Does God Exist? Jordan Peterson vs Matt Dillahunty
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 май 2018
- #jordanpeterson #mattdillahunty #atheism #atheist #atheistviews #jordanpetersondaily #jordanpetersonquotes #god #religion #jesus #bible
The Warrior For Reason - Matt Dillahunty goes head to head with Jordan Peterson on God, Religion, Morality & more!
(No portion of this recording may be reproduced by any means without written permission.)
#pangburnlive
Watch Sam Harris & Brian Greene on stage FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER ruclips.net/video/5pbHsRz8A7w/видео.html
Speaking, of Watch...........Would you be so kind as to ask "RUclips/Google", to increase the Volume, on this particular Upload, so as someone, with average/normal Hearing capabilities, can Hear it, Please. Then, i will remove my "Dislike" and you can watch me put it, in my Hairy Green Butt.
Can this video be reuploaded with some volume? I put it on max volume and right up to my ear and I can barely hear what they are saying. I've tried everything. The ads on this are 4 times louder.
@@williamhedden9862 You'll find it in one of our most recent uploads.
Perfectly loud and an awesome video for me.
50:35 overpopulation
Reminder to lower your volume when youre done
Thanks babe
Should have read the comments first. Listened to this in my car and almost crashed when the first advert kicked in.
Real heroes don’t wear capes
THANK YOU
Matt blew my ears out at the end lol.
I always hate it when i lose the metaphoric substrate of my ethos.
A Darger don’t we all
Depends what you mean by "lose"
@@mauriciosalas3415 and, of course, that depends on what EXACTLY "depends"
I've got it here, you left it on the bus
The long pause right before he said that was so perfect.
Depends on how you define 'define' which further depends on how you define 'how you define 'define'' and so on.
we just need to measure it, of we are just socially rejecting basic definition than we are just fooling around.
Yea I hate that tedious bullshit
Jordan Peterson’s debating style sounds like a ChatGPT response 😂😂
.....with vowels replaced by dingbats
wow, never thought of such accurate comparison. hehehe, now i see how JP frustrates me as chatgpt does with all of its babbling nonsense and not directly answering :D
for example?
Don't disrespect ChatGPT like that.
Nono
“Do you like pineapple on pizza?”
“Well, first and foremost, we must recognize that the question of whether pineapple on pizza is a good thing is not merely a matter of personal taste or preference. It goes deeper than that. It is a question of values and cultural norms, and the role that food plays in our society.
Now, some may argue that pineapple on pizza is a delicious combination of sweet and savory flavors, while others may find it an abomination to traditional pizza toppings. But we must ask ourselves, why do we have such strong reactions to this topic? Is it simply a matter of individual taste, or is there something more profound at play here?
I would argue that our attitudes towards pineapple on pizza are shaped by the cultural values and traditions that we hold dear. In some cultures, the idea of putting fruit on a savory dish is perfectly acceptable, even celebrated. In others, it is seen as a violation of culinary norms.
So, to answer the question of whether pineapple on pizza is a good thing, we must first examine our cultural values and ask ourselves what role food plays in shaping those values. We must also recognize that what we consider to be "good" or "bad" in food is not necessarily a universal truth, but rather a reflection of our own cultural norms and biases.
Ultimately, the decision of whether to put pineapple on pizza or not is a personal one, but it is also a reflection of our cultural identities and the values that we hold dear. We must approach this question with humility and an open mind, recognizing that there is no one right answer, but rather a diversity of perspectives and opinions.”
Brilliant! 😆
This is my favorite comment 😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂 awesome comment 😂😂😂😂
*goes to fuck around with ChatGPT* This was amazing.
I’m gonna pull this out of the bag next time I’m at MOD or some other pizza place and they ask me about toppings.
“Dr Peterson, what’s your favorite color?”
“Well that depends on what you mean by favorite. And it also depends on what you mean by color. This is a very complex question...
One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung's archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnitude of Neo-Marxist existential nihilism...”
I see these posts of yours on a lot of Jordan Peterson related videos. You're not a brainless leftist post-modernist blending in here, per chance? Theres a lot of you here on this page.
Fun Bigly
Well I do hope you're hitting the like button when you see them. JP impressions are not easy to do.
FYI - postmodernist isn't a hyphenated word.
I'll make you a deal. I'll get a life if you learn how to spell big words correctly and clean your room.
How's PoMo instead? And cut/paste cannot really be difficult, can it?
God is a singularity, therefore the language used to describe "him" must in itself be specific (i.e unable to be misinterpreted/to a point/indivisible). Otherwise, you end up spending 2 thousand years arguing with idiots over a question that is not specific about a subject that has not been distinguished.
NeverFinished 3Digits You forgot hashtag triggered
This is the first time I have come across Matt and the man is an absolute boss. Will watch more of him going forward.
hes the new hitchens
@@andralfoomao.
How dare you make such a comparison of Hitchens, with some crony from Texas. Get on your nees
*L
@@andralfooyou see what I did 😅
2 points - What were you watching? And why comment on a talk about "Does God Exist" re the Atheist with "absolute boss"?
"I'm not trying to be difficult!"
He was, in fact, trying to be difficult.
No, he wasn't. Grow up.
@@Vandalle. dude asked 10 questions before his opponent had the chance to answer the first, how's that not being difficult?
@@xenormxdraws Because the point he was making needed clarifying in order to be fully understood, it's a debate remember, if Jordan can't form a clear picture of Matt's stance, then how is he supposed to respond? It might sound nitpicky but I would argue that you need to be nitpicky in a philosophical debate.
@@Vandalle. no, that's just being purposefully difficult to try and derail your opponets train of thought, JP even acknowledges that he was just being purposefully difficult a few minutes later. In an honest debate, you either clarify your opponent's position before asking a question (like Matt did multiple times) or you ask a question, shut up and let your opponent finish making his point (something JP couldn't do)
@@xenormxdraws I disagree, if you say something vague that can be taken to mean different things, whilst making a larger point, the other person has the right to have you clarify, because unless it's crystal clear what you mean, the rest of the words are completely irrelevant.
Guy: How are you doing today?
Jordan Peterson: Well it depends on what you mean by "doing".
Jordan,
- Nothing is better than eternal happiness
- A cheese sandwich is better than nothing
- Therefore a cheese sandwich is better than eternal happiness
His followers: a saviour you are profound.
There is nothing profound about Jordan or his new book of the 12 rules.
www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
He's just a cult leader. Nothing more.
😂🤣😂
Save the Children, thank you.
Whilst we try to inject humour, the rubbish this man espouses does great harm. One of his assertions that absolutely infuriates is that if an atheist does a fellow human a good deed, it proves that somewhere deep down he is a Christian.
Jordan's cunning plan (i seriously believe that he thinks he is like Aristotle) :
1 - i do not need to make any sense, then I will lead a cult
2 - i will not make any sense
Therefore,
3 - i will lead a cult
Jordan's cult members: yes master, we follow blindly.
Peterson's arguments are nothing new. Everything he says is a total cliche decorated with big fancy words.
Religious or not, we can all agree that Pangburn is in a dire need of a better sound system.
For reals.. I need ear plugs.
They wound up just dying entirely
Yes!
Damn right. I have to hold my phone to my ear half the time
The soundquality seems fine, just the soundvolume of the video is low. Would rather blame that on the recording or the poor post production than on the soundsystem.
Jordan Peterson has an amazing ability to talk for hours without saying anything.
I don't have that problem, maybe you're just stupid, try watching the Kardashians or girls gone wild, maybe that's more your speed
He did say 1 profound thing in here I though. As Matt was laying out what he thinks would be the good underlying fundamentals he instances on being "good" things. It's the "how do we know" if we are being completely skeptical about everything.
Is pretty sad that you can't understand nothing of what he says
@@TheArmestorior we understand it enough to know that’s he’s nothing but hot air.
@@katelynnehansen8115Yes Katelyn, you are for sure smarter than dr who worked at best institutes, published lots of books and research papers and participated at good amount of debates. No way that guy is smarter than black Katelyn from youtube comments sitting on her couch !
