WHAT HAPPENED WITH JORDAN PETERSON?! Matt Dillahunty & Douglas Murray 

Why do people take Alex O’Connor seriously? That kid is a joke.

Seriously…who TF listens to Dinesh these days?? He’s a pathetic attention seeking idiot.

​@PopularDemand1000 you could not be more wrong. The lad is ace!

@@PopularDemand1000 anything specific?

@@PopularDemand1000 I think people like him mostly cuz he bones your mum

Lol

😂

This made me think of the bridge scene from Monty Python's Holy Grail lol

Genius

That was an excellent comment. Peterson is a fraud that panders to creationists. This is a good example of why the internet has become the forum of ideas. Here is an example of an idea that might be forwarded for criticism and debate: Human beings are creative universal explainers. All problems can be solved given the appropriate knowledge. Humans are the created supernatural beings, not the other way round.

Agree ReedClip. And he's now not even able to have a discussion, he doesn't let others speak, see his podcast interviews, unbearable. He has 'professor' syndrome, too many years lecturing students. Feeling he knew all the answers and they were little sponges soaking up his brilliance. My aunt is a uni tutor and she talks to us all like little kids, it's so arrogant. And boring. And now JP has become boring too!

​@@amia7999Also, his every second sentence, in any subject is about "biblical corpus"

Yep. As Voltaire said, When it is a question of money everyone is of the same religion

I never followed him super closely, so my timeline might be off, but I think it was the benzo addiction that screwed him up. He was out of commission for years, and when he came back, it seemed like he had a definite change in his general mood. Given what a horrific experience it sounds like it was, I wouldn't be surprised if it left him permanently messed up a bit.

And drugs. A lot of drugs happened.

I know. Desperate for more views.

It's a bit low of them to be honest

I've seen it before too. There are probably many others who haven't seen it though. I think it's important to expose Peterson for the BS he throws out. I had a 'discussion' with someone who was defending him recently.

@tims8603 eh that's sort of a fair point. I'll be charitable and go with that for now lol.

​​@@tims8603it's more important to recognize the validity of JP's arguments. I listened to Matt along with Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins a lot as a teen. They confirmed my natural path to atheism. About 15 years later, I started realizing I was wrong, and it comes down to very basic/abstract axioms. JP confirmed that path for me. Anyone that defends him as always right OR calls him an idiot reveals their own intellectual infancy. His painfully deliberate thought process is actually incredible.

Scooby Do.

@wunnell Well, what do you mean by "respect", "listen" and "them"? Those ae on epistomologically shaky grounds that raise ontological questions.

I mean even before that....someone asked him if he was a prophet, thought a long time before answering!

@havocgr1976 That is concerning. I hadn't see that.

Was thinking the same! Wanted to reply: shoemaker, stick to your craft. The man helped me a lot when it comes to psychology, but his 'persona' is a bit all over the place.

This!

100% agreed. JBP got blinded by fame and corrupted by being on the pedestal

There is something deeply wrong with a psycho therapist having a mental breakdown and using meds. It's like an obese Personal Trainer.

​@@BonusHolegood thing he lost his licence

@@BonusHoletbf I don’t think he’s practiced since he went viral.

@@BonusHole- I find it strange that a man can live with a man and say it’s a woman and then come here and talk about reality.

It's good though he draws attention to the dangers of the insane Woke ideology.

He's transformed a lot, from a thoughtful nuanced thinker and debater into an old man who yells at cloud. It's really heartbreaking. I've met him in person in 2018 and had nothing but admiration for JBP. Today he's too much religious, too much jaded, too arrogant.

Something I've thought about recently is that there is really only one moral that is exclusively Christian. Believing in christ. Its nit really even a moral. Everything else isn't exclusive to Christianity.

Matt is concerned with being factually true, Jordan with being teleologically True, as in "my true love"/the arrow flies true/... Judean Sadducees did NOT believe in souls or an afterlife, yet were responsible for the Temple and the Shalom (Peace, Long life & Prosperity) of the state. One might say such "believe in the idea of God" [Ridley Scott] or "believe in belief" [Matt Dillahunty], but the Temple is the Template (eg. 4 Cherubim in the Holy of Holies/4 gospels in the NT...) for the Judeo-Christian framework, which they not only benefited from, but also played a significant role in CREATING and SUSTAINING (only an Heir of Zadok could enter where God speaks "between the cherubim").

NB. I've heard Matt reference "belief in belief" but may have been citing the late Daniel Dennett, who sometimes went to church, or Mr Dawkins, who recently reiterated the sentiment that not all belief systems bear the same fruit/ teleological outcomes.

