Does God Exist? Jordan Peterson vs Matt Dillahunty 

Speaking, of Watch...........Would you be so kind as to ask "RU-vid/Google", to increase the Volume, on this particular Upload, so as someone, with average/normal Hearing capabilities, can Hear it, Please. Then, i will remove my "Dislike" and you can watch me put it, in my Hairy Green Butt.

Can this video be reuploaded with some volume? I put it on max volume and right up to my ear and I can barely hear what they are saying. I've tried everything. The ads on this are 4 times louder.

@@williamhedden9862 You'll find it in one of our most recent uploads.

Perfectly loud and an awesome video for me.

50:35 overpopulation

we just need to measure it, of we are just socially rejecting basic definition than we are just fooling around.

Yea I hate that tedious bullshit

Yeah, having intelligent thought is stupid.

zlavoj?

A Darger don’t we all

Depends what you mean by "lose"

@@mauriciosalas3415 and, of course, that depends on what EXACTLY "depends"

I've got it here, you left it on the bus

The long pause right before he said that was so perfect.

Thanks babe

Should have read the comments first. Listened to this in my car and almost crashed when the first advert kicked in.

Real heroes don’t wear capes

THANK YOU

Matt blew my ears out at the end lol.

.....with vowels replaced by dingbats

wow, never thought of such accurate comparison. hehehe, now i see how JP frustrates me as chatgpt does with all of its babbling nonsense and not directly answering :D

for example?

Don't disrespect ChatGPT like that.

Nono

Jordan, - Nothing is better than eternal happiness - A cheese sandwich is better than nothing - Therefore a cheese sandwich is better than eternal happiness His followers: a saviour you are profound. There is nothing profound about Jordan or his new book of the 12 rules. www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

He's just a cult leader. Nothing more.

😂🤣😂

Save the Children, thank you. Whilst we try to inject humour, the rubbish this man espouses does great harm. One of his assertions that absolutely infuriates is that if an atheist does a fellow human a good deed, it proves that somewhere deep down he is a Christian. Jordan's cunning plan (i seriously believe that he thinks he is like Aristotle) : 1 - i do not need to make any sense, then I will lead a cult 2 - i will not make any sense Therefore, 3 - i will lead a cult Jordan's cult members: yes master, we follow blindly.

Peterson's arguments are nothing new. Everything he says is a total cliche decorated with big fancy words.

XD😂🤣😆

Blwahhahahahaha!!

So tired of Jordan at this point.

Tony Newton the videos 2 years old buddy

@@connordurham4289 yeah aware. thx though.

Brilliant! 😆

This is my favorite comment 😂😂😂

😂😂😂😂😂😂 awesome comment 😂😂😂😂

*goes to fuck around with ChatGPT* This was amazing.

I’m gonna pull this out of the bag next time I’m at MOD or some other pizza place and they ask me about toppings.

I don't have that problem, maybe you're just stupid, try watching the Kardashians or girls gone wild, maybe that's more your speed

He did say 1 profound thing in here I though. As Matt was laying out what he thinks would be the good underlying fundamentals he instances on being "good" things. It's the "how do we know" if we are being completely skeptical about everything.

Is pretty sad that you can't understand nothing of what he says

@@TheArmestorior we understand it enough to know that’s he’s nothing but hot air.

​@@katelynnehansen8115Yes Katelyn, you are for sure smarter than dr who worked at best institutes, published lots of books and research papers and participated at good amount of debates. No way that guy is smarter than black Katelyn from youtube comments sitting on her couch !

I always hate it when I lose the metaphysical substrate of my ethos.

I have a metaphor and I'm not afraid to use it!

It's even worse when you get poked in the axiom.

Give me the metaphysical substrate peacefully or there will be trouble.

People make fun of what they don't understand.

I see these posts of yours on a lot of Jordan Peterson related videos. You're not a brainless leftist post-modernist blending in here, per chance? Theres a lot of you here on this page.

Fun Bigly Well I do hope you're hitting the like button when you see them. JP impressions are not easy to do. FYI - postmodernist isn't a hyphenated word. I'll make you a deal. I'll get a life if you learn how to spell big words correctly and clean your room.

How's PoMo instead? And cut/paste cannot really be difficult, can it?

God is a singularity, therefore the language used to describe "him" must in itself be specific (i.e unable to be misinterpreted/to a point/indivisible). Otherwise, you end up spending 2 thousand years arguing with idiots over a question that is not specific about a subject that has not been distinguished.

NeverFinished 3Digits You forgot hashtag triggered

Excellent comment, further more information and education, should never be paid for. Since it comes from us all, it should benefit us all.

It'd be robbery cause it's quite boring and a bunch of rambling lol 😂

Counter their Sabotage and Subterfuge bs its old and boring theistic arguments long refuted but to see media hyped peterson having to bullshit the audience is far from boring. I was laughing for an hour. There is no way to call that boring as long as you listen and are capable of understanding.

Mats Jönsson education from other's is a service. If it should never be paid for, then that implies that it should always be done for free, which implies slavery. No thanks

It really doesn’t imply slavery or teachers not getting paid. At least I don’t see it that way in this context. Come on

Ikr. When it comes to life advice JP sounds profound. But when it comes to religion he tends to trip up and make no sense.

@@jesterc.6763I think part of this is the “grift”…..Typical theologians are horrible debaters and generally get ripped apart when going up against atheist intellectuals. Peterson is simply seeking to tap into the religious market. He is attractive to the religious market because he’s not your typical defender of theology, who are usually bumbling credulous numbskulls whose argument for the existence of God leads to the all encompassing non answer of “faith”. He is definitely an intelligent individual and that accompanied by his move to defend theology = book, lecture $$$

​@@jesterc.6763There are times he is good. There are other times he is all word salad. I guess it depends what he is talking about at the time?

He's alright when he talks about psychology (sometimes)... He's VERY OFTEN wrong when be goes outside of his literal expertise: He doesn't understand gender He doesn't understand climate science He doesn't understand (most) philosphy He doesn't understand history.

Much like how Astrophysics is word salad to a flat earther

Well, it's a complicated problem...

I feel like the two didn't really debate each other if that makes sense. Peterson didn't walk into the debate thinking that what was expected of him was to provide a concrete argument for the existence of god, and more so wanted to talk about the importance of god. Matt walked into the debate expecting to have an argument with the archetypal 7 day creationist religious thinker. Hence the: "what I've heard other people say" line that he repeats a lot in the debate. However towards the end Matt started to understand where Peterson was coming from a bit better, and even countered some of his points very well. I just hated watching the first 2/3 of the debate and seeing Matt ignoring Peterson's actual argument

It is.

Legitcles Your special :) very VERY special. Jordan tried to claim that mystical experiences are supernatural, try again fool.

It is Until the 45th minute. Then he says you can't be moral without god

For reals.. I need ear plugs.

They wound up just dying entirely

Yes!

Damn right. I have to hold my phone to my ear half the time

The soundquality seems fine, just the soundvolume of the video is low. Would rather blame that on the recording or the poor post production than on the soundsystem.

Sir you are hilarious... XD

Holy shit

So smug about the books he has read and how really really hard his own book is that I think maybe he is over compensating for the size of his__ _car. !

Lmaoooooooooo 😂😂😂😂😂😂

DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO!😠

No, he wasn't. Grow up.

@@Vandalle. dude asked 10 questions before his opponent had the chance to answer the first, how's that not being difficult?

