That's my take on it as well. This is why he creates nebulous talking points in order to avoid asserting an affirmative or negative stance on the topic.
He's a terrible liar as well. He was interviewed on a documentary about psychedelics and he said he took some acid and saw people trying to stab him, he was chased and there was blood everywhere. Dude has never done a trip in his life!
That depends on your definition of sentence, and minutes too! You might think it a simple answer, but it's not simple. You have to consider the endless cosmos of possible implications in the fundamental landscape of Freudian primal instincts that informs your axioms.
Imagine trying to serve Jordan Peterson at a bar. What do you mean 'what'? What do you mean 'can'? What do you mean 'I'? What do you mean 'get'? What do you mean 'you'?
Maybe you get lost listening to Peterson because of the bog words he uses.. ahhh, you never studied... Try listening to Dawkin's talking his bs about evolution, not a single scientific word comes out of his mouth, possibly, probably perhaps, maybe, might, must have, we think, we believe, we expect, we hope that's why evolution is still only a weak theory...
@@ankyspon1701 what scientific words would you need to use to give a description of evolution? It’s not really too hard a process to explain so why would you over complicate it?
All the evangelical atheists are like that. They basically quote Hitchens, Dawkins, and Fry, then proceed to carry on like those ideas come from themselves. Complete lack of self awareness, they just became convinced that atheism was the more intellectual of 2 choices and went with it. I've never once heard something from an atheist that I couldn't trace back to one of their three prophets.
It's more like Peterson doesn't entirely understand Christianity and you're watching him learn about it in real time as he's working through it and wrestling with it.
He taught a course on the Bible and Christianity for like over a decade. I think he understands. His take is that it's way more profound than wether or not God is "real" that the book is more true than that. It's true weather you think it's real or you don't. That the Bible is full of fundamentally true things even if not historically true.
@@fearfulartist1236 There's a big difference between academic study and religious study. He gets a lot of basic things wrong. A lot less now than a year ago, though.
@@jaywallace5582perhaps. I’ve been proven wrong on so many accounts I’ve stopped keeping track. I choose to surround myself with people whose values I want to emulate. That’s my standard.
@@skyeangelofdeath7363How can you be sure that Jordan Peterson isn’t able to explain things that this guy didn’t understand? How would you know better than him? 😂
Jordan was saying that the double helix has a strange recurrence in artistic symbolism throughout history that he cannot explain. He wasn't saying that they literally were able to observe things at the microscopic level.
Actually, that is what Jordan was saying. He might have done his usual 'couch this in so many caveats that you can take whatever you like from it' but it's pretty clear that he was - at the very least inferring - that ancient people were able to see their own DNA. Which is - of course - absurd.
Nope, go listen to his conversation with Dawkins where he says that he literally thinks some people under extreme cognitive circumstances (in this context taking psychoactive drugs) can see down to the micro level, including DNA.
When I was a graduate student at UC San Diego in the late '90s, I used to eat at a Thai restaurant in La Jolla that was next door to the Chopra Center. One evening a friend and I were having dinner at the restaurant, and we spent most of the dinner listening to a pompous windbag engaging in a very loud and embarrassingly moronic monologue on all sorts of esoteric subjects while a much younger and apparently submissive and impressionable man listened quietly and intently. The windbag had his back to us, so we couldn't see his face, but we heard every word of his drivel. At one point my friend and I leaned toward one another across the table to agree quietly that the fellow doing all the talking was a narcissistic moron. At about that point, the two people stood up to leave, and the windbag turned around so we could see his face. It was Deepak Chopra.
Interesting. It reminds of this time me and my girlfriend were eating in this fancy restaurant while on holiday. A few tables up from us this man was talking to his friend. On the table behind him were two middle aged ladies. They were listening to him and giving him these snobby looks behind his back. Basically judging and looking down on him for whatever he was saying. Me and my girlfriend noticed their looks and how snobby and nosy they were. And how they were better off minding their own business and enjoying their food. You remind me of those two ladies.
Yes! Dawkins is absolutely accurate. I think Peterson is a grandiose narcissist with a calm demeanor, an extensive vocabulary, and a propensity for the long con.
You are joking? Never has there been a shallower narcissistic BS merchant than Dawkins! Dawkin's is all ego and hate! Dawkin's has contributed nothing of any worth to the field of biology, zoology or evolution, all he's done is cherry pick other people's hard work and write it down in a flowery manner, to convince the general public such as yourself, who are clueless about the unprovable complexities of evolution! You were brainwashed into believing evolution at school and now you're listening to Dawkins like he's your 3rd grade tutor! He's a liar, evolution is just a theory and it cannot be proved!
The snake symbol represents medicine, or some divine inspiration, was incipiently brought to the light by Carl G. Jung, and Prof. Peterson was deeply influenced him.
Absolutely spot on. It's _exactly_ like Depak Chopra. I've _literally_ had a JP fan in my family even admit "Man he's so smart. A lot of what he says even just goes right over my head". That's the point. People think his points are smart and profound and making good points because they don't understand what he's saying.
What he's saying isn't that complicated. It's basically just that religion has a utilitarian function in society and it's true in a metaphorical sense for that reason, in the same way a good novel reveals truths about the human condition even if it didn't literally happen. He also seems to hope this means there is some form of literal God but isn't fully committed because he acknowledges you can't really get to that conclusion based on nothing but reason.
@@HeIljumper I didn't say that I find it incomprehensible. I said that a lot of his fans do. I understand the things he says, which is why I say that it's nonsense. Dawkins similarly didn't say "I can't comprehend the words he's using". He was saying that people who can't understand it think that he's making a profound point because it sounds smart to them. Just because you can't read or listen, doesn't mean I wrote what you made up.
The thing about Dawkins is that he seems to have spent most of his "adult" life telling other people they're idiots for what they believe, based on what he believes himself.
@@stevedavis7905his empirical belief system is that we do not exist after death. Thus, the paranormal is empirically logically deduced and reduced to projections of one's mind. That is his belief extrapolated from what he deems science.
@@stevedavis7905his mind works within his belief system. Unbeknownst to him it is illogical. There are types who dodge and parley with intellectual banter to keep it on you to prove something.
@@stevedavis7905He only respects those who agree with his belief system of no God. They like himself are intellectually superior. I don't bother with them because I am intellectually astute and not in need of their approval rating.
Those godless alone weak people are so full of BS, they can just be obsessed with God and Religion, that why none can respect them and those godless ass kissers without dignity that have denied God (they are just liar as any Goddeniers) and something died on them when they stopped to believe in God, but are so pathetic to tell. We need to forget about those godless alone trash people and their empty stupid nosesnes worthless cult called atheism (indeed theyr are empty like it, and full of BS like it). We hope for a better generation. By the way God will judge once death just as anyone alse and your position as a godless rat is very much weak now and it will be weak then so think next time to be without ashamed, Dignity and God... The worst generation we never have had. So full of BS. No respect for them (if you still got some dignity do not reply to this and Go back to God before it is too late, you poor idiot)
I don't know if that's entirely accurate. I think he's intentionally being dishonest and obtuse because he sees the value of Christianity, especially in politics. However, this is just speculation.
I see a lot of talking, but no one willing to put their money where their mouth is. Love these videos because they create an astounding echo chamber for you people who talk but don't act.
I grew up with no respect towards Christianity and faith In general and despised anyone who tried to tell me otherwise. I was never curious about religion, especially Christianity, until I stumbled upon Dr Peterson's content. I listened to his maps of meaning and his theories on the psychological underpinnings of the biblical stories through his discussions on genesis and exodus. I must admit that it opened a door within myself that I thought was locked forever or never existed. He has brought me closer to the idea of faith than ever. I want to improve the quality of my relationships with others. I am constantly trying to improve myself rather than spending my time criticising others for their life path. Sure, there are things I don't understand in this world, but rather than getting worked up over it, I'm trying to understand it from a different perspective and always tell myself, "Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't make it bad". I want to do more for others than for myself. I want to be a better friend, partner, person. There are periods of my life when I look back and I'm disgusted by who i was. I know i can't change the past, but I can try to reshape the future. I have let go of so much hate and anger, and I have forgiven not only myself but also others because we are all human and we all make mistakes. Dr Peterson has done more for me than any other male on this earth, apart from my father, who played his part by contributing his genetic components to give me life. But yeah, to me, Jordan Peterson is the man and i can never repay him. Yeah, he might be a little nuts, but who isn't? I know for sure that I am. Anyways, thanks for those that got through my dribble; look after yourself, and I hope life treats you well,
Thank you for sharing. There are many such testimonies of Peterson’s influence on people. I’m quite sure he has had a much more positive influence on the world than Dawkins, although to be fair he has had a more positive influence on the world than most people, period.
Your "dribble" a classic Petersen and that style obviously appeals and gets through to you in a positive way. However, don't mix Petersen's understanding of the bible and Christianity based on symbology and archetypes as the same as the evangelists and that is why Dawkins isn't sure if Petersen is an atheist or not. He has to however keep his audience who are predominately Right wing and that is something to consider. Just read the negative comments here. Couched in lies, hypocrisies, the embracing of hate speech etc. That is the type of people his business model relies upon. There are better, more pure sources to help you to be a better person if that is your goal.
So, you think the Universe just popped human kind out of NOTHING? I guess you believe in Big Bang too? Something came out of NOTHING????? Reeeeeally???? Sounds like word salad to me....
It was my understanding that Peterson’s support of Christianity was based on its ability to “help those in need” in a psychological sense, more as a guide for how not to screw up your life and less as a “this is real guys” but I could be mistaken
Richard Dawkins is basically accusing Jordan Peterson of being a con man which isn't a surprise because con men would probably believe everybody else is trying to con but they're just better at it. I think it's the case where is Richard Dawkins not Jordan Peterson who's relying on the stupidity of the people who agreed with what he's saying and I say this because I believe Richard Dawkins on the stands the first law of thermodynamics. So for him to come out and say that he believes everything came from nothingness, no are no space nothingness he knew he was lying. It says if he made a bet with somebody saying watch I can get all these atheists to call me a genius by saying the stupidest thing I can think of.. I mean talk about beliefs and magic, talk about denying science, everything from nothingness. Just to clarify I know a lot of atheists are confused, no we should believe in God don't believe that God zapped everything into existence. We understand that everything that exists always existed in one form or another and God like an artist used the materials around to create. Mass and energy are eternal in one form or another which makes Richard Dawkins claim that everything came from nothingness completely absurd.
@@JoeyLustForAshley. I’ve never met an atheist that believes everything just “popped” into existence from nothingness. I’ve never seen Dawkins make that claim either. That seems like kind of a long rant with nothing in it. Some of it grammatically confusing.
@@joemiller7082 Admittedly I use the mic and I don't proofread before sending. And unfortunately I have to use run-on sentences on purpose because atheists like to quote out of context. And they deny quoting you out of context, so it makes them harder to quote me out of context if I request they at least quote the entire sentence. If you have any problems comprehending anything let me know and I will gladly clarify. Richard Dawkins did said he believes everything came from nothingness. No air ,no space, nothingness.Matter of fact you can go on RUclips and put in Richard Dawkins something from nothing.. you're going to get a lot of choices look for the ones where he's talking to a priest and another guy. It's pretty long so you might be there for a while. But if you like the content it shouldn't be a problem. Of course atheism of course atheism is simply a disbelief it's an unwillingness or inability to accept God. Most atheists at least that I talked to believe everything came from a singularity , unlike Richard Dawkins who said he believes everything came from nothing and he also said maybe a singularity, and of course the singularity is described as being infinitely small. In fact so small if a hundred of them existed and you put them together they would be the size of the head of a pin. But please tell me what you believe regarding this. I'll make sure that I proofread the following before I send, this way you have no problem comprehending, and you should have no problem answering. My question to you is do you believe the origins of Life came into existence without creation , without God and if so why do you believe it. Also if you don't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God , just respond and say and tell me how we found commonality that you don't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God.. if that's your position you should have no problem saying that ,unless you have a bias.