Hands down one of Dillahunty's best debate performances. It helps that both him and Peterson stayed very respectful throughout. Whenever something was done that made the other party doubt the integrity of the debate, people made efforts to assuage and correct their behavior.
Everyone gangsta until they lose the metaphorical substrate of their ethos
XD😂🤣😆
Blwahhahahahaha!!
So tired of Jordan at this point.
Tony Newton the videos 2 years old buddy
@@connordurham4289 yeah aware. thx though.
Thank you for not keeping this behind a paywall
Excellent comment, further more information and education, should never be paid for. Since it comes from us all, it should benefit us all.
It'd be robbery cause it's quite boring and a bunch of rambling lol 😂
Counter their Sabotage and Subterfuge bs its old and boring theistic arguments long refuted but to see media hyped peterson having to bullshit the audience is far from boring. I was laughing for an hour. There is no way to call that boring as long as you listen and are capable of understanding.
Mats Jönsson education from other's is a service. If it should never be paid for, then that implies that it should always be done for free, which implies slavery. No thanks
It really doesn’t imply slavery or teachers not getting paid. At least I don’t see it that way in this context. Come on
Hats off to Matt for not losing his temper because Jordan Peterson took pleasure in interrupting Matt's arguments in the middle. Fortunately, he did not do that for all of Matt's arguments.
Matt did lose his temper once, and rightly so, when Jordan made the erroneous comment(s) about Russia and secular humanism!!! Peterson had no rebuttal!! He just sat there looking stupid!!! It was GLORIOUS!!!! 😆
That you say Peterson took pleasure in interruption only exposes your own pre-determined personal bias that he could only lose and never win the argument(s).
I never said any of that and I don't have any bias dude. 😅
Peterson is really intelligent on many fronts, but on the religion side, he's not. He doesn't make sense in his religious arguments dude and if you're honest and don't have bias, you would see it too.
@@bryanevenor7769 Your personal bias is exposed when you presume Peterson takes takes pleasure in interrupting Matt. If that isn't bias then what is it?
@@ethanlewis1453 lol, I'm not presuming... you can literally see how happy he is when he does that xD
If you're defending that point, it means that you don't see things for what they are and would rather defend the guy when he doesn't make sense in his arguments... now who's biased? 😅
Matt answers the questions, Jordan gives book reports.
Never heard a word from Mr Dillahunty before -
what a competent debater, very clear and intelligible wording.
Do yourself a favor and watch The Atheist Experience. It's on every Sunday, and it allows Matt more freedom to fully express his positions.
A civilized debate is all very well from time to time, but the very fact that it IS a civilized and polite event, often means that the participants
aren't always able to "let it all out", lest they involuntarily surrender to the opposition by being perceived as being rude.
Truth isn't concerned with political correctness, but debates are, and that's why it's rare to reach any sort of genuine sense of agreement from them.
Hitchens was a notable exception to this, of course. He said what he wanted to say, regardless of how this would affect the audience.
But then, he was also intelligent and witty enough to get away with it.
Sapere Audé,
I second the first two comments.
+Jeff Narum But not my comment? Gee, thanks a lot...
teppo,
I was referring to your's and Christopher's.
I should have wrote, "the two previous relpys."
+Jeff Narum Oh great. Now, what am I going to do with this rope I just bought?
Hand over the metaphorical substrate and nobody gets hurt
I always hate it when I lose the metaphysical substrate of my ethos.
I have a metaphor and I'm not afraid to use it!
It's even worse when you get poked in the axiom.
Give me the metaphysical substrate peacefully or there will be trouble.
People make fun of what they don't understand.
I love that this video is still getting surges of popularly, i hope more people get to see Peterson crumble under the pressure of someone not fumbling in the face of confusing word vomit among his goal post shifting
"let's save the applause so we can talk" vs. "who doesn't like raucous applause?!"
ties a bow on this whole thing
Objective focused vs subjective focused. I do find JP as a growth model on psychology, but i do not incorporate his morality, or his smug attitude of what he thinks other people thinks. If he didnt ask, and they didnt ask, where is his idea of their ideas coming from? His a$$
This is ultimately Peterson retreating into concensus seeking praise and Dillahunty investigating concepts.
Half wit summarization
@@Samson484 You a Jordan Peterson fan, are you?
@@jonaskromwell4464 oh yes and a Sam Harris fan.
Friend to me: Hey, do you like Jordan Peterson
Me: Depends on what you mean by "Jordan Peterson"
Well, it's a complicated problem...
I feel like the two didn't really debate each other if that makes sense. Peterson didn't walk into the debate thinking that what was expected of him was to provide a concrete argument for the existence of god, and more so wanted to talk about the importance of god. Matt walked into the debate expecting to have an argument with the archetypal 7 day creationist religious thinker. Hence the: "what I've heard other people say" line that he repeats a lot in the debate. However towards the end Matt started to understand where Peterson was coming from a bit better, and even countered some of his points very well. I just hated watching the first 2/3 of the debate and seeing Matt ignoring Peterson's actual argument
It is.
Legitcles Your special :) very VERY special. Jordan tried to claim that mystical experiences are supernatural, try again fool.
It is Until the 45th minute. Then he says you can't be moral without god
Jokes aside, definitions really matter when two individuals debate.
@@Rhysibabe Then this comment should take shrooms and see the "kind of like" evidence of God while it's at it.
Exactly, what's so funny about that?
How do you get definitions out of a guy whom, when asked whether he believes in God, replied that it depends on what believe means and said somewhere else that he'd need forty hours to answer that question?
@@Edruezzi well yeah it's necessary, "belief" could mean different things
@@rld8258 So that's why he needs 40 hours to say whether he believes in God or not.
Matt completely exposed him 😂 Peterson got the skill of saying very simple things using big long strings of sentences.
He is not real. He makes simple things very complicated.
@@percubit10 Lol why can't it be, it is complicated but you only understand simple things ?
@@raghu2472if you actually understand what JP says you would see how hard and complicated he tries to explain even simple things and not awnsering the questions, but dance's around them. thus sounding smart for dumb people.
@@Time_flies_fast please tell me what simple thing he is trying to explain in complicated way ?
(there is nothing like that, things are not that simple and ppl seem to understands only if they are simplified and dumbed-down , if not they reject anything that could be there which they are not able to comprehend yet)
these two are theorists, at-least in this convos. any theory which explains things at the extremes is the successful one, so far JBP's theory can somehow include quantum phenomenon, matt's one can't .
Einstein with much comprehension of world and universe said, GOD doesn't play dice with the universe. there is a incomprehensible intelligence behind the design , you call it god or whatever.
I do not think Matt has better comprehension than Einstein .
I've never seen JP get beat up like that. He even saw it coming. Nervous form the beginning
I think Matt Dillahunty is an extremely underrated debater.He’s up there with the absolute best of them.I love his “no-nonsense” aproach, and he doesn’t let his opponents take him for a ride.
I couldn't agree more. I wish William Lane Craig would stop being such a coward and debate Matt.
'Underrated'= 'Everybody knows his true worth and listens to someone else. '
Craig Smith
The definition of “underrated” is something that has not received the merit, recognition or praise it deserves.
@@Boogieplex Matt isn't underrated at all. Your definition may be it's intended meaning, but its origin, the reason it exists, is because people largely don't bother with whatever is deemed by some to be so, which is because it isn't worth it. There's a reason that Matt is 'underrated': he gets the attention he deserves. More, actually.
Craig Smith Im sorry dude, i read your last reply like 8 times, and im just not understanding you.Its not that im in disagreement with you, its literally your words creating sentences that dont seem to make any sense to me.Sorry man.
Damn, those are some nice chairs.
No I've seen better chairs than this! You should see the chairs Sam Harris owns
Jake Tudball I love nice chairs too. Something about them just lets you have nice conversation.
I think this conversation would have gone better of they were using bean bags.
But not nearly as nice as the chair in the world of forms.
Jacob Tudball those chairs are hell bound sadly.....
Jordan is really good at remembering a lot of very long words he read somewhere and then pulling them back out into very long, pointless sentences to hear himself speak. I've never heard anyone use such vast numbers of words in run-on sentences but say so so little. For that he gets the gold medal.