And that is nonsense, there are tribes deep in the Amazon much more moral than most Christians.They don't even know the word Jesus.What he really believes, and which Murray described with polite words, and JP avoids to say because he knows how ugly it is,is that we are all a bunch of homicidal bastards and we need religion to keep the masses in line.With that I can kinda agree.At least Murray is honest about it.

He also said that atheists don't exist.

100% agree, I hate this…

Your dinner party analogy is flawed. Its not gossip, this has been posted publicly and Peterson himself would welcome robust criticism.

Don't judge a man by his jacket.

@@howeffingridiculous It struck me that they were discussing his mental health rather than valid criticism of his ideas.

I submit anyone who actually cares about JP would be concerned about his mental health. He had a severe chemical addiction, and to treat that addiction underwent a controversial/dangerous treatment. I was a supporter of JP early on, but over the last few years IMHO JP has suffered obvious cognitive degradation (primary), and a change in general behavior. It is like looking at two different individuals sometimes.

no fear? When most religions tell you to fear the god they promote. The bible is very clear that you need to fear god. And, I worship nothing. There are things I like more than I like other things, and I would due to protect my children, but I do not have altars for anything, I dont light candles for something every week, I have no entity , spiritual or wordly, that I see as anything remotely divine. So there, now you have at least talked to a person that worships nothing.

@@Goldenhawk583 Thank you for your reply I might be starting to see where the disconnect comes. You seem to connect the word “worship” with “ritual”. I connect it with “faith”. To repeat, I said that I don’t understand what atheists mean and I still do not. My confusion comes from differing definitions I believe. What follow is how I phrase things or view things which is most likely where we differ. Many people put faith in the government. They believe that the government will take care of things. Addicts put their faith in their addition. Their drug of choice will make them feel better and take care of things. Many put their faith in themselves believe that they will prevail and succeed in all cases. Many put faith in the legal system. Note that many religious people put their faith in their religion instead of God. The list is endless. Whenever you have outrage, assuming you do but purhaps you do not, the outrage is when your expectations are not being met and the expectations are coming from faith in that entity. My way of phrasing things is you are worshiping that entity. You are making that entity your god, at least temporarily. To recap, whatever it is you are upset with, more precisely, whatever it is you believe you are upset with, you have made into a false god and you are upset because that god has let you down. To me, these are the false gods that are referred to in biblical text.

@@pedzsan To understand what the word means, check a dictionary for confirmation, but it simply means the lack of belief in the existance of any god or gods. Thats it. That is the only thing you can be sure every atheist has in common. If you have problems with understanding how it feels to not have a god to grovel to.. I suggest reading the bible, cover to cover, and , being brutally honest with yourself, scrutinize the moral principles you have, to what the bible teaches. For so many, that was the first step towards understanding that there are no gods. I am not upset with any gods, I am upset that religions like the bible version, teaches that women are born slaves, that slavery in general is ok, that killing for land and profit ( and virgins) is fine, and that genocide is good when a god says so. If you are as honest as you seem to claim, tell me, how many people ( not including the flood and other estimates), does god kill or order killed in the bible. How many, and how is this ok? ( sooo many children).

I dont worship anything as far as I know. I just live my life and love my family.

@pedzsan RE: No one 100% believes in God The Bible distinguishes between strong and weak faith and, in fact, leaves no room for no faith. The atheist would be those Paul describes as "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18). All are born, according to the Bible, in the condition called original sin. As a result, all suppress the truth in unrighteousness. “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24) “Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?” (Matthew 8:26) Faith is an expression of love for God "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear..." (1 John 4:18) As the Bible makes clear that there is no perfection (in love, in faith or in any other measurable way), save with Jesus, in this life, there will always be that fear associated with torment (ref 1 John 1:18). The man perfect in all his ways throughout his entire life would have no need to fear torment. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (Proverbs 9:10) As this verse was written to sinful man, it includes that servile fear, but also speaks to that fear best explained as reverence. In this regard even Jesus would "fear" God the Father. This is primarily the right understanding of who we are relative to who He is. The Bible is explicit in its teaching that man was created to worship. This is the simple reason why there has never been a studied culture that didn't display an outward and obvious worship of something it called god. The choice of any other god (or no god, for that matter) than the true and living God of the Bible is first and foremost self-worship. It is so because it is the rejection of the truth of God, and only he who places himself above God can make such a claim. It matters not, that they who do this will deny it. They have passed an edict within their kingdom of one that, "We/I will not have this man (the God-man, King Jesus) to rule over us/me!"

Jbp talked with Daniel dennet recently?