He's not, he's genuinely one of the greater minds of our time, with a talent for articulating sharp psychoanalytical observations clearly. But Mr. Dawkins is certainly right, whenever the topic of religion comes up mr. Peterson refuses to take a clear stance and babbles opaque nonsense instead
@@thedogwhowearsasuit.9425 Not greatest, but one of the greater, yes. Dude's got 8 million subscribers and a bestseller for a reason. Don't make the mistake of not liking him because his message makes you feel bad
@@ralfvanbogaert3451 Don't mistake a huge number of devotees with legitimacy. McDonald's is the most popular restaurant in the U.S., serving MILLIONS daily. It doesn't mean they're selling something of quality.
To me too many leaders in the church miss the mark. It really isn't about impressing your audience how smart you are as it is about opening the knowledge of the Bible to the people within the church, by, for one, explaining what words mean, the way the people of the society that wrote the Bible lived. It becomes more important at time goes on to understand what God expects from each one of us. Not to follow a crowed, but to follow Him only. Understanding is a wonderful thing, not so much big words.
Agreed. Reading Peterson is not nearly as complicated as reading many other philosophers, which is why it's so tragic to see so many people buying what he's selling. The popularity of Jordan Peterson condemns the taste of our age.
I couldn't understand why smart educated person and professor like JP could think that the Bible is a valuable book! He can be agnostic like many scientists but a Christian? Christianity makes no sense from scientific pov
That image of the double helix represented in the two snakes curling around each other doesn't have anything to do with religion, but it might have something to do with ancient civilizations being far more evolved at some point. That or NHI involvement in the past and the primitive humans incorporating their symbols in their art. That can't be ruled out. An unwillingness to investigate that possibility is pure academic hubris, professor Dawkins.
Exactly right. In fact, neither of them has any idea what they're talking about re the Abrahamic religions & their origin. Two snakes coiled around each other? 'They' must've had some understanding of DNA? Ya think? Dawkins, not a clue. Peterson, the merest hint of one. Avail yourselves of the AAE, gentlemen, the Ancient Astronaut Evidence, & wise up already. About time, 150 years after we knew for certain. Start w/'The 12th Planet,' first installment in the most disinformationally maligned body of work in print, & go from there. Happy reading, 'intellectuals.' Let's see how you do with it.
You know this for a fact? You KNOW his list of readings? Dawkins academic reputation relies totally upon his thorough preparation on any given topic That is why Petersen is critiqued so severely by the academic world. Petersen's language is totally familiar with academics and so they are not lost so easily in his word salad.
Well, I'm an atheist and a man of science. But truth be told, Jordan Peterson never said that. He was using the snakes and DNA as examples of a metaphysical concept when explaining an excerpt of one of Jung's books. But of course, nobody expects a mediocre biologist like Dawkins to understand that. By the way, Peterson doesn't even use complicated language, it's just Dawkins' vocabulary that's extremely poor because he's been living in his department's bubble since ever and knows nothing of the humanities, philosophy, literature, arts, or anything that's not plain materialism. All materialists, even the smart ones like Dawkins, are dumb, because they're missing part of the puzzle.
Complicated language, that's in the ear of the beholder, isn't it? The fact that you call yourself a man of science kind of indicates that your comprehensive skills might be above average. If you'd make a reference to Jung to a MAGA supporter the best you may hope for is that they think you are a German. Few would include the possibility you might just as well be Austrian or Swiss and the odd one out may realise you are refering to a philosopher. However the majority would suppose you were either complimenting or criticising DJ Trump or God. People with a feeble grasp on linguistic intricacies tend to interpret what was said within the confines of their own realities. "God: yes...difficult words....it must be very profound". And being an atheist myself, I just don't think the existence of a God would explain anything, it would just give rise to more questions about the fabric of reality, like: "then where does God come from and what is wrong with his Internet connection"? I don't think reality is 'knowable', we are one of the two snakes but we don't know which one. The mirror is there but it doesn't tell us on which side of it we exist and that doesn't matter, what matters is that we are aware of our reflection and that we try to appreciate it's existence and vicariously, our own existence. How's that for a word salad? Have a nice day! 😁
Jordan Peterson is a good actor. I have seen him in some super dramatic video clips of him crying when speaking about God. Religion is good for some ppl. But to insist on everyone in the country has to accept and become a believer like them? NOPE. That will never happen.
@@npc9207 it’s so therapeutic to see people slam Peterson to be honest. Even in real life more and more of my pals have been buying into his bullshit, when all he says is a whole lot of smoke and mirrors with no real substance
The favorite argument of his critics, he's using language to sound profound, etc. "pick up your damn suffering and bare it, and try to be a good person so you don't make it worse" that's as bare bones and straight forward as a kick on the groin
I'm a Christian (formerly atheist, and that past significantly informs my faith) and Dawkins didn't say anything I particularly disagree with here........ lol. I still like Dawkins despite no longer being "on his side" of a particular debate. Most of his criticisms have some serious merit, and I believe he's playing an important part of a larger story. I particularly like his work on memetics, coining the word meme. I just think it's a mistake to try to reduce religion to nothing but memes in the selection sense of the word. That said, I think memes are a vitally important concept for parsing out the "wheat from the chaff." That is, getting out of the groupthink mentality of organized religion is vitally important. Look at how Christians these days trash their most important beliefs. "Love God with all your heart" and "love your neighbor as yourself," which Jesus, whom if you believe the Biblical narrative is indeed _God,_ said are the greatest commandments. Yet, conservatives just go around screaming about how we need the 10 commandments posted everywhere, and glorify that. Conservatives are honestly kind of autistic. They reduce this book that is full of symbol, human error (by design), meaning, nuance, and history to an instruction manual. "Assembly 10.4" "drill pocket holes before screwing in the lag bolt." "Leviticus 18:22 - gay bad" The majority of Reddit neckbeard types of atheists are just former Christian conservatives, and it shows. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, one of the oldest churches in the world, will not allow people to become ministers without first learning to improvise poetry for 2 years, because they understand that the text is symbolic and originated from an oral tradition where symbolism is used to memorize and map things. Reading the Bible like it's an instruction manual is like reading Shakespeare to learn how to install a refrigerator.
@@Diepvries11 He doesnt believe literally but he finds christianity useful. Most religious people are like that, they just wont admit it to you because they think its what is required for their end goal.
Matt Dillahunty is another combative Atheist who takes no bullshit! And doesn't suffer fools gladly! These... Are my kind of people! Because I don't have time for BS either!
He questions everything because that is the basis of science. It must be explainable through logic and scientific fact, if it is to be accepted as true. As Christopher Hitchens explained with his Hitchens’ Razor theory: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”.
What JP is saying about climate change is BS, too. JP is just a random dude who has gained credibility among some by speaking with confidence in front of a microphone.
A lot of people are missing Dawkins point. The problem isn’t that Peterson uses complex language, it’s that he miss uses it. It doesn’t take much to follow along with what Peterson is saying but when you do a lot of it is either avoiding questions or downright nonsensical
@@davidporter671 crazy how you read my original comment and just took the opposite point from it. None of his language is that hard to understand and that’s his issue. On so many topics he is so evidently speaking out his ass if you have a basic knowledge of the theory around it
I, too, respect Jordan Peterson for standing up in the name of free speech to a Canadian law that doesn’t violate free speech and that has not censored anyone’s free speech. I will now follow his lead by standing up to the tyrannical 1964 Civil Rights Act by REFUSING to allow random black people to enter my home without my permission and sleep in my bed and eat my food right out of my refrigerator, exactly as the law at no point compels me to do. Everyone stand up and applaud my bravery!
Would there be legal consequences for refusing to refer to a student by their preferred pronouns? Would there be legal consequences for using biological pronouns to refer to a self identified transgender? Yes or No?
@@SpielkindFR answer the question. I have read it. It 100% says that tresngenderism is added to the classes of identity discrimination. So if it is universally accepted that not affirming gender is a form of discrimination against them, that would mean it’s now law. Anyone with a brain could put that 2 and 2 together. Stop trying to misdirect and cover the tracks. There were entire government hearings,lawsuits and global headlines made over it for that exact reason. Because there is no other form of discrimination that involves not participating in someone’s personal identity. I.e. compelled speech and adherence to preferred pronouns.
@@madeincdaTo be entirely fair, this is what everyone did for most of their schooling. We all learn from others. If someone says something and we consider it and come to agree with it, then we haven't committed any great sin. We have simply accepted an idea that we first encountered as someone else said it. So long as we understand the things that we believe and are open to changing our minds with evidence, then there is nothing wrong with this. The problem comes when you decide that this new information can not be challenged. If you decide that no evidence can ever change your mind then you stop being open to learning and you are likely to end up with the wrong answer because of this.
They should probably debate and get that settled. After all Dawkins debated a whole class of individuals and Peterson does rhe same ...dont call bullshit on anyone unless you ask to debate them and they run off
I don’t need a lot of smart people to tell me in what should I believe in , I believe in telling the truth and not lie , do not steal and don’t hold grudges.
@bawseeeee602 for complex matters, relating to existence in particular, it's necessary to have this sort of "confirmation" from outside. Especially from sources such as Richard Dawkins
What gravitas does Dawkins have? His opinion holds about as much weight as any other GCSE-level science teacher, because that is the limit of his scope for debate
The irony is that this is now Dawkins’ stance as well. I disagree with both of them. I think viewing Christianity simply as a tool for better living is still stuck in a materialist worldview that I disagree with. (And many smarter, more articulate Christians than me) The ability to even judge what better living looks like in our society, comes from values built upon belief in the first place.
@@MrAnders9000but before some of them were religious books, they were Laws. Someone wether with involvement from a god or not wrote them down with consideration.
He has an ability to talk for 10 mins about something that I new very little about and then make it something that I now have no bloody clue about at all.
@@164procar4 JP was discussing symbolism within the framework of Jungian interpretation, an area in which he specializes. It is truly inconceivable for individuals like Richard Dawkins to claim ignorance of this context. I find it difficult to believe such self-admitted claims of stupidity, on the part of Dawkins, even when I find them like this on video recordings, repeatedly asserting such ignorance.
@@gregogrady8027 JP was discussing Jungian interpretations of what symbolism, another word salad, what is that meant to mean, in laymans terms that JP was discussing ideas of how symbols are processed by the unconscious mind? and that's why cave paintings of 2 snakes represent dna? well if consciousness can perceive things that small, why did it pick out the dna and not amino acids, or mitochondria, or anything else or maybe its just bullshit and the snakes were just 2 snakes and JP suffers from mild psychosis
@@artemislogic5252I think in context, it sounded something like this: "The DNA symbol, that drawing of the double helix can be found in a lot of cultures. Two snakes coiling around eachother. That concept, that shape, has always been associate with health, therefore, maybe we were onto something drawing those snakes." Peterson isn't like those guys that say the hieroglyphs in the pyramids depicts light bulbs and modern stuff. He's very imaginative and has a strange, arcane way of understanding what motivates people, and arts. I think, ironically, that example of the snakes and the DNA, Dawkins was not "sensible" enough to understand what Peterson was talking about. The analogy and idea behind the symbolism went way above his head. He's almost self admitting "I can't unestand what he's saying"
it's so annoying because they act like Jordan Peterson is coming up with crazy bullshit, but he's literally reciting Jung, who many of these critics would respect and talk highly about and not talk shit about. he uses the term archetypes constantly. He's not just making stuff up.