Now people know some whys about gnosticism emergence.
I find very funny People are attacking Peterson and still these same act as if morality and ethics are cognitive.
I am not from an abrahamic religion, quite the oposite. The substratum of this discussion is not about the reality of the bible, but about the reality and veracity of any ethical or moral prescription and judgement.
There is absolute no evidence for the morality or imorality of any proposition or action. And the idea of eternal punishment of humans is misplaced in this discussion. The Second death is not unanimously eternal punishment. Eternal punishment is reserved to fallen angels. People are confounding what "the bible" says and what catholic theology and islamic doctrine affirm.
He’s an extremely skilled conman.
Yeah that's what I got out of it too, he just throws out a whole bumble of concept words as if he just said something. Matt was clearly, obvious and versus Jordan Peterson just says a whole bunch of nice words and phrases that produce imagery that have nothing to do with each other. He's just kind of pointlessly babbling so you can't really argue with what he saying cuz nobody understands what the f*** he is saying
sesquipedalia verba
Spot on.
7:50 "it's not easy to tell what's useful and what's real..." this is the perfect way of saying "my intellectual honesty needs a rigorous checking ". I'm not even saying Peterson is dishonest, I'm saying _he_ said that here.
As soon as he talks religion, Peterson becomes the postmodernist he says he despise.
"Jordan, do you want to grab a bite to eat?"
"That's a very complicated question. Jung once said..."
He can't answer without going into long winded explanations with big words that sound smart but is really empty in substance. It's really just arrogance that he has to use his big words to sound smart
Eric McCaw Even after the first question he goes into a long, meaningless word salad
@@Leon-yz1kp he probably can't answer easy yes or no questions. Could you imagine if he was a witness to a crime and the cops talked to him and then he had to go on the stand? Did u see the man kill the guy? Depends on what u mean by kill. Death is a very complicated blah blah blah lol
@@sablemae8853 If Peterson was ever a witness to a crime and he was being himself (Mr Vague) in court, we would be jailed in no time.
@@sablemae8853 You seriously don't understand anything he's saying. To claim the "explanations with big words" as means to avoid an argument is purely stupid. It proves that you aren't actually even listening to him.
*metaphorical substrate has left the chat*
Zeus best comment ever
@@bishshoy khub bhaalo then
He never actually answered what IT WAS
@@jesuscarrillo3705 Yes he did.
Zeus the more important description is at the one hour mark makes sense out of the entire debate...... the idea that Matt holds is that God
Is a being
Who need spiritual experiences when you have that amazing feeling when Matt delivers the best argument.
Now people know some whys about gnosticism emergence.
I find very funny People are attacking Peterson and still these same act as if morality and ethics are cognitive.
I am not from an abrahamic religion, quite the oposite. The substratum of this discussion is not about the reality of the bible, but about the reality and veracity of any ethical or moral prescription and judgement.
There is absolute no evidence for the morality or imorality of any proposition or action. And the idea of eternal punishment of humans is misplaced in this discussion. The Second death is not unanimously eternal punishment. Eternal punishment is reserved to fallen angels. People are confounding what "the bible" says and what catholic theology and islamic doctrine affirm.
Lmao ok
@@marionapoleoni4502
To suggest Matt is not a competent debater and speaker is utter stupidity, even if you do not agree with his viewpoints
@@Seldz1 I was being a troll. Point taken.
@@modchannel8387 Are you not allowed to look up to people or something? I look up to Matt because of how level-minded and reasonable he is, and because of his great speaking skills. It's not a soviet or religious mindset, I don't take his word for gospel or want him to rule over everything, he's just an admirable dude.
Peterson has a voice that could curdle fresh milk.
Sound guy: well that depends on what you mean by audible
This. This is what I am reading comments for, and actually made me LOL, in my quiet office.... But thank you still!
Well what do you mean by "mean"?
@@loganw.9919 : I was trying to think of a witty comment, then I read yours...Well done sir !
Best comment under this video.
I've got my headphones cranked to 100% and am living in fear of the random commercial I know is going to come and blow my eardrums out :(
This is the first time I've come across Matt Dillahunty. His relaxed, macro view is refreshing. He's a good representation of an atheist mindset. Not pretending to know things, but open to what is most reasonable and grounded …. not an ego of absolutes or wishy washy abstractions or philosophy or outdated stories. Just a normal person living the best they can.
Not really. People have prodded him far enough to discover he still maintains sacred cows. Namely found in his politics. Something that is more complicated than the childsplay of finding inconsistencies in texts like the bible. Matt really isn't that smart. Rather his just mostly earned his fame during the heyday of when atheism gained greater popularity in culture. Basically he popped his head up at the right time to grab that kind of attention. While greater atheist thinkers paved his way.
Nobody is perfect. I do disagree with some of Mat's poletics, but that doesn't mean I can't admire his ability to debate and present his view on religion. It might be 'childsplay' as you call it, but considering the amount of people that still hold the bible as the ultimate moral authority, it is still necessary for someone to keep repeating the same old rebuttals.
If you can point me at some specific video that shows Matt being irrational about politics I would love that. Even when I heard him talking about something I disagree with (namely abortion) he wasn't irrational. It was just that the counters (of what I consider to be counters) to his arguments never came up.
@Themic light Go watch some more alpha male motivational videos.
@ KuroNekoExMachina - haha!
@najex1
It's childs play because even children find these very same superficial inconsistencies themselves. But people like Matt don't go much further than these very same kids. Instead they go for the same low hanging fruit time and time again. Thus their arguments are dull. That they're too keen to approach any situation from a standoffish posture than actually actively seek to be proven wrong. To me they're lazy and reek of having insincere motives.
Prepare yourselves for Peterson's word salad.
Ikr. When it comes to life advice JP sounds profound. But when it comes to religion he tends to trip up and make no sense.
@@jesterc.6763I think part of this is the “grift”…..Typical theologians are horrible debaters and generally get ripped apart when going up against atheist intellectuals. Peterson is simply seeking to tap into the religious market. He is attractive to the religious market because he’s not your typical defender of theology, who are usually bumbling credulous numbskulls whose argument for the existence of God leads to the all encompassing non answer of “faith”. He is definitely an intelligent individual and that accompanied by his move to defend theology = book, lecture $$$
JP is a master at saying absolutely nothing with the most amount of words.
Whoever did the audio for this video needs to be fired.
Here is a normalized audio version.
we.tl/ekUtPkhnl9
I turned the volume right down low & it was still too loud
What I can barely hear anything
Thank you! I was going to do that too lol. Beat me to it!
What?
I feel Jordan Peterson’s biggest battle is with himself as opposed to the many debaters he spars with. The battle of trying to wedge religion into his arguments is his personal fight.
You have most likely stated the most important reflection of this debate than anyone else in this thread. Thank you.
He's obviously been indoctrinated from an early age, poor guy.
@@thedarkmaster4747 Atheists are indoctrinated, thats why they are bitter und unhappy. Studies prove this.
@Burns Things You feel this because you are a brainwashed atheist. religion and philosophy go hand in hand.
@@hsdjsdshdhsdnsmsd6247 I think you need to look up the word indoctrinated!
Matt mind blasted Peterson to oblivion. Amazing.
What reality are you viewing from? Matt seems uninspired & disconnected, like an intelectual rock.
really though! Everyone hating on JP is just because they don't like him @@williampankhurst9417
@@williampankhurst9417 He is viewing from THE reality, bro.
@@williampankhurst9417seek help
@@williampankhurst9417Everyone knows Peterson lost, and badly, the kind of loss where your career is never the same again. Every single comment articulates exactly that, not just this one. Being a loyal Peterson fan boy only makes you seem more ridiculous not Peterson any less.
I love Matt in this talk. I mean I always love him, but this was brilliant. Q&A - PERFECTO!
In my opinion, Dillahunty hits the nail on the head when he says that religious people cannot bear the state of not knowing about the issues they consider important. So the biological purpose of the idea of gods is stress relief.
