@roshinvarghese6879 You think maybe his argument is that too much points in that direction in psychology, meaning, instinct, etc. Therefore there is a transcendent conscious principle that orders these things, and ordered them in such a way that conscious beings must align with him to properly function, and in effect his only issue is either he presents it withinthe argument he found compelling, or that he can't make the last leap to say he knows for sure that this being is 100% portrayed correctly in the Bible, but rather that his conviction is close enough to what would be recognizable as the true deity, that he concludes that it must be the most accurate reflection, but given that his reasoning grants the difference between faith and knowledge, he only argues it in so far as he can make a strong argument rather than forcing the last leap of faith on a person? Maybe you should just let people come along at their own speed, which is either what he's letting others do, or the journey he himself is on. Just because he won't say definitely that he knows what God is while making in argument that there is one doesn't mean you know his own private convictions beyond what he feels he can argue with sufficient certainty to argue publicly.
@@roshinvarghese6879I think he is already Catholic. While he is hitting Truth, Bishop Barron is simultaneously hitting the Beauty front drawing people to the church. I could be wrong but it seems that way. It might be intentional he is using the abstract language to bridge the gap because he goes in and out of direct language consistent with our theology. To play devils advocate I get tired of our Catholic brothers and sisters painting him as “dangerous” because that seems to be trendy at the moment, it’s a Protestant mindset. Know and find comfort in truth and to your point yes correct him with the correct order of delivering truth.
@sweatincowboy4692 I pray he does find faith, but tremendous damage can be done if he keeps preaching Christ's teachings in a materialistic framework. Islam, Mormonism, New Agers, JP, etc. appropriate Christ's sublime moral teachings but conveniently disregard His claims of divinity, heaven, hell, the resurrection, etc.
"explain his thinking further" or, more accurately, expose that Peterson has nothing. Worse, he not only has nothing but insults those who refuse to be convinced by fairy tales and mysticism. Disappointing.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
@@onionsans I agree. But I'm sure the original poster was thinking of a group being the majority or insane. I was just curious who they were thinking of.
@CameronRabie this is why, in christian theology, hell and the lake of fire are also referred to as "the second death". Because no matter how good or bad you are, no matter whether you're saved or not, you will pass from this life through death to the other side. So the verse saying, "the wages of sin is death" *could* be referring to physical death (as in, some sins will lead to death) but can also be understood as the final death. The second death. The eternal death. A death that, once passed through, is the end, rather than a doorway into what lies next.
@@WarPoet-In-Training Yes, this first death is just relocation. Its the true death in the lake of fire that people need to worry about. The wages of sin is death, easily applies to both the body and the soul. As both were corrupted. When Jesus came, he did not come to save the body, he saved US, our souls, and filled those who believed with the Holy Spirit. We are protected from the second death and do not have to fear it, it has no power over us. Neither do we fear the first death, since it brings us to our Lord, our long awaited reunion. But while we are alive, we have work to do, which the Lord has ordained for us to do.
@@WarPoet-In-Training yes. the 'wages of sin is death'. It is not referring to physical death, but spiritual death. The physical things around us, the planets, the stars, are all temporary. Spirit is eternal. Physically, we all die once. If you happen to be a believer in Jesus the Christ, then you'll be with Him in Heaven for eternity. If you are not a believer, then you'll be subjected to the second death - the spiritual death. Revelation 21:8 - _But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death.”_
"Asking for evidence for god is an illegal move" If god gave us the ability to ask for evidence, and since asking for evidence is a prerequisite for coming to the truth, how can he ask of us to not do the same for his existence? And if rationality should not be applied on him, then why do we try to logically explain his decisions? His actions would be nonsensical to us, but instead we seem to only want to apply logic wherever it makes god look good.
that still implies that god is a rational, thinking being. Its possible to understand god as not conscious like we are, more as an intrinsic force. many different ways to interpret it, but its just easiest to argue against the typical Abrahamic view because most Christians dont explain it very well to begin with, if they understand it at all.
@@zaclovesschool2273 Saying you understand it better than others implies you have ways of proving to me that the others are wrong, no? And I mean prove, not theorize.