As a Canadian, Jordan Petersen couldn't have opinions on Canadian laws of freedom of speech, because we don't have them. We have freedom of expression that is protected under our charter of rights and freedoms which is different. Your rights of freedom of expression stops where they start impeding on others right to freedom of expression. And he's a doctor. That changes things, because spreading harmful or false information can harm others. Also, when you are representing and institution, who gave you your PhD, that institution can lose it's credibility and have a measurable loss. Please find out the context before airing opinions. Petersen is allowed to have his opinions, but he intentionally blurs the lines between his education and political opinions for financial gain.
Richard Dawkins is the perfect example of when Dr Thomas Sowell once said. That just because you're an expert in one thing doesn't mean you're an expert in all things
@@Cyborg_Lenin lol, world class academic specializing in the psychology of meaning doesn't understand what religion is, and one of the world's greatest economists (the greatest for my money) is "absolutely horrible at economics".
Dawkins is grifting on the idea that believing in anything is foolish. He's a simpleton and simplicity and the lack of what you don't know is the easiest thing to defend
I thoroughly dislike Dawkins, but he's correct about this, @@UhtredOfBamburgh . Peterson did claim that a medieval Chinese painting represents DNA, and believing such a thing is pretty damn foolish, given that we have _plenty_ of scientific writing from ancient and medieval China and nowhere is there any mention of anything like DNA. Also, when snakes mate they twine around each other that way, making it pretty easy to understand why such imagery would be used in a cosmogonic myth, which is the context of the lecture in which Peterson made the DNA claim.
@@EyeLean5280 don't you think it's a little strange that ancient humans would draw and create symbols and geometric shapes that are prevolantly found in the natural world? don't you think it's possible that he's not saying people were drawing dna strands, and he's actually saying there is something about the symmetry that is a reflection of the divine? Here's the thing, it doesn't matter if god exists or doesn't exist, religion is still hugely important to you. Because if there is no god, then your perception of realty is completely self constructed, and in this self construction YOU have placed religion as a central structural element of your own experience.
@@homewardboundphotos Firstly, what is it even you are trying to say? What symbols and geometric shapes could _any human ever draw inspiration from that is not part of the natural world?_ I mean, did you actually think this through at least a bit before you wrote it? Secondly, why do people like you always try to move the goalposts on anything your chosen idols say? He _literally_ uses those exact words. It is on tape. How is it always a metaphor and not meant literally when it is inconvenient? Paradoxically, this seems rather convenient to me that things aren't meant literally only when it suits a person, even when, per all measures of language, discourse and interaction, interpreting something as other than literal seems _obviously_ delusional. Lastly - _what?_ The central theological question argued against by proponents of reason-based ideology is irrelevant? This seems to expose a misunderstaning of the reason people actually argue that stuff; because it is _not_ irrelevant to dispell with baseless convictions and unfounded beliefs. Selective uncritical thinking allows for manipulation and exploitation, as observed effectively in smaller cults other than Christianity, where sometimes people even go so far as to live years in abuse or to straight up murder themselves for the absurdities they are deceived into believing. Considering religious US citizens, statistically, hold the greater degree of homo-, trans- and xenophobic opinions compared to non-religious people, it is also arguably better for social cohesion outside of a small in-group to teach not a dogma based on unfounded absolutist claims. To disarm these myths, pointing out that they are empty and baseless is _vital._ Additionally, the concept of religion is differentiated from belief as being _institutionalized belief._ A person acknowledging the truth that at least no single religion on this planet is even close to being correct about any _hypothetical_ inactive thing or being outside of this universe, and living their life in accordance with that acknowledgement, is not at _all_ 'religious'. In fact, the lack of fixed traditions, strictly codified value structures and specific institutions or offices makes a belief strictly _non-religious._ Even if such a belief deals with the supernatural, to call it religious is simply dishonest - at best, that would equate to spirituality, another concept that is usually rather silly, but at least more honest than claiming that some bronze-age people some two thousand years ago had the exact answers and then not having _any_ reasonable evidence for this absurdity.
@@Bloinkhe kinda did. He literally said "bullshit" without any reasoning, any explanation and people pretend that this guy just "showd peterson, while he didnt. He talks like a child here. A child saying "no youre wrong" and then simply leaving the room without any explanation of why the other one is wrong. He doesnt explain it, because he couldnt. The only reason he thinks its bullshit is because he doesnt want ancient people to be smart, wich says alot about this guy. A typical Person who wants to be seen as smart, who thinks he acts smart... but ultimately has nothing to say.
Peterson stood up to his imaginative version on canadian bill c16. all you needed to do back then was to actually read the bill to realize that he was lying. but yeah, to gain audience as conservative you just need to spit out their talking points so here we are
You have no clue what you're talking about. You get to compelled speech not directly through the legislation because the legislation is vague and does not define exactly what constitutes such discrimination. What might be an an offence under the legislation is determined by precedent and public bodies would be relied on to provide a policy interpretation of what constituted discrimination. In this case it was the Ontario Human Rights Commission who explicitly stated that “not referring to a person by their preferred pronoun can be interpreted as harassment”. Thus, if the court sides with the published view of the OHRC then you would in fact have a precedent for compelled speech. Given that the lawyers in Peterson’s University also took the view that Peterson would need to comply with the OHRC to stay the right side of the law and sent letters to him to cease and desist, Peterson took this as proof that he was correct in that regard. It is important to remember that his objection was not to using preferred pronouns, per se, but to having a body such as the the OHRC set the policy to compel it with the legal backing of C16. It is also important to understand Peterson’s background in studying the roots & psychology of authoritarianism which occurs on both left and right and how seemingly meek beginnings have lead to an Orwellian nightmare in the past. Compelled speech, no matter how noble the cause, is the opposite of free speech. Many people these days were not born when the concept of free speech was understood to be something precious that was worth fighting for. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Dawkins gets destroyed in his debate with Lennox for stupid takes on faith but that doesn't mean because a man said something foolish that everything is.
@@zeagiaswhat do you call the king of England? How do you address a judge? Can doctors and professor's insist you refer to them as that? Have you ever worked any job at all in the service, hospitality, sales or retail industry where you're instructed on how to address customers at the workplace? Peterson had a breakdown over a bill that basically says if someone says "Stop calling me that, I prefer being called this" and you insist on trying to hurt their feelings you might get a stern talking to or possibly sent to the Canadian gulags and be stripped of your gender and chased by non-binary wolves until you agree to be nicer. There's a large section of Jordy P fanbois that insist on calling him "Doctor" or even DJBP which is just lovely that fandom compels their speech with such reverence to assume Doctor is actually his first name.
@@zeagias Your only piece of evidence proves a contrary point to your statement. OHRC said such situations could constitute harassment, that isn’t surprising - there are already laws regarding stalking and harassment that protect against deliberated, repeated behaviors that are done in a threatening and agitating manner. The OHSC didn’t expand this description of harassment but rather said misgendering someone can be considered a integral part of that harassment and repeated deliberated actions.
@zeagias Peterson is an overhyped con man with fancy patter and a well-developed story of victimhood. If you go into court and call the judge "you there, with the face," you're going to jail for contempt. If you call someone a racial slur, you can be charged with hate speech. Just because Peterson refuses to acknowledge the current understanding of gender doesn't give his pompous ass a pass.
That's the difference between them both. Dawkins thinks people are stupid, and they dont understand. Leading them to hear Jordan's words like magic. Peterson speaks like an intelligent person is listening, in good faith that they are Bad faith for Dawkins to have that outlook, but im not surprised
@Ciph3rzer0 I don't think so. I think jp just realises the depth that seemingly simple things imply. I think sometimes the harsh gets confused for the honest, because it's certainly more likely that you're hearing the truth if it hurts. But that's not an unintelligent mistake
@@Brimocholasand if you've ever done mushrooms, then you know that that isn't a bad thing. The person who discovered DNA did it on LSD. There's merit to Peterson's ideas.
I think actual Christians have no problem understanding Peterson. Even if we don’t agree with him on many things. We grew up with that language, so it’s natural to us.
Jordan Peterson talks about religion’s place in forming a cohesive society. The lessons about tyranny, being responsible, helping your community. It would be nice for him to address that.
Dawkins argument against Peterson's "most aggreigous example" bullshit - much like the existance of God - is pure speculation. Dawkins misrepresents what Peterson said and is the biggest sophist ever. To the contray - its not inconcievable that, a society (such as the ancient egyptians) who could determine a true north (as proved by the multiple pyramids all facing truth north) - or a society that came up with our calendar & had mapped out and understood the planets so intricately - could equally be capable of perceiving of a idea similar to DNA. Peterson didnt even say that they definitely did - he was merely speculating - and its a reasonable speculation lol
Any german or austrian social science professor could give Jordan P. and that other guy a run for their money in the "pretentious/obfuscating language" department.
JP buries his audience under a giant word salad, desperately trying to explain something he does not understand himself. When he gets cornered in a debate, he evades the subject. JP is a devious person. I once respected him, until I understood how his methods work.
How disappointing Dawkins has not bothered to check the facts about Peterson's "stance" against Canadian government, which like everything else Peterson, is full of blatant exaggeration and lies.
What blatant exaggeration and lies?? He said from the beginning that restricting private speech to a point where you HAVE to use someone’s pronouns or you risk getting fined, is a line that the government shouldn’t cross. And it is a line, that the government had never crossed in like 300 years of common law.
@@elmango705 You are literally doing the exact same exaggeration that JP and all other right wing grifters did about the law. The law did not restrict private speech and dictate that you had to use somebody's pronouns. All it did was make gender identity a protected class so you could not discriminate against them. Also, a line that has not been crossed in 300 years? You have to be fucking joking. Every country has laws exactly like that. If a transgender person is employed at a place and their boss/coworkers repeatedly intentionally misgender them to the point of discrimination and harassment THAT could possibly lead to a fine. Which.... obviously yeah. That's just common sense. This has ALWAYS applied to cisgender people. Stop falling for the grift and do your own research.
@@freddyguy8582 No, you can actually get fined for misgendering someone. Look at this case from Walsh‘s „What is a woman?“ documentary. I think it was a father who was fined $30,000 for misgendering his own trans daughter.
Thank you for finally pointing out the obvious!!!! I’ve been saying that about Jordan Peterson for years. He doesn’t make sense at all. At all! Fancy words, but no meaning or context.
Just because you can't understand what he's saying, you feel you have to bash him? What did you watch? One of those 10 second "clips" that random people post? Why don't you watch one of his lectures? You will change your opinion. Assuming you come by it honestly.
@@robr177 With Jordan Peterson is just a lot of circular reasoning that often doesn’t address the specific question he is being asked. Specifically in the topic of the existence of a god. I have seen him debate Dillahunty, Harris and many more and he doesn’t convince me one bit. Well, to each their own.