That is an assumption.how could he know he's doesn't even believe in God.He has no bionic mind.He would have to know the heart and soul of an individual
@sterlingwinston9629 but considering that all of us have been taught about religion from the beginning of our lives in some way, can't that justify the familiarity of such knowledge in mind for such claim? like as i was religious and was around many even more religious people for a considerable time in my life, can't i say that i understand what they are afraid of? and what they can't let go? and what is stopping them from being critical thinkers?
If you listen very carefully you can actually hear them talking
Hahaha, my favorite comment
Clever bugger
Yeah, it's almost enough to just shut it off, but I had to stay for the metaphorical substrate
that's funny
Honestly watching Matt mop the floor with this grifter is music to my ears. Gotta love Matt
Lol
It's my first time listening to Matt Dillahunty and he genuinely seems like a fun and easy going guy who happens to be extremely intelligent.
Sit up straight with your shoulders back, Dr Peterson.
It all depends on what you mean by "shoulders".
Bryan Mahoney Ask any investigator , his posture indicates deception.
Beau He's not being intellectually honest.
No. Not with himself, and he knows it.
And make your fucking bed
"Is the earth round or flat?"
Jordan Peterson: Well, I walk as if the earth is flat. So metaphorically, the earth is flat.
"Ok, so realistically is it round or flat?"
Jordan Peterson: It depends on what you mean by round or flat. You see, a circle is just made of infinite straight lines, and a sphere is made of infinite flat surfaces. So flat earth is true.
"Of course, any object is made of flat surfaces if you zoom in enough. But that doesn't mean the entire object itself is flat. Are balls flat by your logic?"
Peterson fans: You are misquoting Jordan Peterson, you are straw-manning him, you just don't understand him.
In your mind everything is simple
Pedro Viteri Of course, because I'm misquoting you, right? I just don't understand you.
*The Hoper* That was kind of brilliant, man. You've truly tapped into dat Metaphorical Substrate!
Dude that is the best way to sum up JP....
That perfectly describes how Peterson operates.
I came back after 3 months to prove peterson wrong. I quit smoking 3 months ago was smoking a pack a day.
That's good for you but I doubt Dillahunty is the reason you went that course. There are other things which are moral which are not justified by wellbeing.
Well you didnt, He didnt say Its impossible
I have considered explaining complicated things so anyone can understand as a form of intelligence. Peterson can make complicated things even more complicated.
A great philosopher will present their arguments in a way that is easy to understand, uses the common person's language, and convey deep points as succinctly as possible.
A sophist will dress everything they say in 5 layers of pseudo-intellectualism and speak without saying anything. (like Peterson)
This was a masterclass in that.
Well, Peterson is not a philosopher. I’m a common person and I understood what he was saying
@@Culture-and That wasn't MH's point. They were saying that Peterson likes to dress things up in flowery language to impress his audience without actually adding anything of value to the discussion. It just comes off as pretentious sophistry. If he had anything insightful to say, he'd say it outright. Not opaquely and complicatedly, like in this debate. Or any time he speaks.
@@johnlocke9682 You’re making a lot of claims about Peterson’s intentions as though you can read his mind. Maybe you just don’t like him? Or at best, don’t like his style of speech?
@@Culture-and Well, taking into the account that JP see himself as a profhet, maybe he should be able to get into the factual case without talking 99% crap and 1% profit, or is it the other way around? 🤔 He is one of the biggest concervatice hypes that try and avoid the right wing stamp, just to earn more money. And to be honest, no, I don't like someone who want the world to go back to the 1950ies.
Jordan Peterson: there is a physical reality and a metaphysical reality. So we have to think outside of the box when proving metaphysical realities and look for evidence that might not be objectively seen with the naked eye.
Matt: Yea but why can’t I touch god with my fingers?
Wow what a deep and open minded intellect Matt has.🙄🙄🙄🙄
15:04
Matt: "You can stop smoking without any sort of supernatural intervention."
Jordan: "No, not really."
Matt: "You can't stop smoking without supernatural?"
Jordan: "There aren't really any reliable chemical means for inducing smoking cessation."
The question was not whether there are reliable drugs to help one quit smoking but whether it's possiblie to quit without a supernatural experience.
Peterson uses so many dishonest fallacious arguments.
Yes, it's a bad argument and clearly it's possible, but it's also not so simple; many people struggle with this to the extent that they feel completely powerless to stop, and so if a mystical experience can make most of them reliably stop for good and change them then you can see that there is some truth in his side as well that's certainly worth exploring
@@sebastjankrek1744 But there is nothing necessarily supernatural about a mystical experience. His argument is also contradictory because he claims there is no reliable drug treatment for smoking cessation, and then gives the best example of drug treatment for smoking cessation.
Jordan's definition is not what you think it is. He has stated his position on the subject many times. "Supernatural" is in reference to ones conceptual subjective response to experiences, in relation to our predisposed beliefs in the world that are not entirely objective .
The mind exists entirely within the world of subjectivity, and as such ones experiences though not always taken as such. Are in fact a result of a "supernatural" response. Ie a subjective point of view entirely existing within ones mind. Predicated on subjective beliefs of the world.
When he pointed out the fact that shrooms have the ability to stop smoking through "supernatural" means, and NOT through a chemical compound. Hes pointing out the fact that the primary force behind the change was an internal subjective experience. Unless to a greater degree you are forced through chemical induction to stop smoking. It was your "supernatural" experience that made you stop.
@@_cheezy_ Well 2 things, 1 the statement that theres nothing necessarily "supernatural" about a mystical experience is incorrect. Your talking about Petersons definition here, not yours. He has pointed out his position on his definition of supernatural. Just as Dillahunty gave his. They literally agreed on each others position being one of marit.
2 bupropion is not as you call it, a reliable drug treatment for inducing smoking cessation. If you look into the abstracts on bupropion, you'll find at best it has a 20% chance of inducing smoking cessation, and mind you this is on individuals actively trying to quit smoking. So under the best of conditions, bupropion only has a 20% chance of working. This is so far below what is considered reliable, it literally falls under unreliable. Reliable starts at 60% and up, not 50%, not 30%, and certainly not 20%.
God, I'd give up a kidney to see Hitchens have this talk with Peterson lmao. He would have blown a gasket.
I have to say, I’m a well-educated person with an above-average vocabulary. I’ve been studying theism, atheism, and philosophy in my free time for the past few years. I’m pretty well-versed in most of the topics and arguments for these subjects along with their vocabulary. And yet, I get lost in almost every sentence Jordan Peterson says. I’m sure if I really tried and had the patience, I could figure out what he’s saying for the most part, but I’m also convinced a lot of it is just word salad that is intentionally trying to deceive it’s listeners into thinking it’s a more intelligent sentence than it is. Any person who is well-educated in their field should be able to explain what they mean in laymen’s terms. Not doing that may work on some people, but for those who are educated to even a small degree, can see how idiotic it is to debate a topic in a way that their listeners can’t understand. How do you expect us to be convinced if you can’t communicate in a clear and concise manner? Absolutely ludicrous.
Exactly. Sometimes I think he pulls out high end vocabulary just t confuse people thinking they csnt comprehend.
As a Christian myself, I love Jordan Peterson, however, I don't think his defense of theism is particularly good. Looking back on his previous debates, he admits now that he wouldn't have gone about it the way he did.
@@garintj1547 yeah I definitely understand that. As an atheist, I’m a huge fan of Matt Dillahunty, but even so, I also felt like he could have gone about the debate better too. I think both of them were just not prepared for how each other liked to argue 😂
I don’t get why everyone has problem with what and how he says. I’m not native English speaker but I have no problem comprehending what he wants to say.
This debate sucked anyway, they both were weak and not interesting.
100% he does that on purpose
'Rule based systems don't seem to work in real life..' but yes please buy my book called 12 rules for life... This man is just...
Nuts
...nested in a metaphorical substrate
A book that you've never read.
@@chriswalker9478 read and he even says you cannot live without rules and responsibillities and yet comes out to say rules dont work
To say nothing of the 10 commandments
Christian: "What's it like being an atheist?"
Atheist: "Do you believe in, Lono, the Polynesian sky god?"
Christian: "No."
Atheist: "Like that."