@@MarioTsota I'm not saying I understand all of it better than others, I'm just saying there are many ways to understand complex texts like the Bible, and some end up missing the initial ideas behind it due to not understanding the structure of the text itself. That it's made of different types of writing, some poetry, some narrative, some in descriptive passages, etc. And therefore needs to be carefully read. But if people don't do that, or believe completely in the words of someone who doesn't bother to think for himself, then I'd argue people set themselves up for misunderstanding. I like the way Jordan interprets it personally, maybe many others would say it's blasphemous or whatever...but I enjoy the way he thinks about it. Unless you mean for me to prove the existence of God or angels or whatever, then sorry I can't do that without either an essay or a long honest talk, but even then it's still a belief I have and it's not even in the way most western people would think of God. So unless you were wanting to explore the spiritual stuff already, not much I say would convince you. I can say that my views align ~the God of Spinoza, but I've explored things like Nondual Saivist Tantra, western esotericism (arguably born from mostly left current Tantra), but am also someone who loves learning science, and I don't see conflict between the sciences and spirituality. Though depends, if you believe the world is 6000 years old that's rough. Also to note, again I've not read the Bible myself so I'm not an expert, I've just taken courses on it's composition and history.
@@zaclovesschool2273 That's good and all but arguing that I or others are wrong because you "believe" something to be true, doesn't disprove our theory. Either use logic 100% or don't use it at all. There is no inbetween where feelings should take precedent when it comes to arguments. Either you can prove your claims or let me believe what I want and don't argue with me based on feelings.
@@MarioTsota I'm still unsure what claims you want me to prove. I already explained why I can't give you empirical evidence for God, though if I were to, I would point to all things in the natural world and cosmos which are so ordered and follow laws of the universe, or to the origin of our universe still being such a contentious subject. The problem is that you're essentially asking me to prove the existence of love in the human heart with hard logic (and by the way, a person can argue a logical concept without hard evidence, it's called reasoning in the realm of ideas). If you're referring to my comments about people misreading the Torah or the Bible, then that's another story, I didn't use my feelings or beliefs for that. But my point on beliefs is that whether you choose to believe in something is up to you and what evidence you choose to see as lining up with that belief. We believe in scientific theories because of the evidence they provide not only for their theory, but also the evidence used against that theory. But while the study of the divine can be undertaken with a scientific spirit, it does not have defined parameters aside from the laws we already understand, and yet there are many we don't. Abstract ideas are inherently harder to explain in a defined way than observations of a material phenomenon. I'm not arguing that God is supernatural. I'm arguing that we embody that force called God through everything all the time, but especially through our ability to be conscious in the first place. It's essentially the all pervasive consciousness working through biological machinery to interact with itself. That's my understanding so far, but I was a hardline atheist for about a decade so I understand the skeptic view as well. I've just found it to be stale at a certain point because it blankets all of these potential experiences with an air of cynicism or skeptical judgement. But again, it's about personal experience and belief just like anything is. Just depends on how you wish to look at things.
Still a BS argument. Nice try christians. (If I can even call this nutcase a Christian) Why isn't the solar plexus conscious?? Well, why isn't it conscious under YOUR VIEW of "spirit from God"?? It seems like "the spirit of God" can cause something to be conscious only when there is a SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity. Why can't this magical spirit cause anything else to be conscious?? Why isn't your palms conscious? Why aren't your kidneys conscious? Why isn't you solar plexus conscious ? Why isn't a rock or a table or a chair conscious ?? It seems like your all powerful God's spirit can work ONLY under very specific orientation and working of the nervous system. Hmmm WEIRD. OR the simpler answer is that consciousness is the result of a SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity.
BS argument. Nice try Christians. (If I can even call this nutcase a Christian). Why isn't you Solar Plexus conscious?? Well let me turn it around and ask you why isn't your solar plexus conscious in YOUR view of "spirit from God"?? Seems like this magical "spirit of God" requires SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity to work......Weird. Why isn't your palms conscious? Why aren't your kidneys conscious ?? Why isn't a rock conscious?? If it is a result of the spirit of an all powerful God. The simpler answer is that consciousness is a result of a specific type of neural activity.
