There’s NO Good Argument for Atheism w/ Jordan Peterson 

"explain his thinking further" or, more accurately, expose that Peterson has nothing. Worse, he not only has nothing but insults those who refuse to be convinced by fairy tales and mysticism. Disappointing.

I think Pints was trying super hard not to laugh or sigh after the third round of nonsense.

True, unfortunately, Peterson doesn't follow at the same level

Surprised he didn’t start with “Well that depends what you mean by argument. And what do you mean by atheism. It’s complicated.”

Which Jordan completely failed to do

I love JP but he keeps putting God as an EXAMPLE of the highest good. He is THE highest being and must be worshiped. God is not just a philosophy.

​@roshinvarghese6879 You think maybe his argument is that too much points in that direction in psychology, meaning, instinct, etc. Therefore there is a transcendent conscious principle that orders these things, and ordered them in such a way that conscious beings must align with him to properly function, and in effect his only issue is either he presents it withinthe argument he found compelling, or that he can't make the last leap to say he knows for sure that this being is 100% portrayed correctly in the Bible, but rather that his conviction is close enough to what would be recognizable as the true deity, that he concludes that it must be the most accurate reflection, but given that his reasoning grants the difference between faith and knowledge, he only argues it in so far as he can make a strong argument rather than forcing the last leap of faith on a person? Maybe you should just let people come along at their own speed, which is either what he's letting others do, or the journey he himself is on. Just because he won't say definitely that he knows what God is while making in argument that there is one doesn't mean you know his own private convictions beyond what he feels he can argue with sufficient certainty to argue publicly.

@@roshinvarghese6879I think he is already Catholic. While he is hitting Truth, Bishop Barron is simultaneously hitting the Beauty front drawing people to the church. I could be wrong but it seems that way. It might be intentional he is using the abstract language to bridge the gap because he goes in and out of direct language consistent with our theology. To play devils advocate I get tired of our Catholic brothers and sisters painting him as “dangerous” because that seems to be trendy at the moment, it’s a Protestant mindset. Know and find comfort in truth and to your point yes correct him with the correct order of delivering truth.

Typical JP psychologizing word salad. The truth is that JP is as much of a materialist as Marx or Freud

@sweatincowboy4692 I pray he does find faith, but tremendous damage can be done if he keeps preaching Christ's teachings in a materialistic framework. Islam, Mormonism, New Agers, JP, etc. appropriate Christ's sublime moral teachings but conveniently disregard His claims of divinity, heaven, hell, the resurrection, etc.

Dead on! Thank you!!

I love our beautiful wise Ancients.

the defiance of the atheist is just their anguish at finding there is no proof for god.

George Costanza!!

*masturbating

Might be the best line I’ve ever heard in a JP convo, and I’ve listened to many. 😂

*masturbation

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

But if you don't, you're damn... that is called 'under duress' 🤔

What happens to criminals when they break the law, they no doubt get sent to prison. Same when we break God's laws, we all deserve hell because we've all failed to keep his laws. However, God is offering us a presidential parden if you will, we can either accept the conditions of the parden, or we can face the full weight of God's justice on ourselves. That's not a choice under duress, that's a willful choice of your own choosing, it's not forced on you in any way. Christ has plans to flulorish you, not to cause you to parish. But if you don't want him then that's what hell is, eternity without him.

​@@korvonfrancis6552 The equivalence is a little different. How about unlike judiciary system God by definition can do anything, therefore God can also be held accountable for not getting rid of the root cause of evilness? I honestly think the answer to this would be "God has a plan". Which is really nothing to argue against we probably would have to circle back to whether or not a God exists.

@@HockeyRiveNord But the same is happening with Atheism 🤣💀Atheist are so darn hypocrite that they claim that if you believe you are a fool , Join us have no belief and you are smart 🤣

​@HockeyRiveNord you live in a world bound by rules... break the laws of physic and see what happens... it's simple. you are free to break those laws but don't cry when you see the repercussions.

He’s spitting though

Let him cook! 👩‍🍳👩‍🍳👩‍🍳

Still a BS argument. Nice try christians. (If I can even call this nutcase a Christian) Why isn't the solar plexus conscious?? Well, why isn't it conscious under YOUR VIEW of "spirit from God"?? It seems like "the spirit of God" can cause something to be conscious only when there is a SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity. Why can't this magical spirit cause anything else to be conscious?? Why isn't your palms conscious? Why aren't your kidneys conscious? Why isn't you solar plexus conscious ? Why isn't a rock or a table or a chair conscious ?? It seems like your all powerful God's spirit can work ONLY under very specific orientation and working of the nervous system. Hmmm WEIRD. OR the simpler answer is that consciousness is the result of a SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity.

BS argument. Nice try Christians. (If I can even call this nutcase a Christian). Why isn't you Solar Plexus conscious?? Well let me turn it around and ask you why isn't your solar plexus conscious in YOUR view of "spirit from God"?? Seems like this magical "spirit of God" requires SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity to work......Weird. Why isn't your palms conscious? Why aren't your kidneys conscious ?? Why isn't a rock conscious?? If it is a result of the spirit of an all powerful God. The simpler answer is that consciousness is a result of a specific type of neural activity.