@@Worldsportstalk24 Oh it’s not that I can’t understand Jordan. It’s that he insist on using circular reasoning. I want to scream out to him and say what is the root of your argument! Please make a claim already and stop disguising your ignorance on a topic by using fancy words to make yourself sound intelligent because it’s not working. It’s so frustrating hearing him speak because he negates any real conversation by not properly addressing the core of the argument. Again fancy words but no context. Sorry to hear you enjoy his speeches.
@@sapper1495 sometimes he does that but not that often. Saying what he says has no meaning or context is just asinine. Sorry you don’t appreciate him, your loss.
Peterson does a good job in articulating why the radical left ideology is destroying western society. He explains why for instance resentment is the driving force for such evil in the world. Peterson is a psychologist first and foremost and tries to use his knowledge in phsychology to help people. He cares deeply about people and doesn’t talk much about Christianity unless asked to.
@@sandguyman And is Jungian through and through. Dawkins' dismissal of Peterson's approach to religion as "saying things that goes over people's head" just goes that he is not a *serious* atheist. Dawkins is so attached to the idea of religion being false, it has literally taken the shape of a religion in his mind.
As a Christian, I largely agree with Dawkin's assessment here. Jordan Peterson, when discussing religion, is often speaking complete nonsense guised in pseudo-scientific language and fancy words.
that's odd -- i've listened to almost everything and he's almost always spot on or in the ballpark -- his weakest moment being the one Dawkins references here -- a moment he has in the classroom talking with his students trying to open up the possibility to his students that we don't understand psychedelics at all and how they've influenced human beings throughout evolutionary history -- it's not as serious as a take as Dawkins would you have you believe in this clip -- it's more of an exploration
@@IrregularPineapplesWell what do you mean by odd? And everything? And heard? How can you even create a sentence with words when you haven't defined them yet? And don't forget post modernists are bad because they just think things have no meaning and/or want to redefine that meaning
I used to be a fan of Peterson. Not so much anymore. Of the C-jab, he says, "The herd stampeded because the most neurotic member of the herd jumped first, and then the others followed." Peterson has been warning people for years about how the West is progressing towards totalitarianism. But when it really mattered, despite his years of lectures, books and world tours, it all came to nothing. There were several important, discerning, critical thinkers, who suggested and encouraged us to hold the line. Peterson was not one of them. By his own admission, he stampeded with the neurotics.
My take is that Peterson is actually an atheist who is trying not to alienate his Christian audience.
I think he secretly is.
Alex even did a video on this and showed JP saying that god is a fictional character and that the bible is basically metaphor.
That's my take on it as well. This is why he creates nebulous talking points in order to avoid asserting an affirmative or negative stance on the topic.
Sure, as he brings THOUSANDS of individuals, including his wife, back to the Church. Brilliant claim.
@@Piercetheveilnow You really think he is s Christian, dude hasn't heard him speak well 😂😂
Appreciated the dunk on Deepak Chopra. That guy is the king of pseudoscientific word salads.
He’s utterly dreadful.
Word salads!!!
'The non-local domain as the source of all relative expressions is a realm of unlimited possibilities'
He's a terrible liar as well. He was interviewed on a documentary about psychedelics and he said he took some acid and saw people trying to stab him, he was chased and there was blood everywhere.
Dude has never done a trip in his life!
Sorry to disagree, but I believe Micheal Eric dyson takes the throne on this one
Jordan Peterson can say in 20 minutes what
any normal person could say in a single sentence.
The guy is smart and smart people talk. He can be long-winded but he uses more words because he thinks more deeply about things.
@@tomservo75Deep and meaningless.
@@williamdew7143Exactly. Some people confuse deep with BS
that doesn't say anything commendable about Peterson or average persons.
That depends on your definition of sentence, and minutes too! You might think it a simple answer, but it's not simple. You have to consider the endless cosmos of possible implications in the fundamental landscape of Freudian primal instincts that informs your axioms.
Imagine trying to serve Jordan Peterson at a bar.
What do you mean 'what'?
What do you mean 'can'?
What do you mean 'I'?
What do you mean 'get'?
What do you mean 'you'?
Lol that would be a great Family Guy joke
Maybe you get lost listening to Peterson because of the bog words he uses.. ahhh, you never studied...
Try listening to Dawkin's talking his bs about evolution, not a single scientific word comes out of his mouth, possibly, probably perhaps, maybe, might, must have, we think, we believe, we expect, we hope that's why evolution is still only a weak theory...
@@ankyspon1701 what scientific words would you need to use to give a description of evolution? It’s not really too hard a process to explain so why would you over complicate it?
@@ankyspon1701
Do you also think the earth is flat? 🙄
ah.... how annoying it is watching people exchanging about evolution without stating any proofs. it's a freakin theory.
This comment section is full of people who think they're very smart.
All the evangelical atheists are like that. They basically quote Hitchens, Dawkins, and Fry, then proceed to carry on like those ideas come from themselves. Complete lack of self awareness, they just became convinced that atheism was the more intellectual of 2 choices and went with it. I've never once heard something from an atheist that I couldn't trace back to one of their three prophets.
Lots of folks who think "I understand science! So I must be able to understand 100% of everything!" - your brain fits in a bucket. 😂
Isn’t it always?
Do you know you're one of them?
Ironically, you happen to be one of those people.
It's more like Peterson doesn't entirely understand Christianity and you're watching him learn about it in real time as he's working through it and wrestling with it.
In my opinion we all get this journey eventually.
@@dooflydetailguuy4349
And it's a journey that never really ends, to be honest.
@@manguy01 I heard that's what eternity is
He taught a course on the Bible and Christianity for like over a decade. I think he understands. His take is that it's way more profound than wether or not God is "real" that the book is more true than that. It's true weather you think it's real or you don't. That the Bible is full of fundamentally true things even if not historically true.
@@fearfulartist1236
There's a big difference between academic study and religious study. He gets a lot of basic things wrong. A lot less now than a year ago, though.
I don’t agree with a lot of what Dawkins says but I love that he is brutally honest like any old Englishman 😊
This world is full of people who think they are smarter than they are. Whose ego is bigger than it should be.
Like yourself and, admittedly, myself?
@@jaywallace5582 and Richard Dawkins too! 😂
heres where those people can take advice from jesus and be humble. lol
@@jaywallace5582perhaps. I’ve been proven wrong on so many accounts I’ve stopped keeping track.
I choose to surround myself with people whose values I want to emulate. That’s my standard.
unlike you
No human has ever used more words to say less than Jordan Peterson.
Think ben Shapiro is pretty close
You're pretty young, then.
Something tells me you're left-wing.
@@SCharlesDennicon Something tells me you are dumb.
I call him "Dr. Word Salad"
To be fair, Dawkins is a reddit-tier atheist
You're probably the kind of Christian that has never read the Bible and probably couldn't tell you what Ecclesiastes is about off the top of his head.
He is equally full of sh!t. Everyone is full of sh!t . The narcissist Era.
you probably can't even define what you mean by that
@@deadhardyReddit Tier meaning you can find the same opinions on the top posts of r/atheism
He paved the way for more modern critiques. however i like it. He calls it for what it is. @@mikesmnell414
I actually think Jordan Peterson has a profound ability to explain things that I didn’t previously understand.
I think so aswell. Except for religion.
Could that be just one more thing you don't understand? @@PoliticallyIncorrectBronto
No, he doesn't.
@@skyeangelofdeath7363How can you be sure that Jordan Peterson isn’t able to explain things that this guy didn’t understand? How would you know better than him? 😂
Yes. That doesn't make him right about everything though
Jordan Peterson doesn't preach about DNA or ancient science. He preaches about philosophy, culture, behavior and consequence
Jordan was saying that the double helix has a strange recurrence in artistic symbolism throughout history that he cannot explain. He wasn't saying that they literally were able to observe things at the microscopic level.
Thank you! Someone who actually listens to Peterson closer than Dawkins apparently does
Yeah Dawkins is an expert at misrepresenting and twisting words or just flat out not understanding something.
Actually, that is what Jordan was saying. He might have done his usual 'couch this in so many caveats that you can take whatever you like from it' but it's pretty clear that he was - at the very least inferring - that ancient people were able to see their own DNA. Which is - of course - absurd.
That's actually not what Peterson was saying. You're completely misrepresenting Jordan Peterson. You don't sound well-read on Jung.
Nope, go listen to his conversation with Dawkins where he says that he literally thinks some people under extreme cognitive circumstances (in this context taking psychoactive drugs) can see down to the micro level, including DNA.
When I was a graduate student at UC San Diego in the late '90s, I used to eat at a Thai restaurant in La Jolla that was next door to the Chopra Center. One evening a friend and I were having dinner at the restaurant, and we spent most of the dinner listening to a pompous windbag engaging in a very loud and embarrassingly moronic monologue on all sorts of esoteric subjects while a much younger and apparently submissive and impressionable man listened quietly and intently. The windbag had his back to us, so we couldn't see his face, but we heard every word of his drivel. At one point my friend and I leaned toward one another across the table to agree quietly that the fellow doing all the talking was a narcissistic moron. At about that point, the two people stood up to leave, and the windbag turned around so we could see his face. It was Deepak Chopra.
Critical thought is going extinct. You certainly got some else’s doze plus your own.
Imagine how big his ego is, if u disagreed with him he would probably go insane
@@Atclav Um, what?
Interesting. It reminds of this time me and my girlfriend were eating in this fancy restaurant while on holiday. A few tables up from us this man was talking to his friend. On the table behind him were two middle aged ladies. They were listening to him and giving him these snobby looks behind his back. Basically judging and looking down on him for whatever he was saying.
Me and my girlfriend noticed their looks and how snobby and nosy they were. And how they were better off minding their own business and enjoying their food.
You remind me of those two ladies.
@@waynedonoghue4071🔥
Yes! Dawkins is absolutely accurate. I think Peterson is a grandiose narcissist with a calm demeanor, an extensive vocabulary, and a propensity for the long con.
You are joking? Never has there been a shallower narcissistic BS merchant than Dawkins! Dawkin's is all ego and hate! Dawkin's has contributed nothing of any worth to the field of biology, zoology or evolution, all he's done is cherry pick other people's hard work and write it down in a flowery manner, to convince the general public such as yourself, who are clueless about the unprovable complexities of evolution!
You were brainwashed into believing evolution at school and now you're listening to Dawkins like he's your 3rd grade tutor!
He's a liar, evolution is just a theory and it cannot be proved!
I totally agree with you, he's a narcissist
How did you come to that diagnosis?
@@cazadoo339what makes you think that? What do you mean by narcissist?
@@squoctopus calling someone a narcissist isn’t a diagnosis
Couldn't agree more with Dawkins. One of modernity's guiding light of wisdom.
Dawkins is insufferable
Turns out ancient peoples were really into snake porn.
Respect
Yup
Aaaand this week on "The World's Craziest Accidental Scientific Discoveries"... ;)
The snake symbol represents medicine, or some divine inspiration, was incipiently brought to the light by Carl G. Jung, and Prof. Peterson was deeply influenced him.
@@sylviaowega3839 in scandinavian and baltic tradition the snake represents medicine and fertility.
Absolutely spot on. It's _exactly_ like Depak Chopra. I've _literally_ had a JP fan in my family even admit "Man he's so smart. A lot of what he says even just goes right over my head". That's the point. People think his points are smart and profound and making good points because they don't understand what he's saying.