"no good argument for atheism" is a non sequitor. Atheism is not an argument...it is simply not accepting a claim. You say you have a magic coin in your pocket that is invisible. I say "I dont believe you". How daft a 3rd party observer would have to be to lean in and say "what is your argument for not believing that?"
@@Hobohunter23 As much as we would like to blame his behavior on his literal brain damage, he was like this before he suffered that. The truth he is just pandering.
@@m11_m11 come on! you can't say that. It makes you look close minded. I like the "change my mind" slogan because of its intellectual integrity. I agree he is partially following the money. But I do think he has another, more noble purpose. Jordan seems to think people are weak, stupid, superstitious and manipulable and will *inevitably* to Communism and/or Islam without American-Christianism.
The only reason I’m on my spiritual journey into Christianity is thanks to Jordan Peterson. Ten years ago I was a hardcore atheist, the obnoxious kind, and if you’d told me then where I would stand today, I would not have ever believed it. Looking forward to watching this whole episode. Thank you.
@@MrD3000Then you are no better than the people that agree with gender ideology. Because they say feelings matter more than facts. So do you with religion. Stop beliving in stories and start accepting the truth.
@@flavius2884 wrong. It’s much bigger and deeper than that. Maybe you’ll understand one day, maybe not. And what do you mean with “the truth,” exactly?
@@MrD3000 Facts. What is real, correct. The opposite of false. Also, you theists are soo with your noses in the air. Claiming that a being far above you is your friend and cares for you. Stop living in delusion and start accepting reality. That made up gods and afterlife because the fear of death Also, it is not that I don't understand you, it is that I dissagree with you.
He's not coming around to Christianity. You can forget it. The Bible is wrong. God is real and so is Jesus. But professing faith in the Bible alone does not guarantee you a ticket to Heaven.
Because he refuses to make clear the other side...if the Bible stories are TRUTH to him it doesn't matter nor does it seem right to him to say otherwise even if you could prove they were all made up. The message to him is true truth of the way life is and should be lived to him it doesn't matter.
This is an excellent example of a very smart person whose mental faculties completely turn to bread pudding In the face of religious claims. There is no rational justification for believing in magic. There never will be.
Especially not on a planet teeming with alternatives to Christianity. According to his own "logic", Peterson makes illegal chess moves against Islam, Buddhism, etc. Let's not make the mistake that he is advocating the belief in any deity. He is specifically enamoured by the Jesus-variant of all religions; a religion that is not only obviously based on others that came before it but also evolved in order to compete with what other religions had to offer. The trinity nonsense was not unforced, it was a hack to establish a living god on earth. Peterson is like a child who likes Christmas too much in order to relinquish belief in Santa Clause.
I liked the "ordinary guy asking dumb questions" approach. Sometimes the "dumb" questions are the most pertinent ones. And they're sometimes precisely the ones that academics strategically avoid. "But my wife exists." It's a good point. It's a very good point.
In that analogy, imagine a guy who is being given ALL the signals that a woman loves him dearly and he’s too clueless to see it. (Or he thinks he’s too good for her or something) She may as well not exist to him. THAT’S atheism imo.
@@swish007 Well, if the the only sign of her was stuff written in a book and nobody has ever seen, communicated with, or knows where she lives or how to contact her, then yeh, she might as well not exist.
I'd argue there's FAR more evidence for God's existence than there is that the girl (in the scenario I mentioned) was actually into you. but neither she nor God really exist to someone who is clueless
As an atheist, I agree with Dr. Peterson when he says there is no good argument for atheism! The thing is though, I don't need to have an argument for atheism. Atheism is the default position. If you believe in the existence of God, you adopt the burden of proof. It is not up to me to disprove God.
