a baby when someone actually knows how to debate the facts. The evidence isn't in the biology that wouldn't be moral for God to do.
Peterson's grift is semantics, word-salad, over-complication and JAQing off. There's very little practical substance to what he has to say or offer. He's like Waitrose Andrew Tate.
Waitrose Andrew Tate 😂
:-> Consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.
(^_^) The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of ''76 by The Alarm.
Shout out to the bolsheviks in the comments. You people are so peaceful and have never created atrocity. You have created many coherent societies. lmao
This isn’t the woke crowd, you religious wacko. Try again
Sam is going to hell.
🙄 and the Muslims say YOU are going to hell. Who should we listen to?
the atheist is going to all hells 😹
Hell is better option than delusion.
Hell is a better option than listening to JP on this subject. Also, an eternity there wouldn't feel as long! 😂
Hell is a better option than listening to JP on this subject. Also an eternity there wouldn't feel as long! 😂
Peterson can't stand letting anyone else talk. He interrupts and tries to dominate. But Sam Harris is smarter than Peterson, and Peterson knows it. It's clear to anyone who watches this debate. Peterson acts like a silly, whiny child in response to Harris' intelligence and grace.