Just because you and Richard Dawkins find something incomprehensible doesn't mean others do
What he's saying isn't that complicated. It's basically just that religion has a utilitarian function in society and it's true in a metaphorical sense for that reason, in the same way a good novel reveals truths about the human condition even if it didn't literally happen. He also seems to hope this means there is some form of literal God but isn't fully committed because he acknowledges you can't really get to that conclusion based on nothing but reason.
@@HeIljumper "comprehending" (deliberately) meaningless word salads is an accomplishment?
@@HeIljumper I didn't say that I find it incomprehensible. I said that a lot of his fans do. I understand the things he says, which is why I say that it's nonsense. Dawkins similarly didn't say "I can't comprehend the words he's using". He was saying that people who can't understand it think that he's making a profound point because it sounds smart to them. Just because you can't read or listen, doesn't mean I wrote what you made up.
@@TheCaptain610 I agree that what he says isn't that complicated. I didn't say that I don't understand the things he says.
I cannot believe Richard Dawkins is in his 80s. He is still so mentally alert
The thing about Dawkins is that he seems to have spent most of his "adult" life telling other people they're idiots for what they believe, based on what he believes himself.
No, his mind doesn’t work within a “ belief system “ but rather an “empirically “ driven mindset, this is where most faith driven people get it wrong.
@@stevedavis7905his empirical belief system is that we do not exist after death. Thus, the paranormal is empirically logically deduced and reduced to projections of one's mind. That is his belief extrapolated from what he deems science.
@@stevedavis7905his mind works within his belief system. Unbeknownst to him it is illogical. There are types who dodge and parley with intellectual banter to keep it on you to prove something.
@@stevedavis7905He only respects those who agree with his belief system of no God. They like himself are intellectually superior. I don't bother with them because I am intellectually astute and not in need of their approval rating.
@@debrapaulino918 his position is not held within a belief system, that is, belief is not required when their is no evidence for any god.
Jordan doesn't understand himself, so we haven't got a chance!
Those godless alone weak people are so full of BS, they can just be obsessed with God and Religion, that why none can respect them and those godless ass kissers without dignity that have denied God (they are just liar as any Goddeniers) and something died on them when they stopped to believe in God, but are so pathetic to tell. We need to forget about those godless alone trash people and their empty stupid nosesnes worthless cult called atheism (indeed theyr are empty like it, and full of BS like it). We hope for a better generation. By the way God will judge once death just as anyone alse and your position as a godless rat is very much weak now and it will be weak then so think next time to be without ashamed, Dignity and God... The worst generation we never have had. So full of BS. No respect for them (if you still got some dignity do not reply to this and Go back to God before it is too late, you poor idiot)
I don't know if that's entirely accurate. I think he's intentionally being dishonest and obtuse because he sees the value of Christianity, especially in politics. However, this is just speculation.
@@fnafboy0555 damn good speculating, at that, i must say.
I see a lot of talking, but no one willing to put their money where their mouth is. Love these videos because they create an astounding echo chamber for you people who talk but don't act.
@@madeincdaWhat action are you thinking that the people that you aimed this comment at should be taking?
I grew up with no respect towards Christianity and faith In general and despised anyone who tried to tell me otherwise.
I was never curious about religion, especially Christianity, until I stumbled upon Dr Peterson's content.
I listened to his maps of meaning and his theories on the psychological underpinnings of the biblical stories through his discussions on genesis and exodus. I must admit that it opened a door within myself that I thought was locked forever or never existed.
He has brought me closer to the idea of faith than ever.
I want to improve the quality of my relationships with others.
I am constantly trying to improve myself rather than spending my time
criticising others for their life path.
Sure, there are things I don't understand in this world, but rather than getting worked up over it, I'm trying to understand it from a different perspective and always tell myself, "Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't make it bad".
I want to do more for others than for myself.
I want to be a better friend, partner, person.
There are periods of my life when I look back and I'm disgusted by who i was. I know i can't change the past, but I can try to reshape the future.
I have let go of so much hate and anger, and I have forgiven not only myself but also others because we are all human and we all make mistakes.
Dr Peterson has done more for me than any other male on this earth, apart from my father, who played his part by contributing his genetic components to give me life.
But yeah, to me, Jordan Peterson is the man and i can never repay him. Yeah, he might be a little nuts, but who isn't? I know for sure that I am.
Anyways, thanks for those that got through my dribble; look after yourself, and I hope life treats you well,
Thank you for sharing. There are many such testimonies of Peterson’s influence on people. I’m quite sure he has had a much more positive influence on the world than Dawkins, although to be fair he has had a more positive influence on the world than most people, period.
Your "dribble" a classic Petersen and that style obviously appeals and gets through to you in a positive way. However, don't mix Petersen's understanding of the bible and Christianity based on symbology and archetypes as the same as the evangelists and that is why Dawkins isn't sure if Petersen is an atheist or not. He has to however keep his audience who are predominately Right wing and that is something to consider. Just read the negative comments here. Couched in lies, hypocrisies, the embracing of hate speech etc. That is the type of people his business model relies upon. There are better, more pure sources to help you to be a better person if that is your goal.
In a very real way, Peterson is the last hope in spreading the Gospel in a world of churches that don't know how.
@@jplowman Maybe but listening to him carefully because he interprets the bible as a metaphor NOT the word of God but the inspired Word of God.
@@michael1345 exactly!
I couldn’t agree more with Dr Dawkins! 👍
Same here
So, you think the Universe just popped human kind out of NOTHING? I guess you believe in Big Bang too? Something came out of NOTHING????? Reeeeeally???? Sounds like word salad to me....
@@supersagamaster simping
He must be profound because you didn't understand what he said? Also, British accent = smart? /s
Sam Harris has absolutely no problem understanding Peterson's gibberish on religion.
Sam Harris said that after listening to Peterson talk about religion for a long time he still had no idea what JP actually believes.
@@czgibson3086 ...I think I meant to say: "understanding that it is GIBBERISH"
@@czgibson3086 Sam asked, and not even JP knew what he thought on the matter. 😂😂
Sam Harris is quite the liar and admittedly for working against a fair democratic process, so I don’t trust his opinion much.
It was my understanding that Peterson’s support of Christianity was based on its ability to “help those in need” in a psychological sense, more as a guide for how not to screw up your life and less as a “this is real guys” but I could be mistaken
It’s much worse than that.
Richard Dawkins is basically accusing Jordan Peterson of being a con man which isn't a surprise because con men would probably believe everybody else is trying to con but they're just better at it.
I think it's the case where is Richard Dawkins not Jordan Peterson who's relying on the stupidity of the people who agreed with what he's saying and I say this because I believe Richard Dawkins on the stands the first law of thermodynamics. So for him to come out and say that he believes everything came from nothingness, no are no space nothingness he knew he was lying. It says if he made a bet with somebody saying watch I can get all these atheists to call me a genius by saying the stupidest thing I can think of.. I mean talk about beliefs and magic, talk about denying science, everything from nothingness.
Just to clarify I know a lot of atheists are confused, no we should believe in God don't believe that God zapped everything into existence. We understand that everything that exists always existed in one form or another and God like an artist used the materials around to create. Mass and energy are eternal in one form or another which makes Richard Dawkins claim that everything came from nothingness completely absurd.
@@JoeyLustForAshley. I’ve never met an atheist that believes everything just “popped” into existence from nothingness. I’ve never seen Dawkins make that claim either. That seems like kind of a long rant with nothing in it. Some of it grammatically confusing.
@@joemiller7082 Admittedly I use the mic and I don't proofread before sending. And unfortunately I have to use run-on sentences on purpose because atheists like to quote out of context. And they deny quoting you out of context, so it makes them harder to quote me out of context if I request they at least quote the entire sentence.
If you have any problems comprehending anything let me know and I will gladly clarify.
Richard Dawkins did said he believes everything came from nothingness. No air ,no space, nothingness.Matter of fact you can go on RUclips and put in Richard Dawkins something from nothing.. you're going to get a lot of choices look for the ones where he's talking to a priest and another guy. It's pretty long so you might be there for a while. But if you like the content it shouldn't be a problem.
Of course atheism of course atheism is simply a disbelief it's an unwillingness or inability to accept God.
Most atheists at least that I talked to believe everything came from a singularity , unlike Richard Dawkins who said he believes everything came from nothing and he also said maybe a singularity, and of course the singularity is described as being infinitely small. In fact so small if a hundred of them existed and you put them together they would be the size of the head of a pin. But please tell me what you believe regarding this.
I'll make sure that I proofread the following before I send, this way you have no problem comprehending, and you should have no problem answering.
My question to you is do you believe the origins of Life came into existence without creation , without God and if so why do you believe it.
Also if you don't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God , just respond and say and tell me how we found commonality that you don't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God.. if that's your position you should have no problem saying that ,unless you have a bias.
Your take is accurate
“My cat’s breath smells like cat food.” Ralph Wiggum
Epic and well placed randomness in this thread
😁👌 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I could be wrong but don’t think it’s random at all… it illustrates a point.
My dog's breath smells like cat shizzle.
The dragon in my garage tells me this is all BS.
@@user-ee8lv5jq8m Only my dragon is the one true dragon, you heretic. :D
Jordan Peterson is a grifter. It’s that simple.
He's not, he's genuinely one of the greater minds of our time, with a talent for articulating sharp psychoanalytical observations clearly. But Mr. Dawkins is certainly right, whenever the topic of religion comes up mr. Peterson refuses to take a clear stance and babbles opaque nonsense instead
@@ralfvanbogaert3451Greatest Mind? 😂.
@@thedogwhowearsasuit.9425 Not greatest, but one of the greater, yes. Dude's got 8 million subscribers and a bestseller for a reason. Don't make the mistake of not liking him because his message makes you feel bad
@@ralfvanbogaert3451 Don't mistake a huge number of devotees with legitimacy. McDonald's is the most popular restaurant in the U.S., serving MILLIONS daily. It doesn't mean they're selling something of quality.
@@ralfvanbogaert3451😂😂😂😂
To me too many leaders in the church miss the mark. It really isn't about impressing your audience how smart you are as it is about opening the knowledge of the Bible to the people within the church, by, for one, explaining what words mean, the way the people of the society that wrote the Bible lived.
It becomes more important at time goes on to understand what God expects from each one of us. Not to follow a crowed, but to follow Him only.
Understanding is a wonderful thing, not so much big words.
We need less Deepak and more Dawkins. We're missing Hitchens, too. RIP.
Hitchens was a woman hating loser.
You have an excellent replacement dare I say even better for Mr Hitchens in Alex.
I miss Hitchens, he was so funny.
@@holliswilliams8426 Actually, women are funny. Hitchens was a dope who said women were never funny. Maybe? He just had no sense of humor.
even better than Hitchens...jeeeeeeeeeeesh@@michael1345
Anyone who paid attention in highschool can digest Peterson just fine.
Yeah. Your average high school student should be able to realize that he's full of it.
Agreed. Reading Peterson is not nearly as complicated as reading many other philosophers, which is why it's so tragic to see so many people buying what he's selling. The popularity of Jordan Peterson condemns the taste of our age.
@@EyeLean5280 Do we have to call him a philosopher?