@@xenormxdraws Because the point he was making needed clarifying in order to be fully understood, it's a debate remember, if Jordan can't form a clear picture of Matt's stance, then how is he supposed to respond? It might sound nitpicky but I would argue that you need to be nitpicky in a philosophical debate.

@@Vandalle. no, that's just being purposefully difficult to try and derail your opponets train of thought, JP even acknowledges that he was just being purposefully difficult a few minutes later. In an honest debate, you either clarify your opponent's position before asking a question (like Matt did multiple times) or you ask a question, shut up and let your opponent finish making his point (something JP couldn't do)

@@xenormxdraws I disagree, if you say something vague that can be taken to mean different things, whilst making a larger point, the other person has the right to have you clarify, because unless it's crystal clear what you mean, the rest of the words are completely irrelevant.

Here is a normalized audio version. we.tl/ekUtPkhnl9

I turned the volume right down low & it was still too loud

What I can barely hear anything

Thank you! I was going to do that too lol. Beat me to it!

What?

hes the new hitchens

@@andralfoomao. How dare you make such a comparison of Hitchens, with some crony from Texas. Get on your nees

*L

@@andralfooyou see what I did 😅

2 points - What were you watching? And why comment on a talk about "Does God Exist" re the Atheist with "absolute boss"?

I couldn't agree more. I wish William Lane Craig would stop being such a coward and debate Matt.

'Underrated'= 'Everybody knows his true worth and listens to someone else. '

Craig Smith The definition of “underrated” is something that has not received the merit, recognition or praise it deserves.

@@Boogieplex Matt isn't underrated at all. Your definition may be it's intended meaning, but its origin, the reason it exists, is because people largely don't bother with whatever is deemed by some to be so, which is because it isn't worth it. There's a reason that Matt is 'underrated': he gets the attention he deserves. More, actually.

Craig Smith Im sorry dude, i read your last reply like 8 times, and im just not understanding you.Its not that im in disagreement with you, its literally your words creating sentences that dont seem to make any sense to me.Sorry man.

No one was crumbling because there was two polite people debating over an intriguing subject. The fact is that this was an weird debate because JB drunk from old literature that shaped the west morality and educated people way of thinking in order to know what's wrong or right when the other side was making a point without any literature or historical source. If you not educated enough about these things you can't understand JP and what morality is. You have to read a lot, I mean, a lot of old books that made people's mind up to understand what's going on and that's what atheist don't get. I'm an atheist because I can't believe. But of course it's easier to attack the person than what he wrote. The only one by now that did it was Alex and Alex is an honest atheist because he is intelligent, very different from these dickheads we see. Read the old literature and then you will understand.

@alanoliveira5340 You have missed the point of the comment. Do I believe that these debates can display the knowledge each participant has at face value? Absolutely not and it would be foolish to do so; however, the point was that JP utilizes fallacies constantly, commonly blatant "strawmanning." Do I always believe the ways MD and similar atheists or debaters in general tackle arguments are healthy ways of handling things, commonly no. But what Jordon Peterson commonly spews on his platforms, not in a literary fashion mind you, can be harmful and has holes that MD clearly points out. This is more important to discuss because JP's content is much more widely consumed and regurgitated than his writing. So yes, the fallacious tactics JP uses, and has used, crumbled in this debate.

actual midwit

Zeus best comment ever

@@bishshoy khub bhaalo then

He never actually answered what IT WAS

@@jesuscarrillo3705 Yes he did.

Zeus the more important description is at the one hour mark makes sense out of the entire debate...... the idea that Matt holds is that God Is a being

No I've seen better chairs than this! You should see the chairs Sam Harris owns

Jake Tudball I love nice chairs too. Something about them just lets you have nice conversation.

I think this conversation would have gone better of they were using bean bags.

But not nearly as nice as the chair in the world of forms.

Jacob Tudball those chairs are hell bound sadly.....

@@Rhysibabe Then this comment should take shrooms and see the "kind of like" evidence of God while it's at it.

Exactly, what's so funny about that?

How do you get definitions out of a guy whom, when asked whether he believes in God, replied that it depends on what believe means and said somewhere else that he'd need forty hours to answer that question?

@@Edruezzi well yeah it's necessary, "belief" could mean different things

@@rld8258 So that's why he needs 40 hours to say whether he believes in God or not.

Matt did lose his temper once, and rightly so, when Jordan made the erroneous comment(s) about Russia and secular humanism!!! Peterson had no rebuttal!! He just sat there looking stupid!!! It was GLORIOUS!!!! 😆

That you say Peterson took pleasure in interruption only exposes your own pre-determined personal bias that he could only lose and never win the argument(s).

I never said any of that and I don't have any bias dude. 😅 Peterson is really intelligent on many fronts, but on the religion side, he's not. He doesn't make sense in his religious arguments dude and if you're honest and don't have bias, you would see it too.

@@bryanevenor7769 Your personal bias is exposed when you presume Peterson takes takes pleasure in interrupting Matt. If that isn't bias then what is it?

@@ethanlewis1453 lol, I'm not presuming... you can literally see how happy he is when he does that xD If you're defending that point, it means that you don't see things for what they are and would rather defend the guy when he doesn't make sense in his arguments... now who's biased? 😅

In your mind everything is simple

Pedro Viteri Of course, because I'm misquoting you, right? I just don't understand you.

*The Hoper* That was kind of brilliant, man. You've truly tapped into dat Metaphorical Substrate!

Dude that is the best way to sum up JP....

That perfectly describes how Peterson operates.

Brilliant analogy. It's a clever way of fence sitting

And it’s a lot more complicated to define a hole than most people would think. There’s quite a bit of metaphorical substrate beneath what you and I might call the surface. And I know you’re not asking me to remove the metaphorical substrate!

And then when someone criticized him for asking what defines a hole he would get offended and insist he had never said that.

And after hours of discussion, there would still be no hole. Only a very tired boss and a very smug PhD.

He's a con man.

This. This is what I am reading comments for, and actually made me LOL, in my quiet office.... But thank you still!

Well what do you mean by "mean"?

@@loganw.9919 : I was trying to think of a witty comment, then I read yours...Well done sir !

Best comment under this video.

I've got my headphones cranked to 100% and am living in fear of the random commercial I know is going to come and blow my eardrums out :(

Haha came here to see if anyone else noticed. Silence is so distracting

There are an infinite number of ways to turn up the audio in a video before u upload it

@@danilopompey754 in that case most of us might be dead if not for religion as well. Who knows how much of an impact religion had on wars fought between tribes. maybe religion provided our ancestors that little bit of extra motivation or sense of duty or confidence of being backed by god to win a war. Without religion they might have lost and we never would have existed either. Theres no good choice there either one would be equally devastating.

@@danilopompey754 in that case since religion came first its logical that eliminating people from history longer ago would have a bigger affect. Like cutting a branch from a tree. The lower the branch the more leaves will be removed. Also without religion theres no guarantee we would have even got to science.

@@danilopompey754 if religion was science how can you ask to make a choice between them? And I hope you realize saying things like stop, and cut the bamboozle, at the beginning of every reply makes it hard to take you seriously. You are right about science being a new religion though its becoming just as cult like these days, it's kind of scary.

Hahaha, my favorite comment

Clever bugger

Yeah, it's almost enough to just shut it off, but I had to stay for the metaphorical substrate

that's funny

It all depends on what you mean by "shoulders".