You are correct, but he isn't honest about it.They don't ask him if God exists, they ask him if HE believes in God and he never answers.Probably for the reasons Murray described.Murray pretty much thinks the exact same thing, but he is honest about it.I ll watch that Dennet one now.Edit: Dennet died 3 days ago ! :(

@@havocgr1976 To be fair, there may be more plausible explanations other than dishonesty. Unfortunately, his views are extremely complicated.

@@HeyUncleJack Yes and very recently. Maybe just before DD’s passing. I watched it all. Overall worth it

@@ReadOasis For an experienced debater like Peterson, avoiding to answer a direct question, without at the very least, giving a reason for not answering, is dishonest. To be more precise, it is fine to not answer every question, but they must be acknowledged. " I heard you question, and I will not answer that question." Frustrating maybe, but honest.

It's ironic that the Christian right in the US are always going on about CRT and how the education system is trying to teach certain kids that that are inherently bad when Christians themselves want to teach children that ALL children are inherently bad.

I largely agree with you. But that doesn't make morality logically necessary. How are we in any way morally superior to psychopath if we are all just following our natural emotional inclinations?

And don't we ant the criminals held on check?

@@carlwhite4233 Being a psychopath is not an issue of morals, but of psychiatry and brain wiring... it is an organically-based mental illness and so a medical issue, not a moral issue. For "normal" people moral development has stages... on a child's level it is about reward and punishment. For a Saint it is about universal principles. Do a search for "Kohlberg’s theory of moral development".

@@carlwhite4233 Of course! What a silly, silly question! That's why we have prisons.

I'll see your substrate and raise you "corpus"..

*substrate

And metaphysics and Dostoyevsky

I'd say "metaphysical substrate" and "Biblical corpus" are neck and neck.

I’d never heard the word proclivity before Petersen

Not to mention a connection with God, and the knowledge, wisdom and peace that brings us (assuming we tend to that relationship)

I was Christian for 15 years then lost my faith. I have not lost accountability, wonder, or awe. If anything, I have more.

@@MikeLeonard Your journey as an individual is unique to you, and not informative on a society. So it's fine for an individual, but a society as a whole needs that kind of accountability.

@@johnt5997 what accountability would that be? We have laws, rules, expectations, consequences. Being able to just ask for forgiveness seems like less accountability, not more.

@@MikeLeonard one seeks forgiveness from one's creator to obtain peace and absolution for the soul. this doesn't protect us from punishment on earth for the wrongs we do to each other. society needs the concept of accountability to a higher power to anchor its laws. to protect individuals. to safeguard the society as a whole.

There a are strong, genuine, intellectually honest Christian scholars in the world. JP is not even close to them.

JP is a cultural and philosophical Christian. That's not the same as a Born Again person who has the Spirit of God inside of them.

@@BonusHole Yes, that's what I mean. "Cultural and philosophical Christian" is a post-modern notion.

It may be because JP is an atheist selling post-modernism to Christians. He uses religious words to sound profound.

Peterson is also am atheist as much as he tries to hide it..

Thank you for sharing understanding and compassion in this thread. Much needed.

What planet are you from?

@@Instramark Planet Teegeeack, why?. What's your theory as to why Jordan doesn't want to debate Matt again?

@@jasonthurston799because Matt had a good argument

@lifeliver9000 Well, that's besides the point.. Matt needs to be respectful with his approach and tone to people he wants to debate with again in the future. Matt has gotten a bit burned out from arguing with idiots on his talk show and he reflexively treated Jordan like one of them briefly. Jordan has a lot of viewers he brings to the debas and he doesn't want to be disrespected in front of them.

@@jasonthurston799 Sounds like a great planet! Not sure I said JP would be reluctant to debate Matt again. But, I am very impressed with Matt as a debater. He held JP on task as JP jumps around. JP was asked by an audience member, if all people die, does God die. JP did his dissertation on Jung supposedly and Jung was a huge Gnostic. This was a very pertinent Gnostic question that JP went blank on. If Matt knew anything about Gnosticism he could have scored well on JP's missing this question completely. I feel that Matt is so ordered, on task that Matt can defeat or hold his own with JP, or anybody for that matter, and I wonder if JP wants to hook up with Matt again. Plus, Matt, like a lot of us, is not in awe of JP. Matt scores well on the fundamental believer and JP wiggles around so much on that subject that it sure seemed to me that Matt was polite enough to not embarrass JP. I liked the interview. Didn't seem like a fake wrestling event like most do. Cheers!

How does that square with the findings of Iain McGilchrist? This definition is exactly what the Left Mind would see but he shows just how limited that is.