@adamcosper3308 no, but you can call him the Loberster Daddy, leftist B
I couldn't understand why smart educated person and professor like JP could think that the Bible is a valuable book! He can be agnostic like many scientists but a Christian? Christianity makes no sense from scientific pov
That image of the double helix represented in the two snakes curling around each other doesn't have anything to do with religion, but it might have something to do with ancient civilizations being far more evolved at some point. That or NHI involvement in the past and the primitive humans incorporating their symbols in their art. That can't be ruled out. An unwillingness to investigate that possibility is pure academic hubris, professor Dawkins.
Dawkins would certainly believe that machines have makers, and everything else has a maker, but this enormous universe have no maker ? Stupid.
To be fair, Dawkins is the same man who argues against philosophical text that he hasn't ever read.
Exactly right. In fact, neither of them has any idea what they're talking about re the Abrahamic religions & their origin. Two snakes coiled around each other? 'They' must've had some understanding of DNA? Ya think? Dawkins, not a clue. Peterson, the merest hint of one. Avail yourselves of the AAE, gentlemen, the Ancient Astronaut Evidence, & wise up already. About time, 150 years after we knew for certain. Start w/'The 12th Planet,' first installment in the most disinformationally maligned body of work in print, & go from there. Happy reading, 'intellectuals.' Let's see how you do with it.
That Terry Eagleton essay is a classic.
No need to read it to know its bullshit
You know this for a fact? You KNOW his list of readings? Dawkins academic reputation relies totally upon his thorough preparation on any given topic That is why Petersen is critiqued so severely by the academic world. Petersen's language is totally familiar with academics and so they are not lost so easily in his word salad.
@@michael1345get off his cock
Well, I'm an atheist and a man of science. But truth be told, Jordan Peterson never said that. He was using the snakes and DNA as examples of a metaphysical concept when explaining an excerpt of one of Jung's books. But of course, nobody expects a mediocre biologist like Dawkins to understand that. By the way, Peterson doesn't even use complicated language, it's just Dawkins' vocabulary that's extremely poor because he's been living in his department's bubble since ever and knows nothing of the humanities, philosophy, literature, arts, or anything that's not plain materialism. All materialists, even the smart ones like Dawkins, are dumb, because they're missing part of the puzzle.
100% spot on
Smashed it, dude. They also tend to get snarky down in that materialist bunker!
Complicated language, that's in the ear of the beholder, isn't it? The fact that you call yourself a man of science kind of indicates that your comprehensive skills might be above average. If you'd make a reference to Jung to a MAGA supporter the best you may hope for is that they think you are a German. Few would include the possibility you might just as well be Austrian or Swiss and the odd one out may realise you are refering to a philosopher. However the majority would suppose you were either complimenting or criticising DJ Trump or God. People with a feeble grasp on linguistic intricacies tend to interpret what was said within the confines of their own realities. "God: yes...difficult words....it must be very profound".
And being an atheist myself, I just don't think the existence of a God would explain anything, it would just give rise to more questions about the fabric of reality, like: "then where does God come from and what is wrong with his Internet connection"?
I don't think reality is 'knowable', we are one of the two snakes but we don't know which one. The mirror is there but it doesn't tell us on which side of it we exist and that doesn't matter, what matters is that we are aware of our reflection and that we try to appreciate it's existence and vicariously, our own existence.
How's that for a word salad?
Have a nice day! 😁
Definitely a word salad. Said absolutely nothing at all using so many words. Good job! 👍
@@santaffy4206 Thanks mate. 😁👍
That RKO Outta nowhere to Deepak Chopra was completely called for.
Jordan Peterson is a good actor. I have seen him in some super dramatic video clips of him crying when speaking about God.
Religion is good for some ppl. But to insist on everyone in the country has to accept and become a believer like them? NOPE. That will never happen.
Dawkins turns into a cynical 15 yr old when he talks about religion. His ignorance and stupidity is astounding.
I wish I could do more likes. I would do one hundred of them.
And your comment sounds like you're 15...
Aww, did the bad man hurt your feelings by accurately describing God as a delusion?
True.
Actually,you are pretty stupid.
Bashing JP is clickbait that never fails to reel me in 😂🤣
It's not even clickbait dawkins literally says it
I know right.
@@npc9207 true dat!
Me too. Cos JP is the word salad MasterChef of the world and deserves all the bullshitting he cops. It staggers me that he has such a following.
@@npc9207 it’s so therapeutic to see people slam Peterson to be honest. Even in real life more and more of my pals have been buying into his bullshit, when all he says is a whole lot of smoke and mirrors with no real substance
The favorite argument of his critics, he's using language to sound profound, etc. "pick up your damn suffering and bare it, and try to be a good person so you don't make it worse" that's as bare bones and straight forward as a kick on the groin
Misunderstandings are very similar to lessons they almost, to the point it's pretty safe to say 99.999999% are never fond on a one-way street.
Even though I don't agree with everything Dawkins says I've always respected how blunt and straightforward he is.
I'm a Christian (formerly atheist, and that past significantly informs my faith) and Dawkins didn't say anything I particularly disagree with here........ lol.
I still like Dawkins despite no longer being "on his side" of a particular debate. Most of his criticisms have some serious merit, and I believe he's playing an important part of a larger story.
I particularly like his work on memetics, coining the word meme. I just think it's a mistake to try to reduce religion to nothing but memes in the selection sense of the word.
That said, I think memes are a vitally important concept for parsing out the "wheat from the chaff." That is, getting out of the groupthink mentality of organized religion is vitally important.
Look at how Christians these days trash their most important beliefs. "Love God with all your heart" and "love your neighbor as yourself," which Jesus, whom if you believe the Biblical narrative is indeed _God,_ said are the greatest commandments. Yet, conservatives just go around screaming about how we need the 10 commandments posted everywhere, and glorify that.
Conservatives are honestly kind of autistic. They reduce this book that is full of symbol, human error (by design), meaning, nuance, and history to an instruction manual.
"Assembly 10.4" "drill pocket holes before screwing in the lag bolt."
"Leviticus 18:22 - gay bad"
The majority of Reddit neckbeard types of atheists are just former Christian conservatives, and it shows.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, one of the oldest churches in the world, will not allow people to become ministers without first learning to improvise poetry for 2 years, because they understand that the text is symbolic and originated from an oral tradition where symbolism is used to memorize and map things.
Reading the Bible like it's an instruction manual is like reading Shakespeare to learn how to install a refrigerator.
I'm much more interested in what you disagree with.
His lack of humility vid what you respect?
Ah look, my nuanced, thoughtful comments have been removed.
I hate the internet, destroying discourse to turn people into rage monsters.
Yeah I appreciate when morons fess up openly
It feels like JP doesn’t believe, but his audience does, so he created this weird version of divinity that works with his worldview.
yeah I think you have the right of it.
JP is trying to convince himself he believes.
@@Diepvries11 oooooh yeah thats a part of it for sure
@@Diepvries11 He doesnt believe literally but he finds christianity useful. Most religious people are like that, they just wont admit it to you because they think its what is required for their end goal.
depends on how you personally define "believe" -- such an unserious comment by you
Thank you Richard Dawkins to call out that snake oil salesman. The world champion of word salads. Ego bigger than a mountain.
when an experience is not shared, how can you possibly comment ? ? ?
I find Richard's brutal honesty refreshing.
Yer what? He makes Joe Biden look acutely incisive.
Yeah it is
Matt Dillahunty is another combative Atheist who takes no bullshit! And doesn't suffer fools gladly! These... Are my kind of people! Because I don't have time for BS either!
He didn't say anything new lol
JP is a false hope peddler at this point
False hope sells in 2024...
world is going to shit, people need to cope
Using bullshit twice in a sentence might convince those who dont understand complex sentences.
No. He did not. He is absolutely correct. Jordan slipped into the deep monetizing effect of social media therefore he has passed on the humanity path.
but...is he wrong?
… He has a wide and varied audience to communicate with .
He never used bullshit in the same sentence twice. That was a bunch of cuts spliced together from a 5-minute reply where many sentences were said.
Have you heard of editing? Cutting? Splicing?
Jordan Peterson talked about this with Joe Rogan. Would highly recommend viewing his point of view between the interaction
This guy doesn't understand two things: 1. Man and his Symbols
2. Buttons and their holes
Underrated
@@henrychinaski8686 Nice name! I'm a big Buk fan.
@@augustycizauzo6372 Thanks
😂😂
Saying "this guy" about richard dawkins, hah if only you knew what this man has done.
Dawkins the sceptic, sceptical of everything except his scepticism.
Average youtube commenter finds out about one of the most basic concepts in scepticism
He questions everything because that is the basis of science. It must be explainable through logic and scientific fact, if it is to be accepted as true. As Christopher Hitchens explained with his Hitchens’ Razor theory: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”.
Truth!
GOD IS!
the dumbest comment. Well I guess someone had to make it
Dawkins missed a button on his M&S shirt.
😅
M&S make great shirts though😅
I can’t unsee this now 😂
It was unbuttoned by a ghost.
Imagine idolizing a guy who can't even dress properly. 😒
What JP is saying about climate change is BS, too.
JP is just a random dude who has gained credibility among some by speaking with confidence in front of a microphone.
I don't know about religion But I understand Peterson perfectly. In fact he's a breath of fresh honest air that's badly needed today.
A lot of people are missing Dawkins point. The problem isn’t that Peterson uses complex language, it’s that he miss uses it. It doesn’t take much to follow along with what Peterson is saying but when you do a lot of it is either avoiding questions or downright nonsensical
Naw Dawkins is missing it not peterson
@@davidanderegg1232 miss using I meant to say
I disagree. I think he makes perfect sense
He really doesn’t use that complex of language. lol pick up a book once in a while.
@@davidporter671 crazy how you read my original comment and just took the opposite point from it. None of his language is that hard to understand and that’s his issue. On so many topics he is so evidently speaking out his ass if you have a basic knowledge of the theory around it
I, too, respect Jordan Peterson for standing up in the name of free speech to a Canadian law that doesn’t violate free speech and that has not censored anyone’s free speech.
I will now follow his lead by standing up to the tyrannical 1964 Civil Rights Act by REFUSING to allow random black people to enter my home without my permission and sleep in my bed and eat my food right out of my refrigerator, exactly as the law at no point compels me to do. Everyone stand up and applaud my bravery!
Would there be legal consequences for refusing to refer to a student by their preferred pronouns? Would there be legal consequences for using biological pronouns to refer to a self identified transgender?
Yes or No?
this right here!! bravo
@@BobDingus-bh3pdNon of which was part of bill c-16. Which you'd know if you had taken the 30 seconds or so it takes to actually read it.
@@BobDingus-bh3pd “biological pronouns” ah yes. The pronouns that scientists found in the dna strands pulled from your ass.
@@SpielkindFR answer the question. I have read it. It 100% says that tresngenderism is added to the classes of identity discrimination.
So if it is universally accepted that not affirming gender is a form of discrimination against them, that would mean it’s now law. Anyone with a brain could put that 2 and 2 together. Stop trying to misdirect and cover the tracks.
There were entire government hearings,lawsuits and global headlines made over it for that exact reason. Because there is no other form of discrimination that involves not participating in someone’s personal identity. I.e. compelled speech and adherence to preferred pronouns.
The utter disrespect, dropping not one but two BS bombs when discussing a fellow academics ideas and then admitting he doesn't even understand.
You really don't need to respect JP for standing up against the existence of hate speech laws.
DNA helix? Seriously? Dawkins is criticizing Peterson for that?
It's not even close to central Peterson argument. It is just not important.