Bryan Mahoney Ask any investigator , his posture indicates deception.

Beau He's not being intellectually honest.

No. Not with himself, and he knows it.

And make your fucking bed

He can't answer without going into long winded explanations with big words that sound smart but is really empty in substance. It's really just arrogance that he has to use his big words to sound smart

Eric McCaw Even after the first question he goes into a long, meaningless word salad

@@Leon-yz1kp he probably can't answer easy yes or no questions. Could you imagine if he was a witness to a crime and the cops talked to him and then he had to go on the stand? Did u see the man kill the guy? Depends on what u mean by kill. Death is a very complicated blah blah blah lol

@@sablemae8853 If Peterson was ever a witness to a crime and he was being himself (Mr Vague) in court, we would be jailed in no time.

@@sablemae8853 You seriously don't understand anything he's saying. To claim the "explanations with big words" as means to avoid an argument is purely stupid. It proves that you aren't actually even listening to him.

That is an assumption.how could he know he's doesn't even believe in God.He has no bionic mind.He would have to know the heart and soul of an individual

@sterlingwinston9629 but considering that all of us have been taught about religion from the beginning of our lives in some way, can't that justify the familiarity of such knowledge in mind for such claim? like as i was religious and was around many even more religious people for a considerable time in my life, can't i say that i understand what they are afraid of? and what they can't let go? and what is stopping them from being critical thinkers?

Now this is good comedy! 😆😂😂😂

I used to be a believer that we came from primordial soup.

@@justinsossa2957 Well no, he thinks soup turned into cells, and cells turned into simple life, and simple life turned into vertebrates, and vertebrates moved onto the land, became mammals, and after an amount of time difficult to fathom mammals became men. Whereas you think sky god did some amateur sculpting on some dirt one day and then never felt like sculpting again after that, even after thousands of years of recorded history.

@@Alic4444 No there was no magical soup that brewed dirt into living cells. No humans do not have a shrew for a grandfather.

One may subsume the substrate by sublimation the result is subtle but sublime.

He is not real. He makes simple things very complicated.

@@percubit10 Lol why can't it be, it is complicated but you only understand simple things ?

​​​​@@rvkdgmif you actually understand what JP says you would see how hard and complicated he tries to explain even simple things and not awnsering the questions, but dance's around them. thus sounding smart for dumb people.

@@Time_flies_fast please tell me what simple thing he is trying to explain in complicated way ? (there is nothing like that, things are not that simple and ppl seem to understands only if they are simplified and dumbed-down , if not they reject anything that could be there which they are not able to comprehend yet)

these two are theorists, at-least in this convos. any theory which explains things at the extremes is the successful one, so far JBP's theory can somehow include quantum phenomenon, matt's one can't . Einstein with much comprehension of world and universe said, GOD doesn't play dice with the universe. there is a incomprehensible intelligence behind the design , you call it god or whatever. I do not think Matt has better comprehension than Einstein .

Do yourself a favor and watch The Atheist Experience. It's on every Sunday, and it allows Matt more freedom to fully express his positions. A civilized debate is all very well from time to time, but the very fact that it IS a civilized and polite event, often means that the participants aren't always able to "let it all out", lest they involuntarily surrender to the opposition by being perceived as being rude. Truth isn't concerned with political correctness, but debates are, and that's why it's rare to reach any sort of genuine sense of agreement from them. Hitchens was a notable exception to this, of course. He said what he wanted to say, regardless of how this would affect the audience. But then, he was also intelligent and witty enough to get away with it.

Sapere Audé, I second the first two comments.

+Jeff Narum But not my comment? Gee, thanks a lot...

teppo, I was referring to your's and Christopher's. I should have wrote, "the two previous relpys."

+Jeff Narum Oh great. Now, what am I going to do with this rope I just bought?

Yeah, that was a good one. Then again, whatever the truth, I don't wanna quit anyway so still don't need the big MF imaginary fellow.

He's not talking about a floating man in the sky dingus, he's talking about the part of the psyche we don't understand. So yeah, supernatural.

@@Mayhemsmischief Exactly. Peterson is talking about the part of our psyche that produces or can produce "supernatural" experiences. Doesnt matter wether the supernatural is objective or not.. what matters is that the person experiences something "supernatural" and actually gets inspiration and motivation out of that experience.

@@Mayhemsmischief he's talking about superstition whether you admit it nor not, you closet indoctrinated drone.

Word salad king is amazing isn't he. He just makes things up on the spot to spiritual woo woo his imbecilic followers.

Well, Peterson is not a philosopher. I’m a common person and I understood what he was saying

​@@Culture-and That wasn't MH's point. They were saying that Peterson likes to dress things up in flowery language to impress his audience without actually adding anything of value to the discussion. It just comes off as pretentious sophistry. If he had anything insightful to say, he'd say it outright. Not opaquely and complicatedly, like in this debate. Or any time he speaks.

@@johnlocke9682 You’re making a lot of claims about Peterson’s intentions as though you can read his mind. Maybe you just don’t like him? Or at best, don’t like his style of speech?

​@@Culture-and Well, taking into the account that JP see himself as a profhet, maybe he should be able to get into the factual case without talking 99% crap and 1% profit, or is it the other way around? 🤔 He is one of the biggest concervatice hypes that try and avoid the right wing stamp, just to earn more money. And to be honest, no, I don't like someone who want the world to go back to the 1950ies.

Jordan Peterson: there is a physical reality and a metaphysical reality. So we have to think outside of the box when proving metaphysical realities and look for evidence that might not be objectively seen with the naked eye. Matt: Yea but why can’t I touch god with my fingers? Wow what a deep and open minded intellect Matt has.🙄🙄🙄🙄

Luis Rodríguez this is a good comment

Hahahaha lmao!!!

yayy… same joke posted 1,000 times from JP haters...

@@Jaryism i support the majority of Peterson ideas, is just a joke, not the best one but funny enough to me and some 200 others autists

i really love listening to Peterson he's challenging intelligent well spoken... but he's a bit of a quasi bad stage actor/ sometime nano soap operish/ blowhard ... sometimes... yet this does not discredit his intelligence and distinctive insightin my view it's just that Jordan really digs Jordan cheers

You describe the typical atheist who does not know what he is talking about. Tell the joke about the "sky daddy" stupid atheist. :D

Angel & Jarrid, both are incorrect. He was showing how its possible not to believe in something, this he did very well. The christian by his own label would not believe in Lono. He/She understands how its quite possible to not believe in something... thus on some level we are all athiest to some gods.

David Jones To put more simply, I'm just not convinced that Lono, Marduk, Shiva, Odin, Yahweh, Zeus or any of the other thousands of gods and goddesses humans thought up actually exist. I have read and heard people making claims about their existences, but they have all failed to provide evidence that can be repeated, tested, and demonstrated by anyone, anywhere, at any time.

@David Jones Which god? There's thousands to choose from? And making the claim that atheism is, somehow, a "religious" belief, just proves that you do not actually understand atheism. Atheism is religion like Off is a TV channel, like barefoot is a type of shoe, like bald is hair color. It is the lack of belief.

@David Jones Sorry, David, but I can no longer see your question: "Do you know everything." To answer that question, I have no problem admitting that I do not know everything. Which is why I stand firmly on the statement: I do not know, therefore, I shall not claim that I do."

JayCeePooze pangburn went bankrupt a while back

Frying Nemo because they didn’t learn how to use audio compression.

More ads as well, please!