You describe the typical atheist who does not know what he is talking about. Tell the joke about the "sky daddy" stupid atheist. :D
Angel & Jarrid, both are incorrect. He was showing how its possible not to believe in something, this he did very well. The christian by his own label would not believe in Lono. He/She understands how its quite possible to not believe in something... thus on some level we are all athiest to some gods.
David Jones To put more simply, I'm just not convinced that Lono, Marduk, Shiva, Odin, Yahweh, Zeus or any of the other thousands of gods and goddesses humans thought up actually exist. I have read and heard people making claims about their existences, but they have all failed to provide evidence that can be repeated, tested, and demonstrated by anyone, anywhere, at any time.
@David Jones Which god? There's thousands to choose from? And making the claim that atheism is, somehow, a "religious" belief, just proves that you do not actually understand atheism. Atheism is religion like Off is a TV channel, like barefoot is a type of shoe, like bald is hair color. It is the lack of belief.
@David Jones Sorry, David, but I can no longer see your question: "Do you know everything." To answer that question, I have no problem admitting that I do not know everything. Which is why I stand firmly on the statement: I do not know, therefore, I shall not claim that I do."
JP is the Rube Goldberg of pop psychology. Everything must be as complicated and convoluted as possible to accomplish very little.
well it's part of his strategy, that does infact accomplish way too much... making people trust his lies about trans people, climate etc. and strengthen the conservative status quo with some fascist elements
@@JannisSicker : His demeanor and verbosity are meant to make him appear that he's being more profound than he actually is... which is very little.
There's alot of variety in how people communicate the concepts in pop psychology.
To accomplish very little if at all.
I like both these guys for very different reasons, but at several points I did find myself thinking, " No, Jordan, what are you saying?!". I have to side with Matt in regards to this particular topic. It was a pleasure to watch, thanks!😁
Against God I'm guessing
Okay 😅
Close your eyes and imagine Jeff Goldblum is having a deep philosophical conversation with Kermit the frog
Sir you are hilarious... XD
Holy shit
So smug about the books he has read and how really really hard his own book is that I think maybe he is over compensating for the size of his__
_car. !
Lmaoooooooooo 😂😂😂😂😂😂
DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO!😠
The last comment - total agreement from Matt. "I'm very pleased that these sorts of discussions are taking place and that there's an avid public audience for them." This is what matters. We need to encourage more discussions.
People talking about "demolishing" "destroying" "slaughtering" are part of the problem.
This was a discussion, hardly a debate, between two important speakers that represent differing takes on life and meaning. We need more, and I'm sure we'll get them.
David Barber - Did we not just watch the same video? Jordan schooled Matt, but then Matt demolished Jordan. Matt however went too far and challenged Jordan, instantly regretted it. Jordan then proceeded to slaughter Matt's arguments but then Matt destroyed Jordan Peterson.
The internet makes me sick sometimes. Never debate or conversation, only argument and "Wtf fucking idiot you're wrong didn't you watch the video". Apparently I can't appreciate both individuals and realize they may both have something to give to people wanting to learn
Blank Hmm, actually I never ever heard Harris say anything I disagree with.
Peterson might be on second place, it’s discussions like these that ruin his otherwise flawless reputation as a critical thinker. ;)
David Barber
Completely agree. In fact, you saved me the trouble of writing a similar comment. Two intelligent, articulate public speakers having a spirited yet respectful conversation which challenged themselves and the audience -- and we get to hear it for free. Nothing to bitch about here.
David Barber all that matters to you are your affections. That is what you live for
This is where many start to stop believing not only in God but also in Peterson.
Thats true for me for sure … i just never believed in any mystical being
God exists, repent.
@@JC__, There is a difference between “repent” and “do penance.” Stop reading bad translation.
@@pmaitrasm who taught you that
@@JC__, You have not read the New Testament.
Whenever you have a question due to misunderstanding, asking JP will leave you more confused😅 when it comes to religion that is😊
I used to be a believer until I took an arrow to the metaphorical substrate of my ethos
Now this is good comedy! 😆😂😂😂
I used to be a believer that we came from primordial soup.
@@justinsossa2957 Well no, he thinks soup turned into cells, and cells turned into simple life, and simple life turned into vertebrates, and vertebrates moved onto the land, became mammals, and after an amount of time difficult to fathom mammals became men. Whereas you think sky god did some amateur sculpting on some dirt one day and then never felt like sculpting again after that, even after thousands of years of recorded history.
@@Alic4444 No there was no magical soup that brewed dirt into living cells. No humans do not have a shrew for a grandfather.
One may subsume the substrate by sublimation the result is subtle but sublime.
If Peterson was a ditch digger and the boss told him to dig a hole, Peterson would ask the boss what defines a hole. After the boss defined the dimensions of the hole, Peterson would argue, I’m not sure that accurately defines what a hole is. Then the boss ask Peterson what he thinks defines a hole, Peterson says it’s really complicated. I defined what a hole is in my book. But for purposes of discussion let us assume a hole is a void below the surface of the ground, but not deep enough to reach China.
Brilliant analogy. It's a clever way of fence sitting
And it’s a lot more complicated to define a hole than most people would think. There’s quite a bit of metaphorical substrate beneath what you and I might call the surface. And I know you’re not asking me to remove the metaphorical substrate!
And then when someone criticized him for asking what defines a hole he would get offended and insist he had never said that.
And after hours of discussion, there would still be no hole. Only a very tired boss and a very smug PhD.
He's a con man.
This was a great debate and the statement he doesn't blame religion but the people who abuse it was eye opening for me. Thanks
"Welll it's a complicated problem and..." He really can't help himself
_"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."_ - Albert Einstein
_"He didn't say that but yes"_ - The Therapist Productions
Actually - you're paraphrasing a famous lecture of Richard Feynman - but you are 100% correct.
I find the metaphysical substrate of this written contribution to be invalid in it's perceptions and conceptions despite the nature of the responses being complimentary and congratulatory of the apparent validity of the claims held within.
@@Juniversal Beautifully verbose, not to mention the quote is incorrect ... but you're correct - the responses have no bearing on its validity.
Many many things cannot be explained simply because they are very complicated in nature. For instance I'm a mechanical engineer and every damn class I had ( 40+ classes and each 4 months long) was rediculously complicated. And not unnecessarily complicated.
the sound guy clearly has no metaphysical substrate
Haha came here to see if anyone else noticed. Silence is so distracting
There are an infinite number of ways to turn up the audio in a video before u upload it
@@danilopompey754 in that case most of us might be dead if not for religion as well. Who knows how much of an impact religion had on wars fought between tribes. maybe religion provided our ancestors that little bit of extra motivation or sense of duty or confidence of being backed by god to win a war. Without religion they might have lost and we never would have existed either. Theres no good choice there either one would be equally devastating.
@@danilopompey754 in that case since religion came first its logical that eliminating people from history longer ago would have a bigger affect. Like cutting a branch from a tree. The lower the branch the more leaves will be removed. Also without religion theres no guarantee we would have even got to science.
@@danilopompey754 if religion was science how can you ask to make a choice between them? And I hope you realize saying things like stop, and cut the bamboozle, at the beginning of every reply makes it hard to take you seriously. You are right about science being a new religion though its becoming just as cult like these days, it's kind of scary.
Did anyone count how many times Peterson said metaphorical substrate?
Metaphorical substrate? Isn't that like whey powder?
It's a common trend he follows. He doesn't like to make simple statements for simple arguments. He has to jump to the meta realm to make his ridiculous argument barely feasible and coherent.
Wow...really? Two times... Matt said it 3 times (granted, he was asking for clarification, confirmation of his understanding on Peterson's argument)... so, what's the point? One of those big words some else critique Peterson for using?
To be fair, he also said "material substrate".
I literally learned of Matt Dillahunty today
Sorry mate but...NO...@@scotttavernier720
He's awesome! Brutal, but awesome
"Except when you are dead, you are not 'being', so there's no 'well-being'" @ 49:41 is such a golden moment. 🤣
If i m gonna destroy your whole career had a face
He really got him
If you need a metaphysical medium to understand this concept... you might be jordan peterson.