Can you present a steel-man of Petersons argument then?
It was just an example of the nonsense.
It’s the easiest angle for Dawkins to attack him on.
@@saintsword23 or just a straw man argument
Strawman needs to be created. Jordan Peterson has went on record stating that he thinks this is true. Source, watch the video.
that dude is talking very wisely, profoundly and smart. He must be correct
Exactly why RUclips celebrities are popular. You let them do the thinking for you...
@@madeincda, the wording
@@madeincdaTo be entirely fair, this is what everyone did for most of their schooling. We all learn from others. If someone says something and we consider it and come to agree with it, then we haven't committed any great sin. We have simply accepted an idea that we first encountered as someone else said it.
So long as we understand the things that we believe and are open to changing our minds with evidence, then there is nothing wrong with this.
The problem comes when you decide that this new information can not be challenged. If you decide that no evidence can ever change your mind then you stop being open to learning and you are likely to end up with the wrong answer because of this.
I assume you are referring to Dawkins.
They should probably debate and get that settled. After all Dawkins debated a whole class of individuals and Peterson does rhe same ...dont call bullshit on anyone unless you ask to debate them and they run off
We don’t have “Free Speech” in Canada, we have Freedom of Expression. It is not the same. Do some research Richard.
I don’t need a lot of smart people to tell me in what should I believe in , I believe in telling the truth and not lie , do not steal and don’t hold grudges.
Man, I love hearing somebody with such gravitas saying exactly what I feel
Seems that you seek external validation
@bawseeeee602 for complex matters, relating to existence in particular, it's necessary to have this sort of "confirmation" from outside. Especially from sources such as Richard Dawkins
@@MCAincludeTChe’s not a “source” - he is literally speculating🤣
@@9n3-everything is a source
What gravitas does Dawkins have? His opinion holds about as much weight as any other GCSE-level science teacher, because that is the limit of his scope for debate
Petersons point is that you can live like a christian without necessarily buying into the mythology
The irony is that this is now Dawkins’ stance as well. I disagree with both of them. I think viewing Christianity simply as a tool for better living is still stuck in a materialist worldview that I disagree with. (And many smarter, more articulate Christians than me)
The ability to even judge what better living looks like in our society, comes from values built upon belief in the first place.
@@thearmanig98what's good and bad is simply subjective, at least in an atheist worldview.
@@thearmanig98Nah we are capable of creating much better laws, then those who are written in religious holy books. ( which was also made by humans)
@@MrAnders9000but before some of them were religious books, they were Laws. Someone wether with involvement from a god or not wrote them down with consideration.
Theology*
He has an ability to talk for 10 mins about something that I new very little about and then make it something that I now have no bloody clue about at all.
Can someone start explaining to young men that Jordan Peterson is just after their money?
That isn’t even remotely what JP said. The bullshit here is RD trying to twist what JP was saying.
help us understand exactly what JP said pls
@@164procar4 JP was discussing symbolism within the framework of Jungian interpretation, an area in which he specializes. It is truly inconceivable for individuals like Richard Dawkins to claim ignorance of this context. I find it difficult to believe such self-admitted claims of stupidity, on the part of Dawkins, even when I find them like this on video recordings, repeatedly asserting such ignorance.
@@gregogrady8027 JP was discussing Jungian interpretations of what symbolism, another word salad, what is that meant to mean, in laymans terms that JP was discussing ideas of how symbols are processed by the unconscious mind?
and that's why cave paintings of 2 snakes represent dna? well if consciousness can perceive things that small, why did it pick out the dna and not amino acids, or mitochondria, or anything else
or maybe its just bullshit and the snakes were just 2 snakes and JP suffers from mild psychosis
@@artemislogic5252I think in context, it sounded something like this:
"The DNA symbol, that drawing of the double helix can be found in a lot of cultures. Two snakes coiling around eachother. That concept, that shape, has always been associate with health, therefore, maybe we were onto something drawing those snakes."
Peterson isn't like those guys that say the hieroglyphs in the pyramids depicts light bulbs and modern stuff. He's very imaginative and has a strange, arcane way of understanding what motivates people, and arts.
I think, ironically, that example of the snakes and the DNA, Dawkins was not "sensible" enough to understand what Peterson was talking about. The analogy and idea behind the symbolism went way above his head.
He's almost self admitting "I can't unestand what he's saying"
it's so annoying because they act like Jordan Peterson is coming up with crazy bullshit, but he's literally reciting Jung, who many of these critics would respect and talk highly about and not talk shit about. he uses the term archetypes constantly. He's not just making stuff up.
Snakes wrap around each other when they mate
And that's when-a the DNA go pew pew! /s
As a Canadian, Jordan Petersen couldn't have opinions on Canadian laws of freedom of speech, because we don't have them. We have freedom of expression that is protected under our charter of rights and freedoms which is different. Your rights of freedom of expression stops where they start impeding on others right to freedom of expression. And he's a doctor. That changes things, because spreading harmful or false information can harm others. Also, when you are representing and institution, who gave you your PhD, that institution can lose it's credibility and have a measurable loss. Please find out the context before airing opinions. Petersen is allowed to have his opinions, but he intentionally blurs the lines between his education and political opinions for financial gain.
His obsession with “wokeness” makes Dawkins as much a wing nut as Peterson.
Richard Dawkins is the perfect example of when Dr Thomas Sowell once said. That just because you're an expert in one thing doesn't mean you're an expert in all things
Thomas Sowell and Peterson ironically are exactly this ironically.
@annhilator55 what?
Thomas is the perfect example. He is an economic expert who is absolutely horrible at economics.
exactly, you can hear it in his condescending tone: we are all lucky to have this genius to enlighten us all.
@@Cyborg_Lenin lol, world class academic specializing in the psychology of meaning doesn't understand what religion is, and one of the world's greatest economists (the greatest for my money) is "absolutely horrible at economics".
BTW Peterson never said the ancient people knew about DNA. Classic Dawkin generalization
Dawkins is grifting on the idea that believing in anything is foolish. He's a simpleton and simplicity and the lack of what you don't know is the easiest thing to defend
I'm sorry, what part of "I really do believe that's a representation of DNA" did you miss?
ruclips.net/video/k3qhfkPiqn8/видео.html
I thoroughly dislike Dawkins, but he's correct about this, @@UhtredOfBamburgh . Peterson did claim that a medieval Chinese painting represents DNA, and believing such a thing is pretty damn foolish, given that we have _plenty_ of scientific writing from ancient and medieval China and nowhere is there any mention of anything like DNA. Also, when snakes mate they twine around each other that way, making it pretty easy to understand why such imagery would be used in a cosmogonic myth, which is the context of the lecture in which Peterson made the DNA claim.
@@EyeLean5280 don't you think it's a little strange that ancient humans would draw and create symbols and geometric shapes that are prevolantly found in the natural world? don't you think it's possible that he's not saying people were drawing dna strands, and he's actually saying there is something about the symmetry that is a reflection of the divine?
Here's the thing, it doesn't matter if god exists or doesn't exist, religion is still hugely important to you. Because if there is no god, then your perception of realty is completely self constructed, and in this self construction YOU have placed religion as a central structural element of your own experience.
@@homewardboundphotos Firstly, what is it even you are trying to say? What symbols and geometric shapes could _any human ever draw inspiration from that is not part of the natural world?_ I mean, did you actually think this through at least a bit before you wrote it?
Secondly, why do people like you always try to move the goalposts on anything your chosen idols say? He _literally_ uses those exact words. It is on tape. How is it always a metaphor and not meant literally when it is inconvenient? Paradoxically, this seems rather convenient to me that things aren't meant literally only when it suits a person, even when, per all measures of language, discourse and interaction, interpreting something as other than literal seems _obviously_ delusional.
Lastly - _what?_ The central theological question argued against by proponents of reason-based ideology is irrelevant? This seems to expose a misunderstaning of the reason people actually argue that stuff; because it is _not_ irrelevant to dispell with baseless convictions and unfounded beliefs. Selective uncritical thinking allows for manipulation and exploitation, as observed effectively in smaller cults other than Christianity, where sometimes people even go so far as to live years in abuse or to straight up murder themselves for the absurdities they are deceived into believing. Considering religious US citizens, statistically, hold the greater degree of homo-, trans- and xenophobic opinions compared to non-religious people, it is also arguably better for social cohesion outside of a small in-group to teach not a dogma based on unfounded absolutist claims. To disarm these myths, pointing out that they are empty and baseless is _vital._
Additionally, the concept of religion is differentiated from belief as being _institutionalized belief._ A person acknowledging the truth that at least no single religion on this planet is even close to being correct about any _hypothetical_ inactive thing or being outside of this universe, and living their life in accordance with that acknowledgement, is not at _all_ 'religious'. In fact, the lack of fixed traditions, strictly codified value structures and specific institutions or offices makes a belief strictly _non-religious._ Even if such a belief deals with the supernatural, to call it religious is simply dishonest - at best, that would equate to spirituality, another concept that is usually rather silly, but at least more honest than claiming that some bronze-age people some two thousand years ago had the exact answers and then not having _any_ reasonable evidence for this absurdity.
Watch the 2008 documentary "Expelled, no intelligence allowed" with Ben Stein and you'll see who looks like full of it, yes, this gentleman here.
Richard calls himself a "cultural christian" so, he can hardly be taken seriously.
I want Dawkins voice saying “it’s sheer bullshit” as my ringtone
If you want everyone to think your Fedora tipping douchebag go for it
"I can't understand it, therefore it must be bullshit that nobody understands"
That's not what he said, but nice coping.
@@Bloinkhe kinda did. He literally said "bullshit" without any reasoning, any explanation and people pretend that this guy just "showd peterson, while he didnt.
He talks like a child here. A child saying "no youre wrong" and then simply leaving the room without any explanation of why the other one is wrong.
He doesnt explain it, because he couldnt. The only reason he thinks its bullshit is because he doesnt want ancient people to be smart, wich says alot about this guy.
A typical Person who wants to be seen as smart, who thinks he acts smart... but ultimately has nothing to say.
@@TheBlackfall234 Sometimes bullshit is just bullshit. Blue faster ran train gain of bigger. Refute that.
"Snakes' coils = DNA" is bullshit, too.
"I don't understand it either but I have to pretend that I do because I'm a sycophant of my Big Hero who's being called out for his bs." -You
@@Bloink That's basically exactly the point he's trying to make. Nice bias.
“I don’t understand Canadian laws that he stood up against so I think it’s enormously courageous, but I do understand religion which he’s BSing about”
The contemporary “intellectuals” like Peterson couldn’t hold a candle to the intellectuals of the 2000s-2010s. If only Hitchens had lived…
Damn he took the most random JP’s take lmao try the rest of the Biblical series tho
It's all bullshit
Explain how
@@dimeen that’s what I would hear from “New Atheists”
@@JumboCod91go on.
@@dimeenwhat is?
Peterson stood up to his imaginative version on canadian bill c16. all you needed to do back then was to actually read the bill to realize that he was lying. but yeah, to gain audience as conservative you just need to spit out their talking points so here we are
You have no clue what you're talking about.
You get to compelled speech not directly through the legislation because the legislation is vague and does not define exactly what constitutes such discrimination. What might be an an offence under the legislation is determined by precedent and public bodies would be relied on to provide a policy interpretation of what constituted discrimination.