Travis Pangburn does't give a fuck about any of you. He did this for the prestige and the money. He was warned repeatedly about the audio quality and he didn't give a fuck. The guys a pice of shit psychopath.

Fuck bad audio. It's not difficult at all to get it right.

LMAO

Also to be able to clean my room and slay my chaos dragons😂

Ha! Then You must be a rationalist atheist evolutionary type trying to blow your ethos apart

You have one. if you haven't noticed, then you need Peterson's advice more than you believe you do.

@@craigsmith1443 SMH, STFU. Just enjoy the joke. Nobody cares about how smart you want people to think you are. Loser. 🖕🤫🤐

Regardless

he wouldnt say irregardless because it’s s not a word

I get the distinct feeling he only talks like this when there is a camera present and money to be made

Happy Homesteader you’re right it is a word but a redundant negation of a suffix and a prefix is a bad word

I hate when a person is thorough and digs beneath the layer of cynical, surface, physical dismissive arguments.

Noticed that, too. I have a good laptop with good speakers, so it wasn't much of a problem, but I definitely noticed it's much quieter than other videos usually are.

Yeah...I had to download it and play it in vlc to get decent volume.

BlueAirCookies Yeah, only works with headphones

My first thought was my hearing is really going south which it is. Then I added earphones and could hear just fine.

BlueAirCookies it will never cease to amaze me how lazy these event organizers are. You get some talks where the volume is 50% in one ear. You get some talks where the volume has to be at 275%. I actually started a project one time to go around remixing hundreds of public speaking events like this so they're bearable but got bored of it. Literally 2 minutes in audacity.

Objective focused vs subjective focused. I do find JP as a growth model on psychology, but i do not incorporate his morality, or his smug attitude of what he thinks other people thinks. If he didnt ask, and they didnt ask, where is his idea of their ideas coming from? His a$$

This is ultimately Peterson retreating into concensus seeking praise and Dillahunty investigating concepts.

Half wit summarization

@@Samson484 You a Jordan Peterson fan, are you?

@@jonaskromwell4464 oh yes and a Sam Harris fan.

Not really. People have prodded him far enough to discover he still maintains sacred cows. Namely found in his politics. Something that is more complicated than the childsplay of finding inconsistencies in texts like the bible. Matt really isn't that smart. Rather his just mostly earned his fame during the heyday of when atheism gained greater popularity in culture. Basically he popped his head up at the right time to grab that kind of attention. While greater atheist thinkers paved his way.

Nobody is perfect. I do disagree with some of Mat's poletics, but that doesn't mean I can't admire his ability to debate and present his view on religion. It might be 'childsplay' as you call it, but considering the amount of people that still hold the bible as the ultimate moral authority, it is still necessary for someone to keep repeating the same old rebuttals. If you can point me at some specific video that shows Matt being irrational about politics I would love that. Even when I heard him talking about something I disagree with (namely abortion) he wasn't irrational. It was just that the counters (of what I consider to be counters) to his arguments never came up.

@Themic light Go watch some more alpha male motivational videos.

@ KuroNekoExMachina - haha!

@najex1 It's childs play because even children find these very same superficial inconsistencies themselves. But people like Matt don't go much further than these very same kids. Instead they go for the same low hanging fruit time and time again. Thus their arguments are dull. That they're too keen to approach any situation from a standoffish posture than actually actively seek to be proven wrong. To me they're lazy and reek of having insincere motives.

Whether it’s rum or just water you’re bound to see god. Lol

Ok I did it and now I’m dead. They have RU-vid in the afterlife. Now what?

Of Heroin or a paralytic ?

That’s genuinely hilarious 😂

Proclivity is another one

There could never have been enough Hitchslaps...

oh mannn.

Hitchens is a rhetorician. Not a rational thinker.

Peterson would’ve been hitch slapped into space. I do want to see him debate Richard Dawkins though

@@SammyxSweetheart.02 Peterson doesn't believe in any religion but he holds the opinion that the myths have underlying truth

I think he's said before that (in his view) that a good expression of ideas consists of summarizing ideas to as few words as possible. Unfortunately when you try to do that, you make your words more abstract, blurred and complicated than needed and you eventually start talking alot and saying very little. It works well when your audience consists of other academics who spend their time reading obsfucated works, not so good on a general audience.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yJ5WNtiXHFU.html

Except for that it's total nonsense. - The metaphorical SUBSTRATE would not be a religious story, but a specific set of rules that underlies all religions. - If you lost your faith, you could still treat the religious stories as illustrations of non-religious moral principles, so you wouldn't loose anything.

_"He didn't say that but yes"_ - The Therapist Productions

Actually - you're paraphrasing a famous lecture of Richard Feynman - but you are 100% correct.

I find the metaphysical substrate of this written contribution to be invalid in it's perceptions and conceptions despite the nature of the responses being complimentary and congratulatory of the apparent validity of the claims held within.

@@Juniversal Beautifully verbose, not to mention the quote is incorrect ... but you're correct - the responses have no bearing on its validity.

Many many things cannot be explained simply because they are very complicated in nature. For instance I'm a mechanical engineer and every damn class I had ( 40+ classes and each 4 months long) was rediculously complicated. And not unnecessarily complicated.

The only comment I can wholeheartedly agree with on this video!

Repent and be be born again believing on Messiah Lord Jesus, nothing more important, today is the day of salvation and Jesus can show you the truth, its not blind faith you can see it for yourself if you truly seek like promised. John 3:3 unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God / Luke 13:3 unless you repent, you will all likewise perish ⚠️❤️⚠️❤️

@florian negar and "cool"

@Kid Well , u know what they say ........ “Black chairs matter”

@@bisratamare3265 Where is Jesus?

Imagine Ben Shapiro and Matt Dillahunty debating each other. Ben shapiro opening statement will an unreleased Eminem Ablum

When was Peterson exposed? When Peterson asked Dillahunty to justify his claim that he has value and he couldn't do it? Or when Peterson asked Dillahunty to define "well-being", "best civilization", "better life" etc. and he couldn't do it? Or maybe when Peterson asked Dillahunty to justify why it is better to be alive than dead and he failed to do that as well? At no point in the debate did Dillahunty justify any one of his claims. He posited one presupposition after another with no basis for them and just acted like they're all self-evident, obvious. If you think otherwise, I'd be happy if you point me to the timestamps where Dillahunty answers Peterson's questions with an actual argument and not just appeal to his belief that all his presuppositions are self-evident.

exposed? dillahunty couldn't get out of the "it's good for me to not get my head chopped off because I'm descended from people who also did not want to get their heads chopped off" bit. It was pathetic and I'm not even a peterson fan.

Given he wasn't exposed brutally if at all, all I can see is your own pre-determined conclusion.

@@ethanlewis1453 are you for real he barely actually answered any questions that Matt asked. He talked around so much of what Matt was actually asking

Nuts

...nested in a metaphorical substrate

A book that you've never read.

@@chriswalker9478 read and he even says you cannot live without rules and responsibillities and yet comes out to say rules dont work

To say nothing of the 10 commandments

N that dosent prove god at all, is actually amazingly stupid.

Just experience. Which is really all that reality boils down to. The issue the atheist has is they have a limited experience, and are on the outside, looking in, so to speak on the believer. They can’t know for certain what the believer (or anyone else, for that matter) experiences. All they can do is guess, and pretend to be sure even though they can’t be.

@@theobjectivebeliever So if you took mushroom and saw a unicorn does that prove the existence of unicorn?