Really? I think if you applied your discerning thinking skills to the matter you could come up with a few options: enhanced scientific and technological advancement, potentially a more harmonious civil and social society, a more rational legal system, etc.
so are you saying you believe that by avoiding the burden of proof, you effectively find a loophole? im a little confused. either way, i believe your thought process is a little shallow. all this bible stuff could be fake, along with Islam and paganism and any concept of a supernatural being, and there really could be nothing beyond the physical. however, were you to not believe in something beyond the material, and something really is beyond the material, you would be wrong. by this logic, you lose nothing other than some of your time and effort by believing in something, but you take a chance at losing everything by believing in nothing at all. if you value that time and effort of believing in something over a potential eternity in a great place beyond the physical, then that is up to you to decide for yourself, but if you are merely going off logic, you are standing in the shallow end of the theological pool. reconsider. look at all religions and what they offer. I have personally, and the one that makes the most logical and historical sense is Christianity. Jesus saves. look in the Bible, and if you look closely enough you will find it.
The good arguments for atheism are the thousands of arguments against theism and the fact that one makes better decisions if one is not misled by some baseless fairy tales.
There is no default. There is either a cause that caused the construct of space, time and matter or no cause that brought them up. Possibly being agnostic as in not really knowing of either is the default
@@creed3500 Even if a creator is granted, a Christian still has pretty much all of their work ahead of them to argue that the creator of the universe also cares about on what day of the weeks humans work, in which positions they have intercourse and with whom, etc. How inflated must one's self-importance be to think that the creator of the universe pays attention to one?
3:10 "Belief in God is not propositionsl acceptance of a set of facts. It isn't. So what does it mean to follow in the footsteps of Christ? To believe? To hoist your #$%%^$# cross and walk up the hill....the religious doctrine is not a scientific theory. It's not something you believe like a description of a set of facts. It's a mode of being. It's a mode of apprehension. It's a mode of perception. It's a mode of action....to marry your wife you need to take a leap of faith." -Jordan Peterson
A leap of faith in marriage is not the same leap of faith that the God belief requires. You also have preset notions you cna trust your wife... you have nothing to start for a god belief. Also you can have all that without the god belief. Not one set of the special rules to live by actually requires a god belief.......yet to do the harmful things that god belief makes people do. That does require a god and people will do some bad stuff to appease a god that they can not prove exists but will leap of faith for.
What happens to criminals when they break the law, they no doubt get sent to prison. Same when we break God's laws, we all deserve hell because we've all failed to keep his laws. However, God is offering us a presidential parden if you will, we can either accept the conditions of the parden, or we can face the full weight of God's justice on ourselves. That's not a choice under duress, that's a willful choice of your own choosing, it's not forced on you in any way. Christ has plans to flulorish you, not to cause you to parish. But if you don't want him then that's what hell is, eternity without him.
@@TwistedJedi2288 The equivalence is a little different. How about unlike judiciary system God by definition can do anything, therefore God can also be held accountable for not getting rid of the root cause of evilness? I honestly think the answer to this would be "God has a plan". Which is really nothing to argue against we probably would have to circle back to whether or not a God exists.
@@HockeyRiveNord But the same is happening with Atheism 🤣💀Atheist are so darn hypocrite that they claim that if you believe you are a fool , Join us have no belief and you are smart 🤣
@HockeyRiveNord you live in a world bound by rules... break the laws of physic and see what happens... it's simple. you are free to break those laws but don't cry when you see the repercussions.
@@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia do you need faith to say “i don’t know how the universe was created”? Stay in your hubris of thinking you have the answers to everything
@@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia You're the one that believes that if you're a Christian... God says words and out of literally nothing,everything is created Atheism doesn't even talk about creation LMAO
@@jonde-cent4897 No. But that's not what you believe. Atheists always say "I lack a belief in God," but then turn around and say "God doesn't exist." Like if you knew. At that point it becomes a belief. And the irony of you saying that I know it all is that atheists think they know it all. That's why they call religious people "dumb" and "uneducated." Which is funny cause most atheists are white, and most religious people are brown people, and most of them are women. Talk about sexist and racist.
There's a great argument for atheism; there's no evidence for a God and the claim is an extraordinary one. I don't believe in your God the same way you don't believe in the Roman Gods.