@@nickleby77can you explain? Mcgilchrist speaks of how each hemisphere of the brain has a different approach to truth but how does that impact a definition that truth is what comports to reality - regardless of how an individual’s brain might approach that?

​@htown11465 he also talks about the dynamic go-between.

@@jessewest2109 what?

Yeah, and what else does your High Priest Matt say?

The "ruckus" is a discussion worth having. He's a public figure whose pronouncements need scrutiny. Even Peterson would welcome that

I think a big thing that draws criticism is that he's (as far as I know) opaque - and suspiciously opaque - about his precise religious beliefs, especially concerning atheism vs. theism and the existence of an afterlife. It really smacks of grift and the fear of alienating a significant percentage of his followers/customers. It'd be trivially easy to say something like "I'm agnostic by a very slim technical definition but an atheist in practical terms." And his #10 rule being "be precise in your speech" is very galling given his typical obscurant way of expressing himself when discussing a topic that could alienate his followers.

His wife became a Catholic recently, he was in attendance observing the rituals in the church. He's been known to say on several occasions that he likes to orient himself as though there was a God. I do not know him at any point to have come out to say he's an atheist. At the same time, he obviously isn't certain of his religious beliefs in the sense of having a particular religion. So I disagree that it's grift or fear of losing followers, I believe it's more about having clear personal convictions, in a way that can be properly articulated. My problem is why this is being described as if it's a moral defect on the man.

People lose their minds that he can have a respect for Christianity and still be figuring it out for himself in real time. Thats why he always looks visibly unenthusiastic when he gets asked if he believes in God. People cant just let him be on his own personal journey, they need an answer from him right at this very moment. Makes you wonder what peoples motives are for always trying to force him into a corner

@@99jaa he's a public intellectual. He makes public statements about religion. Of course he is going to be scrutinized. He puts himself out there and he expects to be questioned. He's a brave man but his disorganised thoughts on the topic deserve close critical analysis. Too many people are seeking to canonize him

Your bishop has no good evidence for god. No one does.

@@Penndreic Clearly you have mind reading powers. That must be awesome.

@@garygrant6987 Nothing to do with mind reading, just common sense. The only reason why you believe is faith (blind faith). As your god would say “blessed are those who believe without seeing”. Some of us find this saying ridiculous while people like you think it’s actually some type of divine wisdom.

Sounds platitudinous

For all those that support this trans movement ( I dont know what to call it), they seem very onesided, and that means they are dishonest., Have you found any video of them adressing those that regret their reassignemnt ? That number is increasing fast, and it is a tragedy, I have nothing against actual transpeople btw, even they are shocked about this.

Morality is SUBJECTIVE. It derives from our human condition as a social species with social instincts, whose members also have selfish instincts. Our efforts to reconcile this field of conflicting instincts constitutes the whole of human morality. In a different species with different instincts, morality would be constructed differently. This makes morality SUBJECTIVE. That doesn't mean it's ARBITRARY. When Matt speaks about objectivity in the context of moral choice, he's simply pointing out that given a set of values, it's possible to objectively determine what consequence of a given action will promote or undermine those values. Sam Harris says much the same thing. The values themselves are determined subjectively.

@@Goldenhawk583 The number or the percentage? The difference between the two matters greatly.

@@ErgoCogita Among prepubescent children, followed up from childhood to adolesence, the rate of desistance , as per a 2016 review of 10 studies, is between 61 and 98%. 85% average. Now imagine if all these children have been on hormone blockers ( we need a healthy hormone balance to develop properly) for years. Imagine some of then having had their breats and reproductive organs removed. It used to be that people who wanted to change, had to go through extensive mental screening to rule out other possuble causes for them to wish to change gender, this screening has mostly disappeared. Up to 70% of those that detransition now ( we are now talking about adults), report doing so because they found their problem was not gender related, but something else.. depression, an eating disorder, or many other things. They just did not understand themselves when they changed gender and went though the treatments. The suicide rate between transdender people in general, is 35 to 50% worldwide. The Prefrotal Cortex, the part of out braun that deals with making desiscions, do not matyre until we are 25, and even then, a lot of people are not mature. So, if anything,what have we learned? Children are NOT able to know which gender they will prefer as adults. People who wish to swap, need mental help, both to make sure they are mentally fit to make the transotion, but also to save those that just need help. Trans people also need a LOT of mental help in general, because of the kind of problems they have, a lot of them in society in general. Does this answer you questions?

You are mistaken. For example, if you are sad then it's an objective fact that you are sad. That sadness is completely internal to you and a product of your mind but whether I or anyone else believes that you are said doesn't change the fact that you are sad. If a person's gender identity doesn't match their biological sex then that is an objective fact. Whether or not you believe them doesn't change that.