@@theobjectivebeliever 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 so naive

@@theobjectivebeliever Bullshit. The vast majority of atheists used to be theists. Why don't you try speaking for yourself? Maybe then you might get something right. But I won't be holding my breath.

You have most likely stated the most important reflection of this debate than anyone else in this thread. Thank you.

He's obviously been indoctrinated from an early age, poor guy.

@@thedarkmaster4747 Atheists are indoctrinated, thats why they are bitter und unhappy. Studies prove this.

@Burns Things You feel this because you are a brainwashed atheist. religion and philosophy go hand in hand.

@@hsdjsdshdhsdnsmsd6247 I think you need to look up the word indoctrinated!

It's even worse when you get poked in the axiom.

could you like elaborate cause im not a native speaker iv learnt the meanings of these words but cant understand the statement itself (i know its a joke btw and i know im dumb)

@@abdullahibrahimhassan7301 It's making fun of Jordan's word salad. It doesn't mean anything, that's the point.

@@ihateexcessivelylongandpoi4490 ik but what does the sentence itself mean? JP was really playing with words in order to escape accountancy imo

@@abdullahibrahimhassan7301 It means nothing. It's what we refer to in English as "gibberish". That's the joke of the original post and my reply to it. We are using Jordon's words and saying nothing.

You can replace "good morning" with "well-being" xD

🤤TALK NORMAL/DUMB TO ME🤤

You got me emotional there

given the context, this comment is no less than absolutely perfect

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JtAIvup6QOU.html

Well, it is, like really mysterious. Whats wrong?

lolol

Hey again fynes.... I'm really thinking I should start a knee pad business for you and your friends. Whats up with your fucking space bar? Do you have like a triple spacebar or something? In english there is generally only one space between each word. You're welcome. also.... my knee pad company will hand out brochures on logical fallacy to help you guys out. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

I liked how Jordan Peterson got all excited about consciousness and described it as “really mysterious,” and then he gave a definition of it that had more to do with human agency/choice than consciousness as it’s generally described.

Special pleading much?

Same. He got a good 2 months out of me until I dug deeper.

He's an extremely intelligent individual, but this is what happens when religion corrupts someone..

@@lucid484He is not intelligent. He’s what people without intelligence think intelligence sounds like

@@kosmickatt9697 Sorry but that's a crap way to insult people. Peterson is clearly intelligent. The guy has a PhD, has been a *professor* at 2 of the top academic institutions in the world, ran his own research lab, published multiple papers, was an advisor for PhD students, and was a highly regarded psychiatrist. Now, I am not a fan of Peterson's by any stretch but to say he's "not intelligent" is simply foolish. You don't get those accolades without being intelligent. I wonder how many people in the comments here have the chops to be a professor at Harvard. Peterson's issues stem from his proclivity to talk out of his field of expertise, being thrust into the public spotlight, his bias toward religiosity, and his inability to accept that he could be wrong. These are shortcomings you could make about virtually any "pop-culture intellectual" (aside from the religiosity). Accusing him of being the "stupid person's smart person" is just insulting thousands of people who also don't have his expertise in the fields he talks about, nor do they have the time to research everything he's talking about. That doesn't mean they're not smart. Maybe they just trust a guy with the accolades he has, find something that resonates with them, and that's the end of it. is that a bad habit? Sure. Does it mean they're unintelligent? Nope. I'm sure nearly everyone in the comments here has heard something they've agreed with or thought was a good idea but didn't take the time to research the topic or fact check other things the person saying it may have said but I wouldn't have the audacity to call them stupid for it.

oh yes.... he's a one-eyed king in the kingdom of the blind, only. Matt has two eyes.

Matt taking JP's strategy: yeah, it's a really... *really* complicated problem that should be thoroughly discussed

@@anatolydyatlov963 That is how Einstein perceived the world. You do not question the pass of time because doesn't make any sense. You do not question the quantized nature of a perceived continue phenomenon as it is energy. or time (if time was quantized , do you cease to exist when you jump from one time quantum unit to the next?. Is your brain able to conceive such a thing? or do you have to believe it because you are told?) Every single scientific revolution came from that divergent thinking. There are 2 times of scientists. The workers, that test variables and verify theories, they are essential to the advancement or knowledge, and the second type is what we call geniuses. A genius lives in a universe of madness. He questions every single axiom of reality to find answers to underlying inconsistencies. I'm not saying Peterson is a genius, because we grant that title to people who actually proved something, to most people his mental process is *weird* , I understand that. But it is brutally ironic to me that the people humans admire intellectually the most, are people whose mental process is like Peterson's, not like Dillahunty. Dillahunty thinks like a common man that is obviously very intelligent. He could be an outstanding engineer, but a mediocre physicist (Peterson is quite the opposite).

@ that was some dumb shit

@@willieo6027 you're a dumb shit.

@ well said man

Let's translate this for plebs like me from google "Metaphorical" is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable." I think he means "action to which it is not literally applicable" because "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object" would make him look like he's more worried about language so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. "substrate" is "an underlying substance or layer" "ethos" is "the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations." So he's saying "we'd lose the action to which it is not literally applicable to the underlying substance of the characteristic spirit of our culture" cleaning that up a bit... "we'd lose our western culture". He likes to hide behind fancy words.

Some people just talk like that

@@ManuelCastro-ns5sd That would be another way to translate his totally concrete language.

Repent and be be born again believing on Messiah Lord Jesus, nothing more important, today is the day of salvation and Jesus can show you the truth, its not blind faith you can see it for yourself if you truly seek like promised. John 3:3 unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God / Luke 13:3 unless you repent, you will all likewise perish ⚠️❤️⚠️❤️

@@matthewvandeventer3632 I'm no fan of Peterson, but I think "we'd lose our western culture" is probably an unfair oversimplification of what he's saying. I would prefer to interpret "the metaphorical substrate of our ethos" in reference to Carl Jung who Peterson cites over and over in this discussion. Jung put forward this notion of a collective unconscious and a set of Jungian archetypes that loosely personify aspects of our unconscious minds; archetypes like the Hero, the Artist, the Explorer and the Jester. Essentially Jung's analytical psychology, like Freud's psychoanalysis which predates it, drew upon the archetypes found in storytelling to explain the phenomenology of the human mind. So the notion is that these metaphorical archetypes which manifest in our storytelling are inherent properties of our unconscious minds. Peterson seems to sincerely believe that without metaphorical archetypes - the common myth of the flood, the common myth of a messianic hero - we would be at a loss to describe some of our social and moral interactions... so yes, ultimately, "lose our culture" (but I've left out 'western' in this case because I think Peterson would apply this more universally). But I don't necessarily think he believes we'd lose the culture - even though I reiterated that. I think Peterson actually believes that it would impossible to do away with, and that if we attempted to we would likely just reproduce these myths all over again because he thinks that they are inherent to our being. They're not, of course. Freudian and Jungian psychology have each been broadly discredited for a number of reasons. It is certainly fascinating that we produce similar myths and are drawn to them over and over, but to suggest that that means these are meaningful descriptions of the mind seems fallacious. Peterson's example of a "true atheist", Raskolnikov, was someone who assessed the morality of a situation in terms of maximising well-being, the result of which was that they committed the murder of somebody who was broadly detrimental to collective well-being. Peterson then described that character's post-traumatic disorder as though this failure to sufficiently moralise in respect of a god archetype was somehow proof of the importance of god in moral considerations and therefore a form of proof that most atheists are not "true atheists" because they wouldn't do that... They unconsciously moralise in relation to an inherent archetype of god. Ultimately, I think what Peterson is really doing is arguing the god of the gaps fallacy. While we don't necessarily have a complete model of psychology or of the evolution of morality, we do have observations and emerging theories about the evolutionary benefits of altruism; essentially, why we behave with consideration for others and why we do good for them. But not just "we", not just humanity; we've observed altruistic behaviour, whereby individual cells sacrifice themselves for the benefit of a multicellular group in dictyostelid slime molds. Peterson hasn't actually argued why there is a god, he has argued why god makes for good moral teaching regardless of one's existence. Raskolnikov might well have been deterred from murder, no matter how rationally justified for collective well-being, had he had an intrinsic, guiding moral principle separate from his rational consideration - what Peterson might argue were god. But we have that without requiring god; we do good for others, we teach others to do good for others, we theorise and moralise and codify those morals in things like religion itself, not at all emergent from a god in our collective unconscious, but because instinctually it feels good, it feels right. Even in the example of Raskolnikov, this "true atheist" failed in their absent-of-god reasoning to consider the effects of taking a life on himself; the act is instinctively revolting to most people, because being comfortable with murder is plainly detrimental to a species or genetic group's broad survival chances. I do actually agree with Peterson about the value of moral storytelling, but that being the central tenet of his argument for the meaningful existence of god is a remarkable fallacy for a remarkably smart man to make. Sorry, I... kinda wrote an essay.