It might be. He doesn't know that

"The wages of Sin is Death."

​@CameronRabie this is why, in christian theology, hell and the lake of fire are also referred to as "the second death". Because no matter how good or bad you are, no matter whether you're saved or not, you will pass from this life through death to the other side. So the verse saying, "the wages of sin is death" *could* be referring to physical death (as in, some sins will lead to death) but can also be understood as the final death. The second death. The eternal death. A death that, once passed through, is the end, rather than a doorway into what lies next.

@@WarPoet-In-Training Yes, this first death is just relocation. Its the true death in the lake of fire that people need to worry about. The wages of sin is death, easily applies to both the body and the soul. As both were corrupted. When Jesus came, he did not come to save the body, he saved US, our souls, and filled those who believed with the Holy Spirit. We are protected from the second death and do not have to fear it, it has no power over us. Neither do we fear the first death, since it brings us to our Lord, our long awaited reunion. But while we are alive, we have work to do, which the Lord has ordained for us to do.

@@WarPoet-In-Training yes. the 'wages of sin is death'. It is not referring to physical death, but spiritual death. The physical things around us, the planets, the stars, are all temporary. Spirit is eternal. Physically, we all die once. If you happen to be a believer in Jesus the Christ, then you'll be with Him in Heaven for eternity. If you are not a believer, then you'll be subjected to the second death - the spiritual death. Revelation 21:8 - _But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death.”_

Its useless, in the surface Peterson words seem kinda dumb and Not easily understandable but he is right💯

What do you think Jordan thinks an atheist is. I am pretty sure 99 percent of his followers have no idea

​@@markwilson2421Reddit is that way sir

Agree and it’s so beatiful. First time I’ve heard it.

If consciousness is nonphysical, then why does general anesthesia work?

@@draedon_ because you affect it's container - the brain.

Thank you for saying. I didn't understand what they said in that last bit.

Let me add something more on conscious: everything we do on earth is recorded in our conscious, and one day, when we die, we will see what we have done throughout our entire lives in front of Jesus with big screen.so be careful with your actions on earth!

Agreed!!!

I guess he is doing it like Aquinas would? Setting up counter-arguments, but for his guests.

I think they said it would eventually be released here ;)

It already was released

It looks to be posted now 🙏🏽

Censorship in brazil? What a pitty news

No. There's a process in faith. Seeing creation. Seeing truth, beauty, and goodness. Seeing miracles. Seeing evil and sin. Making sense of all of it....and concluding there is a God of order who makes it all make sense. But then there's faith to receive Christ. The leap of faith from seeing, contemplating, logic, etc, to choosing to believe in the things you can't see. The spiritual realm. Logic then faith.

@@RCGWho Where's the evidence though? Stop hiding behind the word salad like your JP does.

@@id9504 you seek evidence but claim its not proof, so you are lying but don't see your lie. claiming theres no evidence is like the fish asking wheres water.

@@gerardjones7881Just more word salad. Evidence, please

@@gerardjones7881 Ugh... the fish asking "what's water" is the most obnoxious metaphor. If a fish had the ability, it would measure its surroundings and very quickly discover what water is. We are not fish. We have the cognitive ability to use tools and measure reality. If something is "real," it should have a measurable, predictable impact on the real world. Every religious claim fails this test. They are all unfalsifiable. "God will make XYZ happen. If XYZ doesn't happen, he's not ready for it to or he's 'testing' you" and other bullshit like that. No way to prove it wrong. Religious people LOVE this. It allows them to spout claims confidently without any accountability. Nobody will ever be able to prove them wrong, so they assert claims with total confidence to boost their own egos. Just like JP is doing here.

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

💯💯💯💯

Yes very funny

And he responded: “YOU HAVE TO BE PRECISE” and the audience erupted in tears and a frenzy of applause.

Well praise God for that -- and good for Makahla!!! (or however she spells her name!)

What would Jordan Peterson say about that comma you used after the word "said?"

Does JP sing? Or do you mean "in concert" as in multiple versions of him agreeing with himself. Because either option is a scary thought.

Sounds like his daughter is as nutty as he is.

🤓☝🏻

Having no idea is a negation, not a rejection. So, making no affirmative claim is nihilism at rest, materialistic determinism the moment after.

Definitionally yes. But practically no. Any atheist who has been well exposed to God claims like most have cannot truthfully claim a simple lack of belief. It is a conclusion, perhaps tentative, but a conclusion none the less. Conclusions are arrived at for reasons. One who has arrived at a conclusion for reasons cannot shirk the responsibility to support their conclusion simply because their position is a definitional negative.

that still implies that god is a rational, thinking being. Its possible to understand god as not conscious like we are, more as an intrinsic force. many different ways to interpret it, but its just easiest to argue against the typical Abrahamic view because most Christians dont explain it very well to begin with, if they understand it at all.

@@zaclovesschool2273 Saying you understand it better than others implies you have ways of proving to me that the others are wrong, no? And I mean prove, not theorize.