It is either true or it's not. It can not be truer than true. There are no percentages in truth.

@@anitakephart3851, indeed. I wonder how many people would agree with his position but then complain when someone else said "it's true for me". Apparently, facts don't care about your feelings until a lot of people have the same feelings, at which point they become facts.

​@anitakephart3851 depends on if you are in a being mode or have g mode.

His greatest contribution these days seems to be as a major point of confirmation bias for the conservative right-wing stable of beliefs. And why not, it’s certainly proved lucrative.

​@@kristopherjon6496 '...a major point of confirmation bias for the conservative right-wing stable of beliefs.' Word salad. I don't even know if I disagree with you based on that sentence.

@@waylanddavick9459 Well, if you put in no effort to understand it, how could you? I mean he is being paid by right-wing propagandists in return for confirming the bias of their target audience. Why else make such terribly informed public statements on climate science? Or make reactionary, incendiary comments - again, very publicly - about plus size models? Or the very matter at hand -- why not make a definitive statement on his own belief on whether an actual deity exists or not, and the nature of that deity? Simple. His viewers like all those things about him. It comforts them in their beliefs.

Dr.Peterson is a Terrific,Smart Human Being regardless of His views..He definitely stirs up more ppl...well just listen to these Two...Easy to be opinionated...when Dr.P isn't there! Very!Interesting...🤔

He has. He used to be a proper thinker, teacher, & psychologist. Now he is simply a weapon of the right wing.

Hasn't he? He may be having a larger audience and making more money, but he's basically just fear mongering his audience and speaking in words just long enough to stroke their ego by making them think they're smart because they think they understand half of them. Both very lucrative attributes for any public speaker. He IS pursuing what is expedient, rather than what is meaningful.

​@@narcissistwhispererfor a while now, those were the only ppl that would treat him with any kind of respect. So I fail to see what antithetical position would give him a similar welcome?

@@bennymountain1nobodys perfect or immune from true criticism and I have to admit I overlook some of his faults but what your saying has a great deal of subjectivity and opinion

@@narcissistwhisperer Yeah you're absolutely right narcissist! He can't think anymore, hes been infiltrated by the right wing! He's a proper fascist now. It must be all the red meat he's eating. Maybe you can whisper something smart to him.

If you are implying that god=water, ( and ofc it is YOUR god), then you are wrong.

@Goldenhawk583 We exist in a state that is beyond our complete understanding. This is despite all of our collective knowledge. How do we presume to fully understand something that we simply do not. We can accept whatever suits us as individuals, but it's all subjective truth according to what we choose believe. Subjective truth is different from objective proof or fact.

There are innumerable and unimaginable existential facts that are in action that we have no knowledge, understanding, or proof of. Yet we exist non the less within this condition.

@@rogerengland2821 we are done.

@Goldenhawk583 Perhaps you ou are done, I remain open-minded to the debate of ideas in conversation.

This comment sent me down a rabbit hole to try to differentiate sanctity, from sacredness, from holiness, from saintliness. They seem to overlap as much as you would imagine. Theists wouldn't complain about other non-abrahamic religions having things they consider sacred, holy, or divine. And of course not, those words are just English words for concepts that might exist universally across cultures and faiths. If they aren't words for universal concepts, then we lack the words for those things in other faiths, in English. If we say that, "our children are sacred to us", it's not implying God or Divinity are involved, and I think it makes sense that way. It's seems to just be synonymous with precious, coveted, protected. Sacred and sanctity seem like fine words to use here right?

Douglas certainly doesn't believe in the sanctity of life...at least not Palestinian life. Probably more concerned about the plight of the unborn than the living. Which is par for the course, ironically, in 'Pro-life' circles. Of course Matt fails to call him out on his Israeli ass licking...suppose he is afraid of losing another master-debater like he lost JP

Sanctity means nothing to an atheist-agnostic. It’s like shoving food into someone who refuses to eat. Accepting the need to eat makes the food welcome.

@@PopularDemand1000 Sanctity means the same things to an atheist. But an atheist would consider different things sacred. It's like how when you shove food down someone's throat, it has one taste, but everyone's pallet is a little different.

@@Perditionseveryone’s pallet is different in someways, but the same in other ways. There’s a lot we share in common, sometimes called human universals. And beyond that, plenty more as commonalities within the animal kingdom. Hormones for example. The continuity across life is far more fundamental, like the presence of a heartbeat, skeletal system, neuronal wiring, etc- far more fundamental than the unique differences between these evolved systems that support the life of the organism. The fact that everyone’s pallet is different is like saying all women are different. Yes. But it’s a less fundamental fact than the larger fact that they are all women.

dreams are as mucu part of reality as hallucinations are

@@theflyingdutchguy9870 Dreams belong to a normal healthy spectrum. Hallucinations do not, but is see you just want to miss the point.