Jordan was just de-railing the points... Like all the points
Actually this is a straight-up assumption
To me the difference between Matt and JP..... what Matt says still makes sense after you think about it.
Matt also isn't a walking hypocrite telling a world of incels how to live whilst not even following his own rules. He (matt) isn't great, but he also isn't that.
@@jaquandrejones it's not inherently hypocritical. Whilst that could be a pretty agreeable summation to a lot of folk, I see a man preaching to a choir that is a benefit if they follow his word.
@@MatchwoodX JP says don't do drugs, yet is addicted to popping pills. If you make a living giving incels advice, at least follow your own advice. That my friend, is a 100% concrete example of him being a hypocrite. Not to mention he's definitely friends with nazis, but that's an entirely different issue I have with him lmap
@@jaquandrejones one doesn't stop making sense, and stop being overall good for others in speech, just because they suffer from addiction. You also cannot assume he's an active addict. Nor you the right to judge him for it. Who are you to JP? Have you ever done something illegal? Is your family imperfect, and so on. Don't hate on someone for the sake of hating on them. JP clearly is a good person and speaks well thought intelligent topics.
@@MatchwoodX I love how JP defenders literally go "dog whistling nazis and building an incel army is objectively good"
EPIC first question aimed at JP! Well done random sir.
To which, it’s ironic, he pretty much talks for five minutes to say “I don’t know”. But he can’t say that outright.
I am so happy Matt says in the beginning, like hey man that applause shit gotta go.
Anyone: [silence]
Peterson: Well it depends on what you mean by "[silence]"
Luis Rodríguez this is a good comment
Hahahaha lmao!!!
hey man great comment never heard that before
yayy… same joke posted 1,000 times from JP haters...
@@Jaryism i support the majority of Peterson ideas, is just a joke, not the best one but funny enough to me and some 200 others autists
"Good Morning!" said Bilbo, and he meant it. The sun was shining, and the grass was very green. But Gandalf looked at him from under long bushy eyebrows that stuck out further than the brim of his shady hat.
"What do you mean?" he said. "Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?"
"All of them at once," said Bilbo.
J. R. R. Tolkien, "The Hobbit".
You can replace "good morning" with "well-being" xD
🤤TALK NORMAL/DUMB TO ME🤤
You got me emotional there
given the context, this comment is no less than absolutely perfect
ruclips.net/video/JtAIvup6QOU/видео.html
The question Matt should’ve posed was, if there was a creator who deeply loved us and wanted us to know him, why would taking a hallucinogenic substance be a part of discovering more about who he is? In making an honest attempt at discovering whether or not a God exists or whether or not there is in fact a supernatural realm why is it that I need to get high?
right at 51:00 jordan actually gains the upper hand on Matt!!!!! omfg!! he got him with the " how do you know death is worse than life?" it's actually.. a damn fair question. and the only challenging one left for us atheists.. fascinating
well, how would anyone find out that death is better than life?
let’s assume death is preferable to life- would it be moral to lead species to excinction? is death preferable in the sense that it is an absence of life or a cessation of life? what ramifications would any of this have on a functioning society?
He [Peterson] gains nothing here. Matt's answer is the proof, it wasn't worse we wouldn't be here. It's easier to die than to live, but life is the only existence we know of so rational beings choose known life over unknown death. This even holds those who claim to know what happens after we die. For our Christian neighbors why not just appoint someone "send" babies to heaven after they're baptized but before they can sin. then have that person absolve their sins for "sending" the children? Because even they don't believe it deep down they too cling to life even though they are told to "believe" that there is a greater reward after dying.
It’s great how JP needs people to define the word “truth” and “reality” but his fine with using “Mystical experience” and “transcendent experience” without ever explaining what those experiences entail.
Well, did anyone ask him?
I don't get your point? Mystical and transcendent are umbrella terms. Reality and truth aren't or at least shouldn't be. You need to define reality and truth as a collective. You both have to agree on what "reality" and "truth are.
They aren't umbrellas terms if you understand them or know what they mean. He didn't ask him because he didn't need clarification.
@Optikal Winter Exactly. I was very happy when Matt asked JBP what he meant by "metaphorical substrate" (of the ethos)
@@chrisprendez2276 truth and reality are nouns as mystical and transcendent are both adjectives. So yes, I'm right. They are completely different types of words.
Adjectives don't need to be defined but nouns do. Nouns are objective, adjectives are quite vague descriptive or attribute words for nouns.
" Words can have no meaning if they are used in such a way that no sharp conclusions can be drawn "
- Richard Feynman
"If you can't explain it simply, you haven't understood it well enough"
Albert Einstein
Peterson also remarks that if you can't explain it to a 8 - 10 year old, then you don't understand it very deeply, you might just be repeating what you heard.
I thinks he understands that Matt here understands him perfectly, he isn't thinking on the RUclips public while the conversation
And my personal favorite: "Brevity is the soul of wit."
"Verbosity is the enemy of clarity."
JohnnyReb
@marcelojesustorresarroyo4176 So, this is actually something Feynman said as a part of his "Feynman" teaching method. He says if you can't teach it to a 5 year old, then you dont understand it well enough. Lets not credit JP with the legendary Physicist being quoted here.
That's definitely something someone who is intelligent would assume is indicative of a "well enough" conclusion to the active learning of complex subjects. Isn't trying to explain something part of getting to know something "well enough"'? When you learn something, don't you encounter more questions because you learned something new? IF learning is a process in which more complexity is revealed, how or even when is "well enough" even possible?
Verbose for verbosity's sake is not useful. Trying to flesh out as many potentials as possible can be useful. Who gets to determine which is which? The person who's incapable of assessing complex language? The one who wants to dismiss challenging ideas because comprehension was restricted by bias? There's a "well enough" to learning?
I'll state this simply because Socratic is apparently unfashionable. Come to a philosophical debate thinking simple language is on the menu. Right, right.
I have a PhD in chemistry. I am a post doc researcher. Is there a god? Maybe yes, maybe not, but at the end of the day, it doesn't make a difference to us who seek to find how the world works. Science is not against god, science tries to find how things work, whereas religion tries to find who made these things...
Take a shot every time JP says "metaphysical". You will definitely have some version of mystical experience.
Whether it’s rum or just water you’re bound to see god. Lol
Ok I did it and now I’m dead. They have RUclips in the afterlife. Now what?
Of Heroin or a paralytic ?
That’s genuinely hilarious 😂
Proclivity is another one
All I want in life is a hierarchical axiomatic metaphorical substrate
LMAO
Also to be able to clean my room and slay my chaos dragons😂
Ha! Then You must be a rationalist atheist evolutionary type trying to blow your ethos apart
You have one. if you haven't noticed, then you need Peterson's advice more than you believe you do.
@@craigsmith1443 SMH, STFU. Just enjoy the joke. Nobody cares about how smart you want people to think you are. Loser. 🖕🤫🤐
30 minutes into the video, I see an interesting conversation between these two, interesting and enjoyable. It is quite frustrating reading so many comments about "the winner of the debate" etc, etc. So many people do not know that debates are conversations to broaden the spectrum of ideas instead of a match that picks the winner and its loudest fans.
Thank you
Matt was just yappin
Facts don't care about your feelings lmao athiest
As a new born Atheist, I began this video tentatively, thinking Peterson was gonna destroy a lot of my presuppositions.
I finished totally surprised that his arguments seemed so rudimentary, even to my admittedly limited knowledge!
He uses a lot of words to express simple ideas, it helps him seem more deep and thoughtful. And helps him never take a stance on anything, so he can't be held responsible for it.
People who lack intellectual curiosity tend to see this as the height of intelligence.
@MizterMissile Ain't that the truth!
I always wondered why I couldn't listen to him for long, back when I believed in all that garbage! Now its pretty obvious why. 😄😄
@@unrecognizedtalent3432
Let me be Peterson for a moment here.
Although the quintessential facet of my gastronomic predilections inexorably gravitates towards the consummate amalgamation of ambrosial comestibles, my proclivity for the gustatory realm invariably culminates in an unequivocal and unwavering preference for the perennially cherished and time-honored repast commonly denominated as pizza.