@@MarioTsota I'm not saying I understand all of it better than others, I'm just saying there are many ways to understand complex texts like the Bible, and some end up missing the initial ideas behind it due to not understanding the structure of the text itself. That it's made of different types of writing, some poetry, some narrative, some in descriptive passages, etc. And therefore needs to be carefully read. But if people don't do that, or believe completely in the words of someone who doesn't bother to think for himself, then I'd argue people set themselves up for misunderstanding. I like the way Jordan interprets it personally, maybe many others would say it's blasphemous or whatever...but I enjoy the way he thinks about it. Unless you mean for me to prove the existence of God or angels or whatever, then sorry I can't do that without either an essay or a long honest talk, but even then it's still a belief I have and it's not even in the way most western people would think of God. So unless you were wanting to explore the spiritual stuff already, not much I say would convince you. I can say that my views align ~the God of Spinoza, but I've explored things like Nondual Saivist Tantra, western esotericism (arguably born from mostly left current Tantra), but am also someone who loves learning science, and I don't see conflict between the sciences and spirituality. Though depends, if you believe the world is 6000 years old that's rough. Also to note, again I've not read the Bible myself so I'm not an expert, I've just taken courses on it's composition and history.

​@@zaclovesschool2273 That's good and all but arguing that I or others are wrong because you "believe" something to be true, doesn't disprove our theory. Either use logic 100% or don't use it at all. There is no inbetween where feelings should take precedent when it comes to arguments. Either you can prove your claims or let me believe what I want and don't argue with me based on feelings.

@@MarioTsota I'm still unsure what claims you want me to prove. I already explained why I can't give you empirical evidence for God, though if I were to, I would point to all things in the natural world and cosmos which are so ordered and follow laws of the universe, or to the origin of our universe still being such a contentious subject. The problem is that you're essentially asking me to prove the existence of love in the human heart with hard logic (and by the way, a person can argue a logical concept without hard evidence, it's called reasoning in the realm of ideas). If you're referring to my comments about people misreading the Torah or the Bible, then that's another story, I didn't use my feelings or beliefs for that. But my point on beliefs is that whether you choose to believe in something is up to you and what evidence you choose to see as lining up with that belief. We believe in scientific theories because of the evidence they provide not only for their theory, but also the evidence used against that theory. But while the study of the divine can be undertaken with a scientific spirit, it does not have defined parameters aside from the laws we already understand, and yet there are many we don't. Abstract ideas are inherently harder to explain in a defined way than observations of a material phenomenon. I'm not arguing that God is supernatural. I'm arguing that we embody that force called God through everything all the time, but especially through our ability to be conscious in the first place. It's essentially the all pervasive consciousness working through biological machinery to interact with itself. That's my understanding so far, but I was a hardline atheist for about a decade so I understand the skeptic view as well. I've just found it to be stale at a certain point because it blankets all of these potential experiences with an air of cynicism or skeptical judgement. But again, it's about personal experience and belief just like anything is. Just depends on how you wish to look at things.

Exactly. athiesm literal means a lack of belief in a diety. I am not going to argue for athiesm because there is not point. just respect my lack of belief, and I will respect your belief.

There’s a ton of holes in the theories surrounding existing assumptions of how the planet is formed and how we all got here that allows us to qualify the absence of a creative force in our theories. Feels like Atheism, Agnosticism and Creation all require similar amounts of faith

@markeburne5106 So you think that I have faith that I'm not convinced of something someone said to me? That seems a little odd. So for everything thing I don't know, I have faith that I don't know it?

You misunderstood. It's circular reasoning to think that evidence proves God doesn't exist. God must be outside of creation to be God

@@davidbell2547 No rational atheists claims that "god" does not exist. Any rational person has to be agnostic about the existence of entities who's very definition defy existence or non-existence proofs. For instance, you cannot prove that garden fairies do not exist if I claim that they cease all activity and turn invisible, the moment you try to establish their existence. Atheism is just the refusal to accept religious claims on the basis of bad evidence. Here's an example for true circular reasoning: "In order to believe, you have to believe.". Apparently, the absence of any evidence to belief is by design, so that you can truly "belief", purely based on faith as opposed to being convinced. This is nothing else but telling someone "In order to be belief X, you have to belief X". I'm sure Peterson could read some "wisdom" into that, but it is just circularity in its purest form.

Okay, so you can give direct evidence for evolution? I have looked at the fossil record or rather studies of the fossil record since no normal person is allowed to directly view except through pictures and I can tell you, the way I saw it without the dogma of evolutionist thought, I couldn't for the life of me see the "evidence" for evolution. All we can say without a doubt from looking at fossils is that something was alive and now it's dead. Evolutionists or better yet modern darwinist atheists look at things from the assumed position that everything on earth came from a single cell that evolved into everything else. Ask a child who hasn't learned evolutionist scripture what a fossil can tell them, many would likely say that's it's a dead thing, a rock or I don't know. In the end there's no concrete evidence for evolution only belief. How many science articles I've read and the honest scientist will tell you they believe or from what they can tell so not actual facts basically.