@ronaldorivera4674 evidence has a definition. A body of facts or information indicating a belief is true. Evidence that a God exists such as a sighting, verifiable facts which support his existence, heck even narratives which don't conflict with each other. But why do you believe in your God and not the Roman gods or the God of Islam or any other gods?
@ronaldorivera4674 I not only defined the term, but I answered the question. How other people interpret evidence is irrelevant. If you can present a God whose nature isn't a contradiction and show me any evidence of that God, I'd more likely to accept that God. It could a physical image of that God, it could be a message given to us directly from God, it could be material from God, it could be any number of things which gives credence to the claims of your God. Again what is it that leads you to believe in your God and not any other God? The answer is simple; geography. You believe in your God because that's what the people in the time and place believe in. If you were born in a different time or place, you'd believe in a different God without any evidence leading you to that belief. The only people who believe in any God believe in that God because of the influence of other people. No one gathers a bunch of evidence and uses inductive reasoning to objectively formulate a belief in a God.
@ronaldorivera4674 again I answered your question directly. I gave a bunch of examples of evidence which would convince me. I gave a definition of evidence and even stated that the examples of evidence are only some of what I would need to accept a God as there are so many possible forms of evidence I would accept. Go back and reread both my previous comments because again I directly answered this; for the third time seeing God, an image of God, getting a direct message from God, getting material from God, and again these are just some of what I would consider convincing evidence. Are you not reading? What's the issue here? And why can't you answer my question? I've answered yours 3 times now (despite you not reading it); why do you believe in your God instead of the God of Islam or the Roman gods?
@ronaldorivera4674 I answered that too. How other people interpret evidence is irrelevant. Can you demonstrate the evidence actually backs up your claim? For example, the Bible would not be considered evidence because it could be a lie, it could be incorrect, other religions have their own holy books. The evidence needs to demonstrate the claim regardless of how other people interpret the claim. Something isn't evidence if there are alternative explanations which are just as likely or more likely.
@ronaldorivera4674 no, I'm saying "being convinced of something" and "evidence" are two different things. Evidence has a standard that needs to be met. Being convinced doesn't and can be blind faith. You may have blind faith in God existing but that doesn't negate the very good reason for someone to be an atheist; the lack of evidence to the extraordinary claim. And that doesn't even begin to touch the problem with the contradictions of the nature of God
Peterson adheres strictly to the scientific method in all of his other areas of study; psychology, sociology, etc. follow the data and see where it leads. And then in the area of religious belief he just throws that out the window. Very strange.
I thought he had something when he suggested the bible is metaphorically true. However, this stuff sucks. Joker is metaphorically true. Joker did not exist. However, that doesn't mean if you cross mentally loners with a society that treats them like trash, you won't end up like Murray Franklin or Thomas Wayne.
When delving into different fields of study some rules won't apply. I don't understand how atheists only want to use one ruleset to discern the reality around them. Even when I was a child, I knew that reality was so much more than what is observed measured and repeated.
You exactly pointed out your issue. You rigidly demand scientific evidence to believe everything, and that's what makes you think you're one of the smart ones.
Let me add something more on conscious: everything we do on earth is recorded in our conscious, and one day, when we die, we will see what we have done throughout our entire lives in front of Jesus with big screen.so be careful with your actions on earth!
@@WizardImp Atheism is the belief/claim that there is no God. It is the active assertion that God does not exist. Maybe what you are thinking of is Agnosticism? Which is, of course, the suspense of belief in a God or Gods. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god, while an agnostic is someone who does not believe it is possible to know if a god exists.
@ARyeFowler No. A-theism is the lack of belief that a god DOES exist... which is not quite the same thing. It means to be unconvinced. I don't claim gods don't exist in the same way I don't claim the tooth-fairy doesn't exist. I can't disPROVE either. ("Prove" is HELL of a big word....) But... what reason do we have to accept this proposition? Does it seem likely? I have no use for the term "agnostic". If someone who tends toward a-theism asserts "there is no god", that's a positive claim... which assumes a burden of proof. They can go ahead and disprove the tooth- fairy while they're at it....