In normal human words what I just said here was: I like pizza.
But for most people that first sentence will sound allot more profound and more intellectual even tho I said nothing special, just used bunch of complex words and made one long word salad, just like JP likes to do.
@@Zripas Yeah, I totally agree with that. Having a 2 hour long lecture just to touch on a few different ideas is what Jordan always does.
And to those poor people who think they're getting way smarter by listening to him ramble on about very little, I'd just like to say there are way better options out there for getting smart, and they work MUCH faster and better!
not to mention how he sophistically evaded very straightforward questions, asserting that they must be more complicated than presented, it seems he'd rather jump into a bottomless pit and move the goal posts than actually answer any question succinctly. If there's one thing he's good at its sophistry
Such patience in Dillahunty to sit through that and not intervene.
"Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon
Jens Danbolt Matt’s concept of God is flawed .. it’s at the 1 hour mark... “ sits on high” ... framed from this setting, it’s easy to take God as fictitious.. God is reality: more than that according to the Bible.. it’s clearly hard to define or measure that size of a thing... I’d make it comparable to a neutrino trying to conceive the size of the Galaxy.
Jordan also doesn’t have the greatest concept of God either.. but because he is open to realities that exist past 3 dimensions, I believe he is closer.
To answer Matt’s demand for a supernatural event ; flying in an airplane... naturally we were never
Meant to travel at that height or that speed...by conceptualizing something in the mind of man that allowed us to defy nature through nature, caused the supernatural phenomenon of flight.
vrolie 2020 it’s not my concept.. it’s the Bible’s concept. Objectively taken from it’s contents... I mean there are a few key traits that are really hard to actually visualize: omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, infinite.
Like those are just a few of the traits given in the Bible, some others being truth, judgement, and love... not having them.. just is them.
The title given to Moses was “I am” as if to say all that is, I AM.
as humanity has portrayed that through visual art ( despite that being part of the things NOT to do in scripture) we have mainstreamed the concept of the ‘magic floaty guy with a beard in the sky with the nekkid babies” as most peoples point of reference for what Christians believe in... still nowhere in the Bible, still nonsense.
I’m not going to eeeven pretend I have a full grasp on God. Seeing as I (and I believe most of us) don’t really have a full grasp on the measure of the sun, or the distance of a light year really in comparison to the size of a person: like sure we can get figures and show diagrams I’m not saying it’s not figurable; I’m saying to truly appreciate it is rather difficult.. example being our understanding of what the earth looks like
In pictures is the same as an astronaut’s that has been on an Apollo mission... but I’m sure that individual has a much deeper appreciation of it.. or even smaller , our idea of the size of a blue whale versus one who has swam next to one.
ijs if Matt here wants to see God: it’s akin to one atom on a piece of paper asking another to draw on the paper, the State and city where the street with the house’s floor holds up the table where that paper is setting.
The evidence is that the paper is being sustained on the plane of the table; but for the atom that will never suffice🤷🏽♂️.
The only sort of “evidence” that even begins to show some sort of satisfactory substance OTHER then all of reality ( for the believer) is a clip I saw conducted by a doctor or something I saw on tongue talking... look it up .. it just shows that while individuals experiencing the phenomena were hooked up
To some sort of device: the parts of the brain that govern speech weren’t active... as if to say, they weren’t causing it to happen.. and while you might be like “so what?” Wellllll that DOES match up with what is stated in the word about it.
@@charleshylton1231 So looking at this comment and your previous one you have both contradicted yourself and critically misunderstood a few things. By your definition of supernatural, almost everything a human does in the current world is supernatural. Not only that, but the definition of natural becomes muddy and confusing, and nearly pointless. Then there's you take on the god of the bible. You are directly contradicting yourself with this comment because you are taking what the bible describes in god, and twisting it so it creates a definition better suited to your own rationality. The reason you do this, I assume, and potentially the response you may have to this is that everything has to be interpreted on some level to make sense, but the difference is that the god of the bible just doesn't make sense. Guessing at what the bible means when it says "I am" is all well and good, but without an objective way to define it, it ultimately becomes meaningless. It's all well and good to say that God could exist in a higher or further dimension, but if you try and conceive a three dimensional being trying to communicate with a two-dimensional one you understand that it is completely impossible. Existing in a higher dimension is not godliness, it's just different. Then there's the problem that God is an all-encompassing being and we are but atoms to a piece of paper. This does not come from a direct description of god, but rather many indirect ones. There are too many contradictions and proven impossibilities for a God as described in the bible to exist, so then you could say that they are just an incredibly powerful being ie Lovecraft, but then you are making an argument from conjecture based on the vague descriptions given by the bible. Matt's description of God is built on the same functional principles as yours, but he also accounts for what God says, not just what he might be.
Ranga Jesus awfully bold to assume that most of what humanity does ISNT supernatural: and no there is no “reworking” if scripture for it to fit my subjective view: the Bible says to put “precept upon precept and line upon line” or subject matter with subject matter... there is no fuzzing of the eyes to make me see what I want... and throughout scripture it speaks of a God that transcends time, space and matter.. using the term “being” still ends up putting God in a finite status so that doesn’t even define.
So this is where Peterson’s “what do you mean” thing bears weight. If there is already a limited view on what God is before asking for the proof of evidence of God.. how can there even be given a satisfactory answer?
vrolie 2020 example? Please... also: please don’t conflate Roman Catholic dogma with biblical doctrine... we can get into it IF you want (I don’t like to Catholic bash but it’s honestly based on their own records of what they did versus what the Bible says) but the two are NOT the same ... Catholicism is not biblical starting at th concept of their god(s).
Hey Jordan...you want a beer?
JP: Well my desires are based in cultural and social constraints. For instance, this is a party, and i'm expected to act a certain way regardless of my personal desires, so I can't really say no, in the context of this party.
Regardless
he wouldnt say irregardless because it’s s not a word
I get the distinct feeling he only talks like this when there is a camera present and money to be made
Happy Homesteader you’re right it is a word but a redundant negation of a suffix and a prefix is a bad word
I hate when a person is thorough and digs beneath the layer of cynical, surface, physical dismissive arguments.
Jordan's argument is "you just don't realize you believe in god" Unreal......just unreal
JP jumped to AI as a cop out but it ended up betraying his ignorance.
AI models are actually pure rules. You can write out all AI models as a mathematical equation. It would be a massive equation and humans would not peer an insight into what's going on, but it's an equation nonetheless. Therefore, given some input (and not injecting randomness or temperature like some applications do), the AI would generate the same output every time. It is an entirely rules-based system.
I'd add that while yes, AI is an equation, it's one that operates on training. "Training" is the adaptation of the parameters in the equation to best predict previously seen input. These parameters are, in essence, a compressed a model of the world experienced by the AI in training, in a very dense format. So yes, AI is a set of "rules", but the rules are parameterized by the reality that AI has experienced in training.
Within a few decades of inventing the transistor, we've already created a weak form of intelligence, and some claim even the first forms of strong intelligence. The thing is, the mechanisms we've come up with have ended up being quite similar to our own intelligence, without having designed for them explicitly. Human sleep is functionally very similar to an AI's training. Our brain has generative capability when we dream, and we've created models that can do that ex nihilo after training. AIs can even hallucinate output under certain circumstances, which to me seems like the first glimpses of creative thought.
To me, it doesn't seem far fetched at all that our own intelligence would derived from the same base principles we've discovered while attempting to create artificial intelligence.
Yeah but it's going to attain a mind of it's own and destroy us.
Totally agree. 'AI has no rules' Seriously, how stupid can he be? The methods are purely deterministic if you use the same weights and initial random seeds.
The point is that you can't really describe the exact way in which an AI system makes decisions. The knowledge is implicit and can't be stated in a list of rules. A neural network still is a deterministic function that contains encoded knowledge, but it's in a fuzzy form.
Every time Jordan speaks it comes off as a filibuster, word salad meanwhile Matt is direct and straight to the point. Easier to defend something you actually believe rather than have to make it up on the spot.
That is because Peterson is a sophist. I do not know if he has ever come up with something of substance.