@@davidbell2547so you basically came up with a concept that you claim is true because you won’t accept any evidence that says otherwise

He's not coming around to Christianity. You can forget it. The Bible is wrong. God is real and so is Jesus. But professing faith in the Bible alone does not guarantee you a ticket to Heaven.

​@@DestinyAwaits19 Nonsense. You want him to believe a random anonymous Internet guy over an age long book of wisdom. Sorry but we're not all idiots.

@@DestinyAwaits19what are you on about ??? Bible is wrong ? But Jesus and god is real. That does not make ANY sense.

​@segagenysis6918 please stop and attempt humility. What a narcissist!

Which one?

Did you see how he deflected the question asked at 2:52? He basically asked why would a person believe in god, if there is no evidence for it. And Jordan Peterson deflects the question by deliberately misinterpreting it and answering it as if asked what belief in god is.

@@Maorawrath Exactly.

go back to 2010 youtube

@@alexanderryan1176 Huh?!?

​@@alexanderryan11762010 youtube is sure as hell better than 2024 youtube

Argue that against unseen gravity when you walk off a cliff.

What do you define as supernatural and how do you know that their is 100% lack of it?

@@seeingeye14 gravity is measurable god is no where

​@@Wow-hr1gl God created gravity and can be seen everywhere in His creation. ROMANS 1: 20 For the invisable things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eterna lpower and God head; so that they are without excuse. 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise , they became fools. This directly addresses you from the Creator thousands of years before you were even born.🤔🤐

@@seeingeye14 all of what you said literally means nothing you have no good measurable evidence for the existence of god today idc what you say

Its clear that what he meant by that was that one can chose to obey or disobey the dictates of a purely evolutionary "morality" (e.g., if we've evolved to be cooperative, one can still choose to be antagonistic).

So true😂

Indeed!

An argument for a belief is an argument to believe that belief. There is no good reason to believe in atheism, hence, there is no good argument for atheism.

@@onionsans You don't understand. Atheism is not a belief, its a lack of belief. There's always a reason to lack belief. Namely if there's no reason to believe. As is the case with god. Unless you know different.

@@ploppysonofploppy6066 Atheism is not a lack of belief - there is no such thing, except perhaps ignorance on the subject as a whole. Atheism is the belief that there are no Gods or supernatural beings. it stems from Materialism. Atheists love to assert that they are the "neutral" position, when, in fact, they are making an assumption in logic at the very start.

@@onionsans You're just wrong I'm afraid, think about it. Theism - "belief in the existence of a god or gods" - Wikipedia. The "A" in this case means "absence of". So its just absence of belief. Some atheist do assert that there cannot be a god, sadly the language let's us down, in that there's no word for that position. I understand that it's not a commonly held position, and I certainly don't. Nor is it neutral. I'm agnostic atheist. Agnostic doesn't mean "undecided ". The "A" stands for absence again, and "gnostic " from a Greek word for knowledge. I have an absence of knowledge of a god, so I have an absence of belief. Makes sense surely?

What’s his best bit of wisdom from the last few months?

Yes, very clear.... the best definition of conscience is the spirit of God brooding on the water. That makes a lot of sense and will be useful I'm sure in further research on animal conscience and human cognition. Just check to see if the spirit of God is brooding somewhere.

Really. He likes to use conflated words that do not actually mean anything. His idea of a God is just a conceptual best not an intelligent creator; creating an all encompassing definition which ends up being meaningless because it has no exploratorily depth. He is very knowledgeable on a relatively small are of Psychology, you can always tell when he is being knowledgeable because he speaks plainly and does not get flustered which is therefore very rare. He likes to quote various philosophers but nearly always get them the wrong way round or mis-quotes them.

@@criticalthinker8007 exactly, his advice basically boils down to “live as if God exists” (but actually doesn’t) and it’s self-refuting and nonsensical.

I actually don't think so. I think he recently have went too far into one extreme of the political debate. I pity his involvement with the Daily Wire.

Brilliant and lacklustre are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

If he was here 15 years ago he would saved me 4 years of atheism lol

It's interesting how often that's happened, how close he's come to crossing the line into Christian belief, and yet how he resists the final jump into grace.

@@smellincoffee JP is a deep thinker and most of the time free thinkers end up coming God kicking screaming . Took me 4 years to come back to belief in Gods existence again because I was the kind of person that questioned everything and what-if’ed everything to death . For me the hardest thing to do is to get my brain to just stop at night 😂 I think sometimes God looks at me and says “”does he have to make everything so frikin difficult all the time “” 😂

it's a funny idea of "atheism" and "reversion" though, don't you think? you and Dr. Peterson and all other Christians are atheists in regards to all gods except yours. instead of "reverting" to the god you grew up with, you can apply Peterson's logic to *convert* to a different religion entirely! try Hinduism on for size, why don't ya?? and if not, why not??