That seems to be a very naive take. It's a nice ideal but have you met many religious people? Many believe that their god requires them to not simply accept others' opinions. Many religious people are happy to just do their thing but many are not and, if the rest of us don't push back on them, they will force us to live by their rules. Just look at the recent overturning of Roe v Wade in the US. That is forcing everyone to live by religious standards. On the subject of Peterson specifically, I don't think anyone really cares that he wants to have his wacky ideas. What we care about is that he's out there pushing it and claiming to be some bastion of honesty and clarity while clearly obfuscating his position on purpose for his own ends.

He has enough money for his great grandchildren.

@@cstevenson5256 It's not really about the money......he get's off on the attention. It's still a grift though.

@@grendlsma what is your evidence?

@@cstevenson5256 addictions are insidious... And the sheep too willing to be fleeced. He could be a trillionaire, and still unable to quit the grift

I agree with you, and I think it's pretty sad. It's absolutely fine when he wants to give genuine advice to traumatized or low status men, but his attempt to sell Christian theism as a sort of metaphorical feel-good pseudo-religion is just fucking abysmally bad (like telling young men to go to church and not think too hard - "who cares what you believe?").

Jesus doesn't need us to stand up for Him. Mohamed and allah are weaklings and require their puny human followers to fight for them. WTF kind of god is that?

Except women are unclean and lesser beings than men, so no.

To quote a wise man: "From a certain point of view....." - Obi-Wan Kenobi

I was already put off by him. He was the one showing me the way towards critical thinking, not by his deeds, but by his words. First they sound interesting, then I start to learn about the subject from multiple sources. Then I learn he really does not know what he's talking about and is making things up mostly, putting them in a pseudo intellectual word salad.

@@inajosmood "He was the one showing me the way towards critical thinking", "he really does not know what he's talking about and is making things up mostly"; you sound confused

@@bogdanpopescu1401 nope, because of his performances, I got suspicious, what the heck is he talking about? Then I started to study the topics discussed and realised he doesn't have a clue. That was so mind-blowing. I started revisiting many areas and topics and assess them. So listening to Peterson and gradually learning how big his mouth is and how much BS het talks, life changing in the best of ways. I comitted to developing critical thinking skills. How do you know which side of a claim is right? Measuring both sides of a claim with the same exact measures. Argumentation, and so on. And once you know the tricks of a conman, it becomes very easy.

@@inajosmood ok, what topic(s) would you say he's most clueless about? and who would be the experts to listen to?

​@@bogdanpopescu1401 1: Climate change > almost every peer reviewed publishing climate scientist or science communicator 2: The bible > Any non-apologist biblical scholar. Or read it yourself. 3: Postmodernism > JP is very antagonistic towards the idea, but he's doing postmodernism all the time with everything. He's constantly changing words to make them mean what he wants them to. Or to diffuse solidified meaning where it is established, but based on zero grounds. > Philosophy professors. Online philosophy courses. Anything that explains postmodernism Learn what it is, see what he does.

"Truth is what comports to reality" is a profound statement. It is Peterson's responsibility to show strong evidence that reality is deeper than Dillahunty knows. He has failed to do so, in my humble opinion.

Peterson flatly lied about a psilocybin study, in an attempt to back his claim that it was evidence for the supernatural. JP showed zero (0) interest in anything outside of trying to score points with audience members, or potential customers, who don’t know better.

Telling others what they actually believe is not exploring the nature of reality. It's actually the opposite and surprising coming from a phycologist

All three of them are annoying in their own special ways.

Right. 😂

All caps, really? Smh

Which God? Did your God teach followers that purchasing another human to consider as a chattel slave is morally acceptable? Can we agree that a book that sanctions chattel slavery should not be used to understand the morality of actions?

Why? Believing in a god is more than useless imo

​@@GuessWhoAskswhat really got the Atlantic slave trade rocking was eugenics and Darwins book with its quaint subtitle (the preservation of the favoured races). This is well documented, as is the culmination of eugenics in the holocaust.

​​@@michaelmcclure3383You think a book written in 1859 "really got the Atlantic slave trade rockin?" It was abolished 6 years later.

@@nathanmiller9918 fair enough, but the influence of scientific racism and its biological reductionism was certainly a factor in the upswing of eugenics thought and their social projects. There are numerous historical precedents for the dangers of implementing goofy natural science thinking into society. Probably why even Richard Dawkins has come out as a "cultural Christian".. Of course, as many have argued, humanism has its foundations in idealist thinking including Platonism and Christianity. We've seen what Nietzschianism and Marxism have produced in the 20th century.