This comment is disinformation! Null and void for being deceptive and evil!
Word salad maybe to people that lack comprehension skills. Matt just sounds like an angry man baby
Its because you don't understand him, in a very fundamental way.
@@Mnnwer Perhaps you do. Can you name one contribution he made that advanced our knowledge on any subject? Please, be very specific.
Matt: "Water is wet."
Jordan: "Ah ha! So much for skepticism eh?"
Is water wet? If you dive beneath the surface of a pool are you wet? Or are you wet only after reemerging?
@@OokamiKageGinGetsu you’re wet when you’re in water. And your wet when water is on you. It stands to reason that water is wet when it is also on or inside itself since both of those states are identical to the state of water in general. Furthermore, water can’t not be wet by the same reasoning. And don’t try to squeeze ice into this. Because ice isn’t water, it’s ice. And if you get water on it, it’s wet ice - unless it’s hot water that you get on it…then it’s just more water and it’s also still wet.
So yeah. Water is wet.
@@Burnsez Is wet a descriptor, a state of being, or a sensation?
And what about Particle Man? Does he get wet, or does water get him instead?
Remember, there is nothing self-evident to a skeptic.
@@OokamiKageGinGetsu stay under the water long enough without coming up to the surface and your skin will go through osmosis and begin to shrivel and soften. So ya, emerging to the surface has nothing to do with being wet.
" i dont know how to answer your question, but my answer to your question is in my book"
--Jordan Sophist.... i mean Peterson
Matt is so laid back and Jordan is leant forward, says everything.
i don't k ow what that says.
@@kannix386 Jordan needs a poopsie
Those black chairs are really cool.
The only comment I can wholeheartedly agree with on this video!
Repent and be be born again believing on Messiah Lord Jesus, nothing more important, today is the day of salvation and Jesus can show you the truth, its not blind faith you can see it for yourself if you truly seek like promised. John 3:3 unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God / Luke 13:3 unless you repent, you will all likewise perish ⚠️❤️⚠️❤️
@florian negar and "cool"
@Kid
Well , u know what they say ........
“Black chairs matter”
@@bisratamare3265 Where is Jesus?
no matter what you say, a system that corrects itself if it is wrong is always better then a system that doesn't
Peterson facilitates the improvement of Christianity's interpretation of the Bible in his Genesis series. Very interesting.
@@davidmartin2631 a system based on fallacy "improving" itself is redundant.
@@moragslothe6449 there's fallacy in it for sure, especially when interpretted too literally or without context, but it's not all fallacy
@@davidmartin2631 JP has no authority to say anything about religion, only churches have that power.
@@davidmartin2631 if the bible is supposed to be “interpreted” why do we need to understand the interpretation of only ONE person??? Which in this case is JP I fking guess…you cant use your brain?
"You can't stop smoking without supernatural intervention" 15:04
Maybe one of the stupidest things I've ever heard spoken out loud.
"Or at least not reliably" you forgot your bias
@@rockweirdo8147still ridiculous
@@soka227 - In what way?
@@rockweirdo8147we can't prove that anyone has ever quit smoking through supernatural means.
We can observe people quit smoking every day through natural means.
@@panzeratom695 - Did you even listen to what JP said? He said those that take it and have a supernatural experience are consistently more likely to quit. Any other ways people have quit smoking don't consistently work.
Therefore, we can observe that it works. Unless you're going to say everyone in said study were lying for no reason.
I’ve tried to make it through this…a few times….I just can’t take Lobster Man’s dishonesty. 😢
Matt: “you can stop smoking without supernatural intervention”
Jordan:”no, not really.”
Wow, coming from a clinical psychologist I’d really expect a better answer.
Jung said the same. 12 steps programs are based on that.
@@0Magicmush0 12 step programs are processes that are designed to address psychological addictions not physiological addictions. Smoking is generally a physiological addiction. The way to deal with physiological addictions is to suck it up until the withdrawals pass. Such a method is not usually effective for psychological addictions.
Either way;
no need for the supernatural.
@@carnifexprincipium5586 smoking is not physiological at all the bodily addiction is laughable. I have quit smoking myself.
@@0Magicmush0 sure, there certainly are psychological components to all addictions and the degree of psychological factors varies from person to person but to assert that chemical dependancy is not real? Really?
@@carnifexprincipium5586 I said it's laughable, I meant that it is a laughably small factor for cigarettes not that it isn't real. But well our thoughts and psychology is also generated by chemicals and patterns of neurons in our head so in a sense it's all physiological.
psychological state is but an emergent property of our physiological state so. I don't really know where your line between what you call physiological dependency and psychological dependency is.
In my experience the (what I call psychological) main factor of what makes quitting smoking so hard is that because you have been 'trained' by the constant coming and going of nicotine to see smoking as an essential part of feeling happy and satisfied. You see it as a genuine crutch. It's a bit like the concept of learned helplesness.
The bodily sensations of quitting nicotine are relatively mild and hardly noticable.
"We'd lose the metaphoric substrate of our ethos".... wow... Yes - after carefully breaking that down, we can understand the sentence. But Peterson speaks so quickly as if that abstract sentence is as simple and clear as saying "the sky is blue"
He could have said the exact same thought but phrased it this way:
"If we lost the metaphors that help us understand our values, we would be confused and unsure about what we believe or how we should act."
The difference is.... now that his idea isn't clouded with complexity, Peterson's actual opinion on religion becomes clear. He believes that a life grounded in faith is overall a positive good for most humans, and without it - we wouldn't progress as a society. Very different from actual belief. CosmicSkeptic has a decent video on Peterson's view of god I believe.
I have a hard time believing that Peterson doesn't do this on purpose to confuse his audience and lull them into submission.
I think he's said before that (in his view) that a good expression of ideas consists of summarizing ideas to as few words as possible. Unfortunately when you try to do that, you make your words more abstract, blurred and complicated than needed and you eventually start talking alot and saying very little. It works well when your audience consists of other academics who spend their time reading obsfucated works, not so good on a general audience.
ruclips.net/video/yJ5WNtiXHFU/видео.html
Except for that it's total nonsense.
- The metaphorical SUBSTRATE would not be a religious story, but a specific set of rules that underlies all religions.
- If you lost your faith, you could still treat the religious stories as illustrations of non-religious moral principles, so you wouldn't loose anything.
Maybe the best conversation of all time.
Seeing this 3 years later, I do it with different eyes and knowledge which help me tell how clearly Matt won the debate, and to my satisfaction since after rewatching this I went to rewatch the one with Harris which was very frustrating for the constant dodging and word salad by Jordan. Matt succeeded at being very direct in adressing Peterson's falacious arguments and misunderstanding of skepticism, perhaps because of this Peterson has not debated him again whereas with Harris, who has a bit less agressive approach, he's had several debates already.
Matt just has this quiet confidence and concise way of speaking. You can even see him just sitting back comfortably in his chair. He's not trying to prove anything.. he has the confidence of logic and reason on his side. You can see Peterson leaning forward and aggressively interjecting constantly while Matt is talking..His arguments just don't come across as honest as Matt's do.. he sits on the fence and tries to distract from the argument by talking with confusing word salad and trying to challenge everything Matt says. It just feels like he wants to prove something.. he wants to prove how intelligent he is. I'm sure I could be wrong but that's what the body language and styles of arguments said to me.
@@Shmaples I don't think you're wrong. It seems important to JP to be seen as an intellectual, and when the audience laugh at him, he takes it very personal and lashes out. His body language often looks like a self conscious performance and he uses big words and elaborate ways to sound smart, instead of making it simpler for the audience.
Matt finally asked JP what about your beliefs are tied to the Christian God. JP doesn’t answer this question, all of his statements lead to a god or spirit but not a Christian one by any means. If I was Matt i would ask what about the Christian god makes you believe in that god versus Allah.
So you've lived for three more years and still don't comprehend JP's word salad? Maybe after another 3 years then....
@@marcusn254that popularity has probably gone to his head. One time he called himself the smartest guy in the room and then realizing how immature and distasteful the comment was. He had almost overnight celebrity status for simply arguing with some delusional college students