Really? I think if you applied your discerning thinking skills to the matter you could come up with a few options: enhanced scientific and technological advancement, potentially a more harmonious civil and social society, a more rational legal system, etc.

so are you saying you believe that by avoiding the burden of proof, you effectively find a loophole? im a little confused. either way, i believe your thought process is a little shallow. all this bible stuff could be fake, along with Islam and paganism and any concept of a supernatural being, and there really could be nothing beyond the physical. however, were you to not believe in something beyond the material, and something really is beyond the material, you would be wrong. by this logic, you lose nothing other than some of your time and effort by believing in something, but you take a chance at losing everything by believing in nothing at all. if you value that time and effort of believing in something over a potential eternity in a great place beyond the physical, then that is up to you to decide for yourself, but if you are merely going off logic, you are standing in the shallow end of the theological pool. reconsider. look at all religions and what they offer. I have personally, and the one that makes the most logical and historical sense is Christianity. Jesus saves. look in the Bible, and if you look closely enough you will find it.

The good arguments for atheism are the thousands of arguments against theism and the fact that one makes better decisions if one is not misled by some baseless fairy tales.

There is no default. There is either a cause that caused the construct of space, time and matter or no cause that brought them up. Possibly being agnostic as in not really knowing of either is the default

@@creed3500 Even if a creator is granted, a Christian still has pretty much all of their work ahead of them to argue that the creator of the universe also cares about on what day of the weeks humans work, in which positions they have intercourse and with whom, etc. How inflated must one's self-importance be to think that the creator of the universe pays attention to one?

Does JP remind anyone else of the farting preacher when he tilts his head back and closes his eyes like he's thinking of something profound?

It's a cope

I thought he had something when he suggested the bible is metaphorically true. However, this stuff sucks. Joker is metaphorically true. Joker did not exist. However, that doesn't mean if you cross mentally loners with a society that treats them like trash, you won't end up like Murray Franklin or Thomas Wayne.

When delving into different fields of study some rules won't apply. I don't understand how atheists only want to use one ruleset to discern the reality around them. Even when I was a child, I knew that reality was so much more than what is observed measured and repeated.

When you see beauty and wonder and order and goodness in the universe but also evil, you start to wonder why about all of it.

You exactly pointed out your issue. You rigidly demand scientific evidence to believe everything, and that's what makes you think you're one of the smart ones.

JP is like a fairy tale. Some of his quotes are applicable to real life but it's written as fantasy, because he writes for an audience that believes in fantasies and desperately wants to have worldview validated.

I think the benzos fried his brain. unfortunately.

@@Hobohunter23 As much as we would like to blame his behavior on his literal brain damage, he was like this before he suffered that. The truth he is just pandering.

@@sadsongs7731he moved all the way from being a psychologist in canada to a televangelist in america. he’s just following the money. change my mind.

@@m11_m11 come on! you can't say that. It makes you look close minded. I like the "change my mind" slogan because of its intellectual integrity. I agree he is partially following the money. But I do think he has another, more noble purpose. Jordan seems to think people are weak, stupid, superstitious and manipulable and will *inevitably* to Communism and/or Islam without American-Christianism.

@@m11_m11 it's still dishonest. Even with good intentions.

Atheists believe in lots of things….just not God. Atheists love lots of things…just not God.

People who don’t believe in God will believe in anything.

@@302indian I don't believe in god. And I definitively don't believe in "anything". Your argument is not persuasive unless you are only preaching to the choir.

@@sadsongs7731 He means the other sheep like himself. And he's not wrong. Most atheists just wind up clinging to some other kind of loopy dogma, like the woke cult. Free thinking atheists are really hard to find. It takes a certain amount of mental/emotional stamina to refuse to give up one's faculty of reason when surrounded by believers. I've had the most luck in Japan, but their culture is a whole other nut to crack as an outsider.

@@302indian Projecting much are we?

Wrong

@@slimynaut çYou think with your mind. Where is your mind? It´s in your brain .A product of your brain. You have no control over your brain and what it decides. Your brain is what you were born with plus what has happened since you were born. It is YOU!. Yo . Your brain cannot decide to be another Shakespeare, though it might decide to have a go.

no actually thats only applicable to two of the three kinds of universe finite fractal infinite lacking gravity and the one with gravity where four causal systems/time space are distinct from each other and growing the one with gravity where the two causal systems act like one excludes time travel intersection with other strings of time and the authorial function by lower entities so it places that universe directly under source that one has free will the other two dont except for in short periods where they do

In that analogy, imagine a guy who is being given ALL the signals that a woman loves him dearly and he’s too clueless to see it. (Or he thinks he’s too good for her or something) She may as well not exist to him. THAT’S atheism imo.

@@swish007 Well, if the the only sign of her was stuff written in a book and nobody has ever seen, communicated with, or knows where she lives or how to contact her, then yeh, she might as well not exist.

I'd argue there's FAR more evidence for God's existence than there is that the girl (in the scenario I mentioned) was actually into you. but neither she nor God really exist to someone who is clueless

​@@swish007With the difference that god's writings are closer to the ones of a crazy stalker. He's a keeper!

@@swish007 How FAR is zero? Praise jeebus.

There is no good argument for not believing in space unicorns ;) 😂

@@739jep It’s an illegal chess move!

What does a unicorn explain? Does it have the ability to create like intelligence does?