I think you mean, Jordan "this is really complex" Peterson.

you're right, it doesn't depend on what anyone means by anything, especially when you're talking about something so simple as God or the meaning of life. Everything is simple. Go back to sleep, little atheist. You have a Call of Duty clan war scheduled at noon. Did you forget?

pints of watermelon 😂😂

it depends on what you mean by complex :v

It depends on what you mean by Jordan Peterson.

If i m gonna destroy your whole career had a face

He really got him

If you need a metaphysical medium to understand this concept... you might be jordan peterson.

Jordan was just de-railing the points... Like all the points

Actually this is a straight-up assumption

Peterson uses so many dishonest fallacious arguments.

Yes, it's a bad argument and clearly it's possible, but it's also not so simple; many people struggle with this to the extent that they feel completely powerless to stop, and so if a mystical experience can make most of them reliably stop for good and change them then you can see that there is some truth in his side as well that's certainly worth exploring

@@sebastjankrek1744 But there is nothing necessarily supernatural about a mystical experience. His argument is also contradictory because he claims there is no reliable drug treatment for smoking cessation, and then gives the best example of drug treatment for smoking cessation.

Jordan's definition is not what you think it is. He has stated his position on the subject many times. "Supernatural" is in reference to ones conceptual subjective response to experiences, in relation to our predisposed beliefs in the world that are not entirely objective . The mind exists entirely within the world of subjectivity, and as such ones experiences though not always taken as such. Are in fact a result of a "supernatural" response. Ie a subjective point of view entirely existing within ones mind. Predicated on subjective beliefs of the world. When he pointed out the fact that shrooms have the ability to stop smoking through "supernatural" means, and NOT through a chemical compound. Hes pointing out the fact that the primary force behind the change was an internal subjective experience. Unless to a greater degree you are forced through chemical induction to stop smoking. It was your "supernatural" experience that made you stop.

@@_cheezy_ Well 2 things, 1 the statement that theres nothing necessarily "supernatural" about a mystical experience is incorrect. Your talking about Petersons definition here, not yours. He has pointed out his position on his definition of supernatural. Just as Dillahunty gave his. They literally agreed on each others position being one of marit. 2 bupropion is not as you call it, a reliable drug treatment for inducing smoking cessation. If you look into the abstracts on bupropion, you'll find at best it has a 20% chance of inducing smoking cessation, and mind you this is on individuals actively trying to quit smoking. So under the best of conditions, bupropion only has a 20% chance of working. This is so far below what is considered reliable, it literally falls under unreliable. Reliable starts at 60% and up, not 50%, not 30%, and certainly not 20%.

Thats true for me for sure … i just never believed in any mystical being

God exists, repent.

​@@JC__, There is a difference between “repent” and “do penance.” Stop reading bad translation.

@@pmaitrasm who taught you that

@@JC__, You have not read the New Testament.

Well "trying" being the operative word.

He's being difficult without intending it, as a side-effect of explaining the truth. As the commenter above said "trying" being the operative word

I dont think he was being dificult i think he was just interupted every time he was half way through a thought

@@arnavrawat9864 really, that’s what he tried to do? It turned out terrible, it would have been better if Peterson had some experience in explaining things, oh well maybe it’s not his profession.

@@MoonShadeStuff It is a difficult thing to explain deep truths. Peterson is very very good at it, but even he fails. He does have experience in teaching and explaining

Decadent Descent And his look alike the mighty AronRa, all praise to the A-Ra!!

I did, don't be a puss

Reyes D. Chapa Prove it, Reyes. When you can't, because you can't, shove your mythological dogma up your ass.

Yeah, it's like no atheist ever quit smoking. If you really want to quit, you should just check the long of a long-term smoker. That should put you off. Whenever I think of slacking on my diet, or my workout, I think of the heart of an obese woman I once saw.

I went to Sovngarde when i took mushrooms, never smoked a cigarette since.

@Glyn Just to check, I went and loaded up as fine a resolution set of elevation data for Alberta I could find, and wrote up an algorithm to calculate area, taking into account elevation variation. The increase in area due to topography is less than 2%. As the original discrepancy was nearly 5%, even taking hills and mountains into account, Alberta is still smaller than Texas. Science.

@@11kravitzn got! Em!

@@11kravitzn Hahahah! Lier😂

@@11kravitzn You didn't go and make and algorithm 😂😂

@@ObuntoFeather Wanna bet? I can send you my MATLAB script.

Metaphorical substrate? Isn't that like whey powder?

It's a common trend he follows. He doesn't like to make simple statements for simple arguments. He has to jump to the meta realm to make his ridiculous argument barely feasible and coherent.

Wow...really? Two times... Matt said it 3 times (granted, he was asking for clarification, confirmation of his understanding on Peterson's argument)... so, what's the point? One of those big words some else critique Peterson for using?

To be fair, he also said "material substrate".

David Barber - Did we not just watch the same video? Jordan schooled Matt, but then Matt demolished Jordan. Matt however went too far and challenged Jordan, instantly regretted it. Jordan then proceeded to slaughter Matt's arguments but then Matt destroyed Jordan Peterson.

The internet makes me sick sometimes. Never debate or conversation, only argument and "Wtf fucking idiot you're wrong didn't you watch the video". Apparently I can't appreciate both individuals and realize they may both have something to give to people wanting to learn

Blank Hmm, actually I never ever heard Harris say anything I disagree with. Peterson might be on second place, it’s discussions like these that ruin his otherwise flawless reputation as a critical thinker. ;)

David Barber Completely agree. In fact, you saved me the trouble of writing a similar comment. Two intelligent, articulate public speakers having a spirited yet respectful conversation which challenged themselves and the audience -- and we get to hear it for free. Nothing to bitch about here.

David Barber all that matters to you are your affections. That is what you live for

This is stupid. We are talking about God here and the ultimate truth of existence. If it is hard for you to understand, well, don't mock it to feel better about yourself.