@ That’s fair, and I wasn’t trying to start an argument, just wanted to try and clarify. It seems that nowadays people interchangeably use atheism in multiple ways. There are definitely people who classify themselves as “atheist” who do assert that “there is no God” although, albeit, I’d say those who do so are mostly those who are less philosophically inclined in terms of how philosophers typically define atheism. It is interesting to see the debate about stuff like this continue on, makes philosophy so much more interesting! Especially for someone like me who has been studying it for a short time now and still has much to learn. Appreciate your insight and thoughts! Adds to the pot of “things to consider and think about”!
Peterson is just awful at making a rational, convincing argument for a god. And I'd argue that all evidence suggests he's 100% an atheist, himself. Oh, he believes in things like a conscience, love, instinct, the value of hard work, etc., and is willing to call them "god," but to my knowledge, he's never indicated that he believes in (or attempted to make a case for) anything that any theist would identify as a literal GOD.
@@gerardjones7881 I've never met an atheist with anguish that there isn't evidence for God. There is profound evidence of God. One has to close their eyes to the very fabric and nature of the universe to not see evidence of a Creator, and ignore the most basic underpinnings of humanity to not see an uncreated superior morality woven into the fabric of humanity. No, there is no anguish over a lack of proof - perhaps grief that we do not wake up in this world with a schematic of history and a presentation of God in the format and clarity we can find in a legal contract and a textbook. Grief, perhaps, at the demonic betrayal of those who falsely pretend to carry God's name and authority and yet reject both His holiness and His love in their hearts. But, no, not once in human history has an atheist grieved the absence of evidence of God. Except perhaps a man who sees only darkness, who rages at the absence of light because he refuses to open his eyes.
I feel sorry for the host trying to be civil in the face of JP's rampant irritability. I feel more sorry for all the people who are unable to distinguish this from smartness, and especially those predisposed to being persuaded by the kind of venom that he's practically spitting.
@@jaybee9269 which bit is wisdom though? He outwardly dismisses what amounts to the scientific method: evidence, materialism and determinism - all the things that directly led to the technology to enable him to broadcast his objections to the world at the touch of a button... simply because things look a little bit more complicated at the quantum level. And as we've all seen countless times before, here comes the Jesus smuggling - the "God of the gaps" to fill in the ever decreasing realm of things we don't yet fully understand: instead of "illegally" trying to prove what's real, just commit yourself to a tale because you have an instinct to act socially (conscience), and religious tales often condone acting how we already were. He mistakes correlation with causation - the classic religious error (along with confirmation bias). "And you think well that's not God, well have it your way, like y'know, you're playing games". The game playing is making the jump from the verifiable and falsifiable to all the religious mysticism, for literally no reason than to make it match up with the story you were taught as a kid because you it to be true, which is where the confirmation bias comes in. Perhaps he's saying it in a way that sounds like wisdom to you, but pick it apart and it most fundamentally isn't.
@@Nyghl0 >> The aggregate is wisdom. And he doesn’t dismiss evidence; if anything his academic corpus is intensely evidence based. It’s his conclusions in conversation that are often inductive. But inductive logic is valid. I wish I’d had Jordan as a therapist. I know Jordan’s religious philosophy is like nailing Jello to a tree for some very bright and callow young people. But he wants the best for us, after all. I can’t help but wish I’d seen Jordan debate the late Christopher Hitchens.