@@meb280 they’re space unicorns you blasphemer! And they’re all knowing and all powerful - so of course it can create anything. Says so in the space unicorn bible.

@@739jepMuch more logical to think everything came into being out of nothing. Don't need intelligence to create order, design, complexity and information. Why, I'll bet there is no 'person' behind this response of yours, it's likely a parrot randomly pecking at a keyboard. Polly want a cracker?

Just say you can’t keep up with him and go.

Jordan , if you want to understand why I as a former Darwinist (still an evolutionist ) have doubts about random mutations I would study plasmodium and how it developed the ability to survive chloroquine . And do a study on the odds of what it would take for plasmodium as far as odds to develop this mutations

What do you mean by "what"?

🤣

Your example isnt quite fitting. Because he wants us ti believe Not obey. He wants us to obey because of love and consciousness. He chose and formed the world for us like he wanted. If he has shown himself in the way you described then this life makes no sense in the realm of it being a test. As if every thing in this world can be seen. Or how do you know whether someone loves the other.

Atheism assumes naturalistic determinism, and therefore is not the neutral position.

I'm sorry you feel that way about yourself. I used to be like that too, and it almost drove me to end things. Eventually I discovered that I'm okay with not being perfect all the time, and I'm much happier for it. It's actually okay to feel good about something you didn't put your entire being into and is just "good enough".

That’s a logical fallacy. A lot of wrong answers doesn’t prove that there isn’t one correct one

@@willcruikshank7972 you can, however, have a logical fallacy and yet still be correct. lol.

Right? Never knew that, but makes perfect sense. Reality really is fractal.

Sketch

He’s disagreeable at worst, not bitchy, or irritable. And it’s wisdom, not smartness.

@@jaybee9269 which bit is wisdom though? He outwardly dismisses what amounts to the scientific method: evidence, materialism and determinism - all the things that directly led to the technology to enable him to broadcast his objections to the world at the touch of a button... simply because things look a little bit more complicated at the quantum level. And as we've all seen countless times before, here comes the Jesus smuggling - the "God of the gaps" to fill in the ever decreasing realm of things we don't yet fully understand: instead of "illegally" trying to prove what's real, just commit yourself to a tale because you have an instinct to act socially (conscience), and religious tales often condone acting how we already were. He mistakes correlation with causation - the classic religious error (along with confirmation bias). "And you think well that's not God, well have it your way, like y'know, you're playing games". The game playing is making the jump from the verifiable and falsifiable to all the religious mysticism, for literally no reason than to make it match up with the story you were taught as a kid because you it to be true, which is where the confirmation bias comes in. Perhaps he's saying it in a way that sounds like wisdom to you, but pick it apart and it most fundamentally isn't.

@@Nyghl0 >> The aggregate is wisdom. And he doesn’t dismiss evidence; if anything his academic corpus is intensely evidence based. It’s his conclusions in conversation that are often inductive. But inductive logic is valid. I wish I’d had Jordan as a therapist. I know Jordan’s religious philosophy is like nailing Jello to a tree for some very bright and callow young people. But he wants the best for us, after all. I can’t help but wish I’d seen Jordan debate the late Christopher Hitchens.

@@jaybee9269 2:57 "Evidence, euargh. Like I said, it's an illegal game move". He literally dismissed evidence in this very video, I wasn't simply falsely accusing him - everything I've said has been backed by evidence or reason. Given his academic background, don't you find it odd that he is quite happy to go along with scientific method, except when it comes to God, when suddenly it's all nonsense? Religious logic is abductive, which is an invalid form of reasoning, it's not inductive. I've no doubt that he means well and does want the best for us, he probably would have made a good therapist for you - I reckon he does believe every single word he says. That's what gives him the conviction in his delivery - same as Hitchens. I'm unsure how well the dynamic between them would have gone though. They both have/had high levels of disagreeableness, Hitchens probably moreso. He tended to run down his opponents like a ruthless but calm and collected juggernaut - I think he exhibited psychopathic traits similarly to his brother, whereas Jordan still retains instincts of a listener underneath his relative aggression. Combine that with their different approaches - Hitchens would moralise politically, but Peterson is much more postmodern with his treatment of truth. Similar to your nebulous "the aggregate is wisdom", he seems to view truth as an emergent quality of action and customs, reasoning something along the lines that the bible "must mean something" given its historical pole position in western literature. It doesn't really mean anything, but it sorta "seems like it should" - and he places this as more true than things you can actually prove to be true. Perhaps Hitchens could have adapted to this, but mostly I think they would have been talking past each other like every other debater of note does with him.

Determinism was debunked long time ago by double slit experiment.

Yeah but that's the point there is no really good argument for Atheism.

Don't believe everything you THINK. 🧠 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

@@silversxm2609 yeah, I kinda reiterated what he already said🤣

What ‘end goal’ is in mind? There is a very good argument for atheism; it’s the same argument for not believing in a million invisible, intangible kestrals, or for rejecting the idea that water is liquid sin. We have no reason to believe that for which we have no evidence; if we believe in one non-evidential thing we must of necessity believe in every single other non-evidential thing. Put more simply, if you believe in a god, why not also the kestrals, or the sin-water? Out of all the many thousands of gods that have ever been posited, Christians seem to believe that they chose the right one. Atheists simply believe in one fewer.