Mark Metternich Photography, LLC no, what xyork said is accurate.

Mark Metternich Photography, LLC You’re embarrassing yourself with all these comments

"derp I'm too stupid to understand so he is stupid hurp derp"

Don't mock it to feel better xyork!...Mark Metternich understands that Jordan's metaphorical hypothesis on the literal aspect of god is the ultimate truth of existence......you just don't understand, you need to become a salad chef

I too noticed the boots.

@@ianalan4367 they look cool by my eyes lol

You can take the Texan from Texas but boy you can't take the Texas from the Texan

Yes, I think it really showed somethings when JP said stuff like you can’t have art without religion, or when Matt said I am an atheist and JP said well no you’re really not. Like what what?!

I thought Matt was rude to Jordan.

@@godisthewayandtruth7759 nah, not at all. Where he seemed less polite where the times he sort of needed to. And hes been a lot ruder to people on the show he often hosts called atheist experience which i would recommend

​@@godisthewayandtruth7759 He should have thrown him off the stage, Peterson is a water poisoning drug addled cry baby drama queen who despises victimhood, projecting like Right wingers often do. Horrible little creep, yes, throw him off the stage Matt.

@@boembo6627 sad. You are sad? Anger never helps.

😂😂best comment about Peterson i`ve read....the master of wordsalad

@@hengedy and hes helped 1000s of people while you can do nothing but hate......ugh hate is such a horrible disease....get well buddy

@@legion24100 I`m quite well ty buddy. Maybe he have helped 1000s of people, i know nothing about that, but he is still a wordsalad maker. He`s very good at talking, but that doesn`t make the things he says accurate. Peterson makes up his own numbers and make his own conclusions out of that. I can understand some people are impressed by his talking points, but i`m not. He looses when he debates intellectuals with actual knowledge.

Verbosity does not equal veracity

@@chartranddave this^^^^...and ben Shapiro & deepak chopra can definitely compete Peterson on the master of world salad competition.

You miss the point...It is all of us...and your finger-pointing antisemitic comment only proves it

@@stevenfenley9359 It could apply to lots of different societies. (I imagine Peterson was probably referencing Spartans or something like that). I bring up the Old Testament since Peterson seems to think there is some superior moral value in the Abrahamic God that I do not think matches with His character in the Old (or frankly New) Testament. I also do not think the Old Testament is a literal history (and I believe JP would agree on that).

or Somalia

@@stevenfenley9359 thats what you do when youcant fight ideas. You throw names and insults. The old testament is both a book of wisdom and a Historical account(for belivers). Because Peterson is agnostic he can take the OldTestament as ametaphor. But a real.beliver back in hteday stoned women. Petwrson is historically wrong by only reading metaphorically the bible

Honestly it sounds like pre-middle ages Europe to me

ok wow u rly showed him

@@sevdeawesome7861 GR8 B8 M8. I R8 8/8.

Matt didn't murder anybody.If that's what you mean.Not that Peterson was a champ by any means.But Dillihunty's repetitive arguments saying the same things,are very weak.

@@dylanacious I find the viscous cultural and metaphysical substrates of your photosynthesis to be a literary and contrary cultural zeitgeist to the inexorable positive feedback of indomitable human intermingling. Yeah Peterson is the one with repetitive answers here, Matt repeats himself because he has to pin Jordan "Word Salad" Peterson down, so he can't constantly change the subject away from his silly conclusions.

Hahahahahahaha real funny but so true!

Jordan is humble,Matt’s to confident. Finite minds, however...

yr a finite mind

@@bowlingballmagic jordan smells his own farts

@@KPenceable this is absolute gold

@YexaC *pseudo-sophistry FTFY lol

Matt just has this quiet confidence and concise way of speaking. You can even see him just sitting back comfortably in his chair. He's not trying to prove anything.. he has the confidence of logic and reason on his side. You can see Peterson leaning forward and aggressively interjecting constantly while Matt is talking..His arguments just don't come across as honest as Matt's do.. he sits on the fence and tries to distract from the argument by talking with confusing word salad and trying to challenge everything Matt says. It just feels like he wants to prove something.. he wants to prove how intelligent he is. I'm sure I could be wrong but that's what the body language and styles of arguments said to me.

@@Shmaples I don't think you're wrong. It seems important to JP to be seen as an intellectual, and when the audience laugh at him, he takes it very personal and lashes out. His body language often looks like a self conscious performance and he uses big words and elaborate ways to sound smart, instead of making it simpler for the audience.

Matt finally asked JP what about your beliefs are tied to the Christian God. JP doesn’t answer this question, all of his statements lead to a god or spirit but not a Christian one by any means. If I was Matt i would ask what about the Christian god makes you believe in that god versus Allah.

So you've lived for three more years and still don't comprehend JP's word salad? Maybe after another 3 years then....

@@marcusn254that popularity has probably gone to his head. One time he called himself the smartest guy in the room and then realizing how immature and distasteful the comment was. He had almost overnight celebrity status for simply arguing with some delusional college students

😂😂

You forgot the "fat" part. "Fat and bald guy."

really dude 😂😂😂

cumulonimbus oh no oh no 😂

"I literally searched for "Jordan Peterson debates bald guy" Why?

@@MrRainone99 nope wrong! Not Matt neither Peterson can prove gods existence. Not even you or the computer chess. Computer chess is not proof of a god mate.

@@MrRainone99 yes his words as you rightly quoted, he is not saying therefore god exist.

@@MrRainone99 I think you missed the part where he said the computer experiments to win. In this specific example experimenting would be analogous to evolution. Over time we have adapted in response to the rules and gotten better and better at “winning the game.”Although we don’t exactly know how the rules were put into place evolution points in the opposite direction of god.

@@MrRainone99 Just because no one knows how the computer came into existence doesn’t mean there is a god. You were claiming Matt argued that there is a god inadvertently. I was just pointing out you were misinterpreting his argument. Of course I can’t answer how everything came into existence but what I can say is that the computer didn’t start out a computer but a little circuit board that through experimentation and sexual selection evolved into a computer over an enormous length of time. According to god we started human and have always been human.

@@MrRainone99 - Ok, well what’s the make and model of God? We also know humans create computers, however, who or what created God since you seem to believe everything must have a cause? And don’t claim God was never created because that would completely negate your computer with instructions argument.

Honestly I don' understand all the commotion... I perfectly understood why Jordan said what he said, and it was justified why he used those words. Matt was trying to oversimplify things just to assess whether religion can be proven correct. Jordan started with the point that it cannot be proven correct. What he says is more about how to use such beliefs as tools even if they may not be empirically provable. These things work. We don't know why they work, but they work, so they're worth studying.

I love meta comments like this

@@ayushdeshmukh284 well, he needed to let Matt know. We all know that Matt argues the existence of god not the practicality of religious beliefs. You're wrong though, because Matt explicitly told Jordan that the practicality of religion doesn't have any bearing on whether it is true or not. If you were right Jordan would have stopped him right there to reiterate that he wasn't argue for the existence of god

Ayush deshmukh Nice work bud. Matt is trying to nail down Peterson’s views and he won’t outright say what he believes. It’s typical religious tap dancing. If you can’t explain something simply you don’t understand the topic, Peterson clearly can’t.

Jordan Peterson: That depends on what you mean by a comment and what you mean by format. Me: If you are unable explain your position in simple terms, you yourself don't understand it.