@@jaybee9269 2:57 "Evidence, euargh. Like I said, it's an illegal game move". He literally dismissed evidence in this very video, I wasn't simply falsely accusing him - everything I've said has been backed by evidence or reason. Given his academic background, don't you find it odd that he is quite happy to go along with scientific method, except when it comes to God, when suddenly it's all nonsense? Religious logic is abductive, which is an invalid form of reasoning, it's not inductive. I've no doubt that he means well and does want the best for us, he probably would have made a good therapist for you - I reckon he does believe every single word he says. That's what gives him the conviction in his delivery - same as Hitchens. I'm unsure how well the dynamic between them would have gone though. They both have/had high levels of disagreeableness, Hitchens probably moreso. He tended to run down his opponents like a ruthless but calm and collected juggernaut - I think he exhibited psychopathic traits similarly to his brother, whereas Jordan still retains instincts of a listener underneath his relative aggression. Combine that with their different approaches - Hitchens would moralise politically, but Peterson is much more postmodern with his treatment of truth. Similar to your nebulous "the aggregate is wisdom", he seems to view truth as an emergent quality of action and customs, reasoning something along the lines that the bible "must mean something" given its historical pole position in western literature. It doesn't really mean anything, but it sorta "seems like it should" - and he places this as more true than things you can actually prove to be true. Perhaps Hitchens could have adapted to this, but mostly I think they would have been talking past each other like every other debater of note does with him.
@@ericdavis1660 You claim there is a god, you don´t have any evidence for that claim, I reject your claim. That doesn´t say that I have no idea and I don´t need to claim that it doesn´t exist as I withhold belief untill it´s been proven and am willing to change my mind if evidence is presented. I have zero confidence in such evidence ever being provided as people have been trying to prove gods existing for a long time and they still just provide bad arguments, logical fallacies and ignorant nonsense so I´ll stick to not accepting claims about such silly nonsense and will continue to watch gods being led off to the scrapheap of bad ideas one by one untill hopefully one day mankind will move past such silly superstition.
It isn't the rejection of a claim, otherwise atheism wouldn't be trendy. It's a claim. In debate the minority has the burden of proof. Most of the world (especially the west) holds to religion. It's the common stance. If they claim, they have a reason, as people actually study what they believe. They've done so (in Christianity at least) for over 2000 years. More often than not they provide those reasons. If you reject, it helps to have a reason. If not, you're the odd one. There IS no good argument to reject God, let alone his existence. By definition. If you do so at least don't go around saying there's no reason to believe in God without giving your own reason. That's mindless.
I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what he said. Dr. Peterson was stating that atheism is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of existence and the order and construction of the universe.
We can only reach for understanding not understand it. For example, there is a best understanding of things we call theory. Big bang theory currently shaking because of new evidence from the James Web telescope.
@@valentinaselektrikas Not fully, of course. That’s impossible. But, there are underpinnings and components and systems and factors and ingredients and forces at play that can begin to paint a profound picture of design and structure and rules and intentionality. Laws and the field do science as a whole exists purely because of the supposition that order exists and questions can be answered.
The problem with Cain's sacrifices wasn't that they weren't the best he had. The problem was he didn't sacrifice because of love and fear of the Lord. They were prideful. He expected because he was first born that his sacrifice was sufficient and deserving of reward. He expected God to accept his sacrifice because of his lineage.
@ronaldorivera4674That doesn't really make sense. If Cain wanted to earn God's favor by works then he would've given the best he had in order to "bribe" God.
@ronaldorivera4674 The Bible doesn't indicate that at all. That is eisegesis. If it was purely faith then no sacrifice at all would've been offered. I do agree that it is most plausible that it had something to do with the intention of the sacrifice though
@ronaldorivera4674 You got me curious on what the talmud has to say about the difference in Cain and Abel's sacrifice and most seem to suggest that Cain's sacrifice was just leftovers. Some say he brought his meal (which he ate of 1st) before offering it up to God and that Abel didn't touch his sacrifice at all and gave to God 1st before expecting his own portion.
@@302indian I don't believe in god. And I definitively don't believe in "anything". Your argument is not persuasive unless you are only preaching to the choir.
@@sadsongs7731 He means the other sheep like himself. And he's not wrong. Most atheists just wind up clinging to some other kind of loopy dogma, like the woke cult. Free thinking atheists are really hard to find. It takes a certain amount of mental/emotional stamina to refuse to give up one's faculty of reason when surrounded by believers. I've had the most luck in Japan, but their culture is a whole other nut to crack as an outsider.
He says belief is substantiated by actions and therefore he shows his knowing of Gods existence thru his actions. Unlike most Christians who think it’s just by saying a few words. His point is that you’re gambling with eternity so you don’t just get off that easy.