I’m sure he’s devastated.

@@elijah5791 nah, he is to far gone. Selfperception has left him, until something happens that really sho2s the stupidity of much of what he says. Syncoohants not goona do it

I don’t think he believe the Bible in the literal sense. But the idea of god are also not easy to grasp in the literal sense.

Najlepszy Papież ever.

- the Pope who had two PhDs in Philosophy.

​@@este4955 Z papieży posoborowych to: Benedykt XVI >

@@CatholicismRules the issue with modern catholics, to be self-critical, is that many of them have a fundamental materialist ontological worldview. A lot of them presuppose materialism and then insert God as an extra person in their worldview. This in my view stems from protestantism bu originally Cartesian Scepticism, which fundamentally misunderstands God as Being itself and misunderstand Thomism. We need new essentialist thinkers (similar to Heidegger) to revolutionise and correct these material errors in order to overcome our materialist trap. Glory to Rome!

In your own words, define “REALITY”. ☝️🤔☝️

They are both grifters. Jordan got famous for bm telling others to make their bed with a hint of transphobia.

I'm not sure why any thinking person would give heed to the imperfect opinions of some ignorant psychology professor. There are a handful of EXTREMELY wise sages currently on this planet who can logically and completely answer practically any question that an intelligent soul is likely to ask regarding morals and ethics. The fact that Jordan supports men buggering each other (by which I mean, that he supports homosexuality and other criminal activities, such as the unnecessary consumption of poor innocent animals) is MORE than sufficient proof that he is not as religious as he claims, and that any decent, holy person ought to shun his inane teachings and flee into the loving arms of a teacher of Truth. Furthermore, in a recent interview on Benjamin Shapiro's RU-vid channel, he admitted that his wife figuratively (and I'm sure also LITERALLY) wears the pants in his household. 👖 I would be more than pleased to provide you with links to the RU-vid channels of a few enlightened beings who will quickly set you on the path to perfection, as opposed to the DELUDED moral subjectivism professed by "Doctor" Peterson (pun not intended). Please find below a couple of such ENLIGHTENED masters to which I referred above: Professor Alan Watts (now deceased, so he doesn't have his own RU-vid channel - just search for his videos on numerous extant channels) Swami Sarvapriyananda ( ru-vid.com or search for "Vivekananda Samiti") Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda ( www.youtube.com/@TheWorldTeacher )

I think you will be thoroughly disappointed in his true views.

@@benjisandkyou know him personally do you ?

@@barrywhite36 I don't have to: ru-vid.comq39wOXbZ65M

A thorough intellectual wouldn’t totally ignore the question he’s being asked as he does in this video. Intelligent though he is, I really wish he weren’t so dismissive of that question

That’s where the money is

Yes it’s total baloney

He could make more money doing other things if he's so calculating and dishonest. He once said that he spent the first half of his life living more or less as an atheist so now he is spending the second half of his life repenting by slipping preaching into his speeches about psychology. If you don't believe in God or believe Jordan's arguments that's fine but I believe that Dr Peterson is sincere.

@@NotAffiliated I think he is sincere, but I also think that he would not be doing any of this if it did not pay his bills. And he may be even more "sincere" in his positions exactly because it pays the bills for his extravagant jackets. "He could make more money doing other things if he's so calculating and dishonest." How do you know that, and like what?

@@Eigelstein Nobody has the luxury to do anything other than what pays their bills. If you rob people for a living your a bum. If you heal people for a living then you are a good man. I'm tired of people suggesting that J.P. is "doing it for the money" when he has been a dedicated healer and shrink his entire life. Every once in a while people strike it big because they are exceptional. J.P. is more wise and insightful than everybody else so he's on top. That's the natural order of things. People just like to try to tear him down because they don't like his message. Some people would rather bitch about their dirty room than just clean it.

Sorry what? Religious people have been the backbone of society and will continue to be so because many atheists don’t have children and are urbanites. Also being an atheist makes the world an absurd place, you guys just ignore it because if you took your lack of belief seriously it would make people meaningless.

Perhaps it could just be because religion IS crazy?!

It's like the American dream. You have to be asleep to believe it.😂😮😢.

I don't have a link, but I can tell you that his argument is a strawman. No serious biologist thinks that evolution is purely random. JP even said himself that "part of [the mutation process] is random". This isn't news, and this isn't the gotcha he wants you to think it is.

Except that by calling yourself an atheist instead of agnostic, you've picked a side on this claim.

​@@StageWatcherPersonally, I'm just me 😊 If pressed, I'd definitely call myself an agnostic-atheist because it's the most honest position I can hold. I'm agnostic in the sense that I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can KNOW that there isn't "some" entity out there that would qualify as a God. I'm atheist because I don't believe that this entity has been demonstrated convincingly.