I wonder if there are people out there whose heads would explode if they stopped talking about stuff they don't know about. Like an unstoppable urge

Social anxiety.

I think it really is this simple.

So what is true to you is true to you Mr. Scottsman?

Matt talks that he regularly attends different churches to keep up to date with changes, he also talks regularly to religious people so you’d have to say he’s well up to date with where Christianity is at now.

Love is a strong word. I can see how his choice of words sound intellectual and deep, until you scrutinize them with the help of true intellectuals.

Not much.

​@@kichigan1 true intellectuals, ie. guys you agree with? Why isn't one of the most influential psychologists of our era a "true intellectual"?

WHY do you 'love' him?

@@kichigan1Well, perhaps you’re not very bright.

It was not a debate. It was just one normal guy talking to a raving lunatic. Seem like he was high too.

In a Stephen Hawkins way.

He has brain damage

@@SapphireMist888 cancel culture's gonna cancel.

Ah, so he is now starting to confirmi what you want to believe. Bet that feels good. But has it anything to do with truth?

@@inajosmood Go away, you miserable troll. 😂

He shows that the Bible is a valuable book and that it's just how it was interpreted what is wrong. What I find funny is, they hate the Bible because nothing in it makes sense. Dr. Peterson shows how to actually make sense of the Bible so that it doesn't contradict science and reveals its value. For this they hate him. To me it's clear who is in the wrong here😂

@@gzoechi replace bible with almost any book. I can make sense of that in the way Peterson makes sense of the bible.

@@inajosmood Because similar patterns are repeated in most books that tell stories about life. Dr. Peterson mentions that often enough. His explanations seem to be questioned because they make sense and books about religion aren't supposed to do that.

You're done. JBP is doing fine.

​@@leathera Convinced aren't you?

You are a leftist.......you will be the 'done' as soon as you dare to have an independent thought from your cult.

​@@leathera you talk like a kid

JBP is fine though lol. Not really a big deal at the end of the day. Yall take this too seriously 😂. “He’s outlived his usefulness in debate” this had me rolling 😂😂

Only religious people claims it came from nothing.

Existence is an ongoing state of Change, there is no "Beginning", just an ongoing cycle of change. The god concept doesn't actually accomplish anything, it's basically a security blanket at best.

@Goldenhawk583 Explain what and where everything came from then. Everything has a repeating pattern that is observable and follows the same rules that repeat themselves. There is a universal uniformity that is expressed in an innumerable diversity of ways on an unimaginable scale. Humanity has not figured out all the complexities of the human body or mind to even attempt to determine if there are greater beings or consciousness that exist in our own dimension of existence or perhaps dimensions beyond our reach. Atheism fails the scientific rigger by the way that it rejects some ideas and accepts its own while using standards that have no basis in absolute proof or fact. Atheism is a belief system based on presumptions and assumptions just like all other religions. The worship of NOTHING.

@@rogerengland2821 one of many theories is that time and space started from one singularity that contained everything needed to create the universe we live in, What baffles me is the idea that some people, like yoursekf seems to panic whenever " I am not sure, or I dont know" is an option. The arrogance to think you know because " god ( and ofc its YOUR god), is stunning. Everything has a repeating pattern because thats how nature works, yet, at the same time, it also changes. Sometimes just a little, sometimes a lot.

@@rogerengland2821 "where everything came from" doesn't actually apply to the nature of reality. We perceive things as "Beginning/Ending" but that's just because from our limited perspective things appear to begin/end. In reality, those are just different presentations of the material that were already there. Humans are non-organic materials, that have been reshaped into organic materials, we are literally building our bodies "Life from Non-Life" as we age. Your misunderstanding of the Universe, leads you directly into an erroneous perception of what an "atheist" is or represents. Atheism is literally the only justified position to take, all religions are based in human mythology that doesn't actually describe the Universe in any functional way. There's a reason why Science and Religion are different. Science is based in this Reality, Religion is based in the Fantasies that humans make up to attempt to talk about Reality. Religion is nothing more than a Social Club, plus nonsense mythology.

The truth is painful they choose not to look at it, what a shame

Long before he was popular I listened to him. I did so because he spoke profound truths about topics that were grossly under discussed

Me too... Saw him many years ago on RU-vid and while interesting, his need to dominate the little girls in his audience was creepy.

Because his entire claim to fame was his disagreeing with the trans/pronoun bill thing in Canada (which I happen to agree with him on, as it violates free speech). The ring-wing lunatics latched onto him after that.