@@danieltransvant3933 of course he doesn't say he doesn't believe. But he refers to God as "commitment" here. In other places he uses other nebulous terms for god that don't mean anything close to a god that people pray to or assume exists. I don't understand him because what he says simply doesn't make sense or is so ambiguous as to be meaningless.
As if that would be a thing a random person could do. Also that implies that angels and demons are physical beings that manifest in a way we experience like we do with rocks and computers, etc. Also implies that you are asking for evidence from the Abrahamic faith specifically, and a fundamentalist view that takes the words of the bible completely literally. There are many different ways to interpret the concept of god, a being in heaven looking down and judging is just one. Its the easiest one to argue against and is not the one I would argue for since the texts are not often literal.
@@zaclovesschool2273 still a matter of evidence, not about what x religious book says. Why would I even pay attention to the bible or quran in the first place?
What ‘end goal’ is in mind? There is a very good argument for atheism; it’s the same argument for not believing in a million invisible, intangible kestrals, or for rejecting the idea that water is liquid sin. We have no reason to believe that for which we have no evidence; if we believe in one non-evidential thing we must of necessity believe in every single other non-evidential thing. Put more simply, if you believe in a god, why not also the kestrals, or the sin-water? Out of all the many thousands of gods that have ever been posited, Christians seem to believe that they chose the right one. Atheists simply believe in one fewer.
I would believe in God any God and Religion if there was actually evidence. I been an atheist majority of my life but an uneducated none believer when I was younger who didn’t know anything about science and evidence against Religions/Gods especially Christianity. In 2004 age 19 I was going through a deep depression and I was given Lee Strobel books from deeply religious people I knew. I fell for Christian apologetics and creationism because I didn’t know any better. Wasn’t until I researched science and counter apologetics for the first time I realized apologetics are liars. Lee Strobel and others like him lie for money, their arguments reinforced there no evidence for Christianity. Lee Strobel and other like minded apologetics use bible as evidence for the Bible, like the eye witness to Jesus resurrection, empty tomb and etc. with no evidence outside the bible supporting it. Even the exact location of Jesus tomb hasn’t been discovered, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Talpiot Tomb, Roza Bal, The Garden Tomb, Kirisuto no haka, are popular beliefs of tomb location with no solid evidence for resurrection from any tomb. There are suicide cults like Havens Gate who castrated male members as a requirement to join. Most people in the cult died from intentionally drinking poison for a lie (Doctrine) they deeply sincerely believed in, even the cult leader Marshall Applewhite believed what he preached, he died like his followers, Marshall suffered from mental illness. There other suicide cults to. Also none of the gospel writers were actual friends of Jesus, they were written in Greek decades even a century later as is the case of Gospel of John. Writers are anonymous who used the names of Jesus friends, wrote down the oral stories about Jesus, which was common among the minority of literate people/Christians at time period. There was a lot of different gospels written. I recommend you read Bart D Ehrman books to learn much more in-depth factual information. Even if they were eyewitness of Jesus resurrection, there are people alive today who claimed to have seen, big foot, fairies, elvis sightings after his death, space aliens and etc. if you unwilling to dedicate your life to people you can talk to today, why dedicate your life to claims of people who lived thousands of years ago? The old testament ancient Jews and modern day Muslims sacrifice animals to the Abrahamic God, God wants animal sacrifices which seems stereotypical satanic ritualistic and no different than the many pagan religions. Was God unable to have come up with better options than animal sacrifices, maybe God has limitations which contradict with Gods attributes of being, all powerful, all knowing, perfect, all loving and etc. Reasons for animal sacrifices is due to repentance for original sin caused by Adam and Eve bringing sin into the world which makes no sense. God created Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil aka right, and wrong much like a baby understanding. God supposed to be all knowing, all powerful and perfect somehow expected adults with a baby like comprehension of right and wrong to obey him and not eat the forbidden fruit in which God created and placed in their midst (garden of eden). It like if parents placed a poisonous plant into theirs babies play pen and get angry their baby didn’t listen to them about not eating poison plant. Such parents deserve to spend rest of their lives in