@StageWatcher Here we go again. The word "atheist" is an imported word and comes from the Greek "atheos" which literally means "without god". That perfectly fits anybody who doesn't believe in a god. Agnostic is another word with a different meaning - without knowledge. We are all agnostics, because none of us really knows, even the theists. It's really frustrating when so many people don't even bother learning the meaning of words they use.

While this line of reasoning is well and good at present, it surely won't stand up against the judgement of God. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." And if you want evidence for the existence of God, seek it. The prophecies of the books of the Bible are testament to the truth of God's Word. The historicity of Christ is better documented than Caesar's. The scientific evidence of intelligent creation, and the scientific veracity of the Bible can easily be found. Ultimately though, if you want to know the truth, ask. Jesus said, "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him."

If God exists (we'll say the God of the Bible, given the channel we're on), what kind of evidence would you expect to find?

He's taking about the paradigm. The Bible isn't a scientific text.

It’s a categorical error. “Show me a square circle.”

@@CircumambulationMaedia Then we shouldn't take it that seriously as to dictate our life

@@prometheus1438”we don’t need evidence” “Why not?” “Because we said so”

Show me the evidence for that odd ought claim.

Both can be true... because he felt entitled, he gave his second best to God.

@@shaulkramer7425 But it's still not the real reason why. Those who pray to God and boast of their lineage find no favor with him.

​@@johndoh795It wasn't because of Cain's lineage that he expected God to accept his offering, he and Abel were from the same parents, it was because he wanted to earn it through his works, whereas Abel understood that it's only by grace. Cain started the religion of works, trying to bribe God.

​@@ronaldorivera4674That doesn't really make sense. If Cain wanted to earn God's favor by works then he would've given the best he had in order to "bribe" God.

@@jon6car Well let's take a look at what scriptures say he brought, Genesis 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. Verse 4: And Abel, he " also" brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offerings. I think the key word here particularly is " Also", which to me indicates that he also brought what Cain brought, which was the "firstlings" of his flock and the "fat thereof" meaning the first, best, and fattest of his offerings to sacrifice to the Lord. To me this seems pretty clear, that it wasn't because Cain's offering wasn't good enough but because his heart was leaning on his own self righteousness and not on God. Righteous Abel brought a sacrifice to atone for his sin not to be rewarded. I have to point out that if it was because of his lineage, that doesn't make sense because Abel and Cain had the same parents. Either way I'm sure there are many many ways people interpret this passage, regardless, may the triune God open our hearts and reveal the truth to us, filling us with his spirit, edifying us daily and conforming us into the image of his Son.

I don't know you, but I disagree. Take the challenge.

Sounds like it's something you can learn from.

Sometimes I pause ⏸️the video. And process what I had listened to and meditate and play ▶️. Again 😅

That's Peterson's schtick. He takes you into a rhetorical hedge maze until you forgot why you were in there in the first place.

Neither of them are either.

Which is a conclusion that is come to people that don’t want to answer for their failures

No that is the the conclusion of someone who doesn't trust themselves to hold themselves accountable for there actions without an outside force independent of themselves to judge their actions.

Who knows what challenges those who are mentally handicapped have to overcome that may seem mundane to the regular person. Being your best is not the same as being the best. It's your best, your highest self, whatever that may be. And I feel this could apply to any intellectual capability, in all sorts of ways.

Jordan is generally a wise man, but no one's infallible. He crumbles under pressure so badly when challenged on his literal beliefs on theology.

Remember all humans are, well, human. No one is 100% right some are more right than others but no matter how wise and smart an individual they will never be 100% right about everything.

I don't need evidence to not believe in something.

@@quentins8165 Atheism isn’t as simple as just “not believing in something” though. There are necessary positive beliefs one must have in order to declare atheism. For starters, you need to have a positive belief that at some level of analysis, the universe itself is eternal, with no beginning. You are also required to believe that there is nothing that exists but the material world. It also seems necessary that you believe all actions are predetermined and that free will is merely an illusion. And that’s just for starters! All these presupposed beliefs and more are required for you to posit that atheism is simply “not” believing in something. That’s a whole lot of contentious, controversial, far from obvious belief that is required for “simply not believing in something”. It is very far from “not believing in something” if so much pre-requisite belief is required to take the position.

@@quentins8165 "Not believe in something" is different from "believe in not something". ~believe(x) != believe (~x)

​@quentins8165 the problem with that approach is that everyone needs some sort of ordering faith or philosophy or understanding of the cosmos to order what they do in life. It's not something we can dispense with or our lives would be nonsense and aimless. So you do need to believe in something and have good reason for basing your life on it. There being a God or not needs to be defended because the stakes are so high in that debate. Whether one assumes there is a God or begins from a presumption that there is no God, makes little difference. It is one of, if not the, fundamental questions that a person needs to answer before continuing the process of developing a worldview to order their life. The question is not so much "Does God exist?" it is more so "What explanation can I reasonably defend for the existing reality that I experience?". God can certainly be an answer, but if you decide that there is no sort of God whatsoever, you really should have an explanation for how and why the world is and that answer should be able to order your life appropriately, and that ordering should comport with the world in such a way that "good" things happen in life for you and those around you and indeed the entire world to some degree.

@@JustinColletti Thank you for proving my point.