He fear mongers the same right wing talking points they do in America He lied about a Canadian law which started his whole career😂

I've always thought JP was a cult leader wannabe, very full of himself, quite narcissistic, always trying to be the smartest person in the room. He's intelligent and can speak well but too often descends into word salad. When he went to Russia to get off of Benzo's, I think they broke him the rest of the way.

Good ol' Poe's Law

JP fanboy……your the swine….

I agree on real wokism and over the top feminism. But a lot of real issues get branded wokeism when they are real issues. Far right call any thing wokeism they don’t like.

The thing about him is what he doesn’t say or chooses to omit is much more revealing in many cases than what he says

@@terrymckenzie8786 And you call anyone you don't like 'Far Right'!

@@yessanknow302 not every one I don’t like. Peterson melt down because of trans kids is far right. You still got the morons going around god made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. They still can’t understand we don’t stone gay people anymore. And Peterson rant that men can’t handle women with their own money and jobs now. It’s no wonder that 40% of women between 20 and 40 are single, but own their own homes. He will just have to get use to it.

🤡

@johnnyboy6707 Evidence that he's out of his league?

@@sierrabianca No formal degrees vs 2 BAs and a PhD. If anything, it means Jordan is much better trained in conducting and analyzing research…and then, there’s just listening to the two converse, but that’s more subjective in nature.

@@johnnyboy6707 Dollars to doughnuts you don't say anything like that when discussing a liberal scholar's thoughts... Then it's all phony and fake, and something something socialism commie something... Plenty of well educated people have zero clue of how to actually live in harmony with reality.

Which means what?

JP's bush league is admittedly in a substrate beneath MD's league, but MD does his best to give JP a helping hand up, whic JP will typically ignore.

lol... Seriously? JP can't wait to interrupt a speaker with some snarky comment meant to ridicule and shame... But by the way you write, I can understand why you like him... High Falutin word salad pretentious nonsense. Why speak plain though when 100 words of nonsense can impress others... You think.

Heh, you think that the "interruption machine" is gracious? "Oh no, my interlocutor is making a point that will be difficult to counter, I better talk over them with several different nonsense points to confuse them!"

This is exactly the case with him and others similar to his type. I've been watching some debate videos and this personality quality is simply not there in a lot of people who enjoy debating. In that sense I haven't been watching constructive debate. Anyways, I think there is a problem with types like JP that I've found and I think that they have trouble evaluating "frameworks." Perhaps not but that's a thread I've been thinking about now for quite some time. I suppose my claim is a bit vapid because I can't really articulate what I mean by "frameworks" but ya I've been seeing a pattern over time and I think that's the word for it. Because there are a lot of logically correct frameworks for the world, people, and systems where in practice they work and are socially good. It's just that people of JP's type are overly proud of their framework and logic to a fault. They shove their ideas and ways of thinking in an honest attempt at making someone better. They fantastically get away with it on those who aren't initiated in the whims and workings of their type. Like they're right on a lot of levels but then in comes someone who's just as logical but different and they tear down this entire logical stack and erect a new one that works just as well. Like after a certain point you have to ask if any of the debating matters when you can kind of make a lot of frameworks logically work and align with the truth. And I really mean that, like what are we supposed to do? Who in the world should we listen to? So it just opened my eyes to the idea that we all inhabit niches within society and that we all need a framework for looking at the world that helps us achieve our function in a healthy manner. So while I think JP and adjacent types are really helpful people, I don't think they realize that not everyone really needs nor wants to be their best self 24/7 about literally everything or whatever it is the JP like types want you to be. Ya so that's my rant. :/

Very few times, he really must respect the ones he talks with, only then this happens.

If Jordan admits he is an agnostic or atheist he would loose a lot of followers…and a lot of money. It’s all about cold hard cash with him. He is not a honest person.

On the flip side, could you imagine being Matt and having to listen to the same rhetoric about God and Religion for decades? That in itself would be hell if it were real.

Right and Christians have never been smug in the whole history of Christianity? What a weak mind you must have.

@@SmokinOakWhy does he not disengage then? If it’s so beneath him and absurd, why have the same argument year after year after year?

​@jakenbake9878 they never said it was beneath him, just repeated. Religious people and groups also keep wanting to change society, laws, morals and ethics.... he questions them... that is important

@@andrewm7828 the implication of it being beneath him came from the OP saying he has this self assured smugness. I really don’t see how these debates are important. Entertaining…maybe. It’s not like policies are being made by the people Matt debates or by Matt himself. It is of the same importance as watching a movie for fun.