In this case it was the Ontario Human Rights Commission who explicitly stated that “not referring to a person by their preferred pronoun can be interpreted as harassment”.
Thus, if the court sides with the published view of the OHRC then you would in fact have a precedent for compelled speech.
Given that the lawyers in Peterson’s University also took the view that Peterson would need to comply with the OHRC to stay the right side of the law and sent letters to him to cease and desist, Peterson took this as proof that he was correct in that regard.
It is important to remember that his objection was not to using preferred pronouns, per se, but to having a body such as the the OHRC set the policy to compel it with the legal backing of C16.
It is also important to understand Peterson’s background in studying the roots & psychology of authoritarianism which occurs on both left and right and how seemingly meek beginnings have lead to an Orwellian nightmare in the past.
Compelled speech, no matter how noble the cause, is the opposite of free speech.
Many people these days were not born when the concept of free speech was understood to be something precious that was worth fighting for.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Dawkins gets destroyed in his debate with Lennox for stupid takes on faith but that doesn't mean because a man said something foolish that everything is.
@@zeagiasokay lady, calm down.
@@zeagiaswhat do you call the king of England? How do you address a judge? Can doctors and professor's insist you refer to them as that? Have you ever worked any job at all in the service, hospitality, sales or retail industry where you're instructed on how to address customers at the workplace?
Peterson had a breakdown over a bill that basically says if someone says "Stop calling me that, I prefer being called this" and you insist on trying to hurt their feelings you might get a stern talking to or possibly sent to the Canadian gulags and be stripped of your gender and chased by non-binary wolves until you agree to be nicer.
There's a large section of Jordy P fanbois that insist on calling him "Doctor" or even DJBP which is just lovely that fandom compels their speech with such reverence to assume Doctor is actually his first name.
@@zeagias
Your only piece of evidence proves a contrary point to your statement. OHRC said such situations could constitute harassment, that isn’t surprising - there are already laws regarding stalking and harassment that protect against deliberated, repeated behaviors that are done in a threatening and agitating manner. The OHSC didn’t expand this description of harassment but rather said misgendering someone can be considered a integral part of that harassment and repeated deliberated actions.
@zeagias Peterson is an overhyped con man with fancy patter and a well-developed story of victimhood.
If you go into court and call the judge "you there, with the face," you're going to jail for contempt. If you call someone a racial slur, you can be charged with hate speech. Just because Peterson refuses to acknowledge the current understanding of gender doesn't give his pompous ass a pass.
standing up to what? free speech? well Richard you and JK are a match made in heaven.
Shame he started with the stupid debunked thing about Bill C16, but correct on the religious angle as usual
Dawkins thinks he's answered every question and he's insufferably smug. He and Neil DeGrasse Tyson should get a room.
He never claimed that, but dumb God believing morons claim that plenty tho
Its the atheïst way being a smug unlikable person
They literally don’t have one iota and I always find it funny listening to both.
That's the difference between them both.
Dawkins thinks people are stupid, and they dont understand. Leading them to hear Jordan's words like magic.
Peterson speaks like an intelligent person is listening, in good faith that they are
Bad faith for Dawkins to have that outlook, but im not surprised
JP obfuscates simple concepts to sound smart. I don't like Dawkins, but he's more intellectually honest than JP
@Ciph3rzer0 I don't think so. I think jp just realises the depth that seemingly simple things imply.
I think sometimes the harsh gets confused for the honest, because it's certainly more likely that you're hearing the truth if it hurts.
But that's not an unintelligent mistake
dawkins doesn't think people are stupid he thinks religious people are stupid which is fair
@@Nadia-bt5ls yeah you're right, Einstein was a total moron. That's fair. Same with Jung
He told him so. Wow a big round of applause to this brave chap. Keep patting your back. Pfffft
😂
Surprising that Dawkins can sniff out Peterson’s lies when it comes to religion, but fails to sniff out Peterson’s lies about Bill C-16
Dawkins has been less sophisticated and more of a grumpy old man over the years. There's fair JP criticism but this isn't it.
Why not?
Cos Peterson was high on shrooms when he came to that hypothesis Dawkins is referring to
So what constitutes unfair criticism? Anything that offends you since it rocks your man crush?
Yes, he and Peterson seem to be in the same line of work: Professional Angry Old Man.
@@Brimocholasand if you've ever done mushrooms, then you know that that isn't a bad thing. The person who discovered DNA did it on LSD. There's merit to Peterson's ideas.
A lot of what JP speaks of in terms of symbolism and ancient religious artworks almost identically comes from Jung’s works.
And Jung - a product of his time, no doubt - indulged heavily in magical thinking.
I think actual Christians have no problem understanding Peterson. Even if we don’t agree with him on many things. We grew up with that language, so it’s natural to us.
I was born and raised catholic, catholic school, and not once has any teacher or priest claimed that ancient people could see their DNA lol
"Using language they don't understand" I have never heard Jordan Peterson use any words I don't understand.
So you'd understand that he don't say too much actually
Jordan Peterson talks about religion’s place in forming a cohesive society. The lessons about tyranny, being responsible, helping your community. It would be nice for him to address that.
Dawkins is like a pigeon, just strutting around confident of himself, doing nothing but shitting on others providing no value himself
Dawkins calling something sheer bullshit was the most awesome thing! 👌
It's phenomenally ironic, actually.
Actually makes him sound a lot less intelligent as a result.
@@MrLove11590 Nah, if we had to entertain listening to every obviously nonsense theory then we'd never get anywhere.
Dawkins argument against Peterson's "most aggreigous example" bullshit - much like the existance of God - is pure speculation. Dawkins misrepresents what Peterson said and is the biggest sophist ever.
To the contray - its not inconcievable that, a society (such as the ancient egyptians) who could determine a true north (as proved by the multiple pyramids all facing truth north) - or a society that came up with our calendar & had mapped out and understood the planets so intricately - could equally be capable of perceiving of a idea similar to DNA. Peterson didnt even say that they definitely did - he was merely speculating - and its a reasonable speculation lol
@@ericmanget4280 Being dismissive and using profanity will never convert a Christian to atheism.
Any german or austrian social science professor could give Jordan P. and that other guy a run for their money in the "pretentious/obfuscating language" department.
JP buries his audience under a giant word salad, desperately trying to explain something he does not understand himself. When he gets cornered in a debate, he evades the subject. JP is a devious person. I once respected him, until I understood how his methods work.
How disappointing Dawkins has not bothered to check the facts about Peterson's "stance" against Canadian government, which like everything else Peterson, is full of blatant exaggeration and lies.
What blatant exaggeration and lies?? He said from the beginning that restricting private speech to a point where you HAVE to use someone’s pronouns or you risk getting fined, is a line that the government shouldn’t cross. And it is a line, that the government had never crossed in like 300 years of common law.
At least someone is saying it. All legal opinions with credibility said his view of the legislation were misguided as per the actual legislation
@@elmango705 You are literally doing the exact same exaggeration that JP and all other right wing grifters did about the law. The law did not restrict private speech and dictate that you had to use somebody's pronouns. All it did was make gender identity a protected class so you could not discriminate against them. Also, a line that has not been crossed in 300 years? You have to be fucking joking. Every country has laws exactly like that. If a transgender person is employed at a place and their boss/coworkers repeatedly intentionally misgender them to the point of discrimination and harassment THAT could possibly lead to a fine. Which.... obviously yeah. That's just common sense. This has ALWAYS applied to cisgender people. Stop falling for the grift and do your own research.
@@freddyguy8582 No, you can actually get fined for misgendering someone. Look at this case from Walsh‘s „What is a woman?“ documentary. I think it was a father who was fined $30,000 for misgendering his own trans daughter.
@@elmango705 and exposing her name during a publication ban, wasn't that simple
Thank you for finally pointing out the obvious!!!! I’ve been saying that about Jordan Peterson for years. He doesn’t make sense at all. At all! Fancy words, but no meaning or context.
He makes sense 99% of the time. His language really isn’t that complicated
Just because you can't understand what he's saying, you feel you have to bash him? What did you watch? One of those 10 second "clips" that random people post? Why don't you watch one of his lectures? You will change your opinion. Assuming you come by it honestly.
@@robr177 With Jordan Peterson is just a lot of circular reasoning that often doesn’t address the specific question he is being asked. Specifically in the topic of the existence of a god. I have seen him debate Dillahunty, Harris and many more and he doesn’t convince me one bit. Well, to each their own.
@@Worldsportstalk24 Oh it’s not that I can’t understand Jordan. It’s that he insist on using circular reasoning. I want to scream out to him and say what is the root of your argument! Please make a claim already and stop disguising your ignorance on a topic by using fancy words to make yourself sound intelligent because it’s not working. It’s so frustrating hearing him speak because he negates any real conversation by not properly addressing the core of the argument. Again fancy words but no context. Sorry to hear you enjoy his speeches.
@@sapper1495 sometimes he does that but not that often. Saying what he says has no meaning or context is just asinine. Sorry you don’t appreciate him, your loss.
Peterson does a good job in articulating why the radical left ideology is destroying western society. He explains why for instance resentment is the driving force for such evil in the world.
Peterson is a psychologist first and foremost and tries to use his knowledge in phsychology to help people. He cares deeply about people and doesn’t talk much about Christianity unless asked to.
"I used to be all messed up on drugs. Now I'm all messed up on the lord."
- some comedy album from the 70s
When Peterson talks about psychology, he generally knows what he's about.
When he talks about politics or religion, he has no idea
he wrote a 500 page book about religious symbiology and its intersectionality with psychology, part of which dawkins misrepresents in this clip
@@sandguyman uga booga waka waka bla bla bla woo woo
@Yahwe666 By far that's genuinely the most intelligent response in this whole comment section lmao
@@sandguyman And is Jungian through and through.
Dawkins' dismissal of Peterson's approach to religion as "saying things that goes over people's head" just goes that he is not a *serious* atheist. Dawkins is so attached to the idea of religion being false, it has literally taken the shape of a religion in his mind.
@@biggusdickus5752 I know, right?! 🤣
As a Christian, I largely agree with Dawkin's assessment here. Jordan Peterson, when discussing religion, is often speaking complete nonsense guised in pseudo-scientific language and fancy words.
that's odd -- i've listened to almost everything and he's almost always spot on or in the ballpark -- his weakest moment being the one Dawkins references here -- a moment he has in the classroom talking with his students trying to open up the possibility to his students that we don't understand psychedelics at all and how they've influenced human beings throughout evolutionary history -- it's not as serious as a take as Dawkins would you have you believe in this clip -- it's more of an exploration
Peterson's thoughts are gibberish. Nonsense.
@@IrregularPineapplesWell what do you mean by odd? And everything? And heard? How can you even create a sentence with words when you haven't defined them yet? And don't forget post modernists are bad because they just think things have no meaning and/or want to redefine that meaning
That's Peterson on every topic he speaks on
touch grass buddy@@fisharepeopletoo9653
I used to be a fan of Peterson. Not so much anymore. Of the C-jab, he says, "The herd stampeded because the most neurotic member of the herd jumped first, and then the others followed." Peterson has been warning people for years about how the West is progressing towards totalitarianism. But when it really mattered, despite his years of lectures, books and world tours, it all came to nothing. There were several important, discerning, critical thinkers, who suggested and encouraged us to hold the line. Peterson was not one of them. By his own admission, he stampeded with the neurotics.
He doesn't even have a retort. He just calls is bullshit. No argument whatsoever.