That's good for you but I doubt Dillahunty is the reason you went that course. There are other things which are moral which are not justified by wellbeing.

Well you didnt, He didnt say Its impossible

Literally not what he said. why are Dillahunty Stans so dense 😭

@@thedog121 and what exactly did he say that i disagree with? maybe you're the denser one by assuming and jumping to conclusion? it could be any of the hundred arguments. red pill fanbois are so linear minded lol

@@anonNemo I understand you're trying to be obtuse but he only made one argument here that pertains to your comment about quitting smoking. Pretty obvious that's what I meant, but you Matt d𝙸ckriders aren't exactly the brightest stars in the sky.

Jung said the same. 12 steps programs are based on that.

@@0Magicmush0 12 step programs are processes that are designed to address psychological addictions not physiological addictions. Smoking is generally a physiological addiction. The way to deal with physiological addictions is to suck it up until the withdrawals pass. Such a method is not usually effective for psychological addictions. Either way; no need for the supernatural.

@@carnifexprincipium5586 smoking is not physiological at all the bodily addiction is laughable. I have quit smoking myself.

@@0Magicmush0 sure, there certainly are psychological components to all addictions and the degree of psychological factors varies from person to person but to assert that chemical dependancy is not real? Really?

@@carnifexprincipium5586 I said it's laughable, I meant that it is a laughably small factor for cigarettes not that it isn't real. But well our thoughts and psychology is also generated by chemicals and patterns of neurons in our head so in a sense it's all physiological. psychological state is but an emergent property of our physiological state so. I don't really know where your line between what you call physiological dependency and psychological dependency is. In my experience the (what I call psychological) main factor of what makes quitting smoking so hard is that because you have been 'trained' by the constant coming and going of nicotine to see smoking as an essential part of feeling happy and satisfied. You see it as a genuine crutch. It's a bit like the concept of learned helplesness. The bodily sensations of quitting nicotine are relatively mild and hardly noticable.

Peterson also remarks that if you can't explain it to a 8 - 10 year old, then you don't understand it very deeply, you might just be repeating what you heard. I thinks he understands that Matt here understands him perfectly, he isn't thinking on the RU-vid public while the conversation

And my personal favorite: "Brevity is the soul of wit."

"Verbosity is the enemy of clarity." JohnnyReb

​@marcelojesustorresarroyo4176 So, this is actually something Feynman said as a part of his "Feynman" teaching method. He says if you can't teach it to a 5 year old, then you dont understand it well enough. Lets not credit JP with the legendary Physicist being quoted here.

That's definitely something someone who is intelligent would assume is indicative of a "well enough" conclusion to the active learning of complex subjects. Isn't trying to explain something part of getting to know something "well enough"'? When you learn something, don't you encounter more questions because you learned something new? IF learning is a process in which more complexity is revealed, how or even when is "well enough" even possible? Verbose for verbosity's sake is not useful. Trying to flesh out as many potentials as possible can be useful. Who gets to determine which is which? The person who's incapable of assessing complex language? The one who wants to dismiss challenging ideas because comprehension was restricted by bias? There's a "well enough" to learning? I'll state this simply because Socratic is apparently unfashionable. Come to a philosophical debate thinking simple language is on the menu. Right, right.

We are still waiting for some theist even close to JP's intellect to call in for the show. It seems most of the callers are tramendously inconsistent in their thoughts and arguments and have a hard time to answer simple questions, that potentially would lead to them changing their perspective. Instead they turn out to be dishonest and suffer from a great lack of listening to and considering what was said.

Yes good point. He's giving him plenty of slack and time that his phone show hasn't time for.

Since Matt ' did' nothing 'to him' here, he wouldn't have 'done' anything 'to him' on the phone, either. Matt couldn't hear a thing Jordan said because he wouldn't listen to a thing Jordan said.

@@craigsmith1443 the hell? Jordan got destroyed by Matt.

@@kraidenb.8211 _Jordan got destroyed by Matt_ Well, that was most certainly convincing. I'm impressed b all the examples, detail, and reasoning you put into your conclusion. That was a drive-by belch, and nothing else. Now, can you do better?

Matt also isn't a walking hypocrite telling a world of incels how to live whilst not even following his own rules. He (matt) isn't great, but he also isn't that.

@@jaquandrejones it's not inherently hypocritical. Whilst that could be a pretty agreeable summation to a lot of folk, I see a man preaching to a choir that is a benefit if they follow his word.

@@MatchwoodX JP says don't do drugs, yet is addicted to popping pills. If you make a living giving incels advice, at least follow your own advice. That my friend, is a 100% concrete example of him being a hypocrite. Not to mention he's definitely friends with nazis, but that's an entirely different issue I have with him lmap

@@jaquandrejones one doesn't stop making sense, and stop being overall good for others in speech, just because they suffer from addiction. You also cannot assume he's an active addict. Nor you the right to judge him for it. Who are you to JP? Have you ever done something illegal? Is your family imperfect, and so on. Don't hate on someone for the sake of hating on them. JP clearly is a good person and speaks well thought intelligent topics.

@@MatchwoodX I love how JP defenders literally go "dog whistling nazis and building an incel army is objectively good"

atheists say the same thing about theists people, so maybe both sides should stop doing that.

@@Crade1 It's absolutely not the same thing. On one side there is a body of evidence that you reject without showing why it should be rejected other is God magicked it why won't you just believe.

I even think the audience member who asked the question probably regretted it when he realised what he’d done. It wasn’t a nice moment.

Theists aren't assuming. That is just the reality they see. It's like trying to describe what happens in your brain while having a psychedelic experience to someone who's never done a psychedelic drug. There are just things super hard to relate with words so that someone will fully understand what you experienced. Like say magic was real and you knew how it worked but you couldn't describe to someone else how you do it. It might be based on unlocking triggers in your psyche and other people might have their own locks on such psyche barriers that require whole new methods to unlock than the way yours were unlocked. So how would you even go about teaching them? It might be a life long project or a fluke that they learn it at all.

@@Wolfsheim23 nice diatribe. It's pointless and doesnt address my comment at all, though.

Exactly. JP just wants to be difficult and it almost seems like it would hurt him to agree or affirm what MD is saying in response.

Sophisticated? His arguments are hogwash. He doesn't even respond to many of the questions. Peterson is the young, immaturely minded person's idea of a tremendous intellect.

@@JMT1985MO Facts

@@JMT1985MO God and religion are a bit more complicated than what you might think.

@@magnuserror9305 i think it's too complicated for you.

Now people know some whys about gnosticism emergence. I find very funny People are attacking Peterson and still these same act as if morality and ethics are cognitive. I am not from an abrahamic religion, quite the oposite. The substratum of this discussion is not about the reality of the bible, but about the reality and veracity of any ethical or moral prescription and judgement. There is absolute no evidence for the morality or imorality of any proposition or action. And the idea of eternal punishment of humans is misplaced in this discussion. The Second death is not unanimously eternal punishment. Eternal punishment is reserved to fallen angels. People are confounding what "the bible" says and what catholic theology and islamic doctrine affirm.

He’s an extremely skilled conman.

Yeah that's what I got out of it too, he just throws out a whole bumble of concept words as if he just said something. Matt was clearly, obvious and versus Jordan Peterson just says a whole bunch of nice words and phrases that produce imagery that have nothing to do with each other. He's just kind of pointlessly babbling so you can't really argue with what he saying cuz nobody understands what the f*** he is saying

sesquipedalia verba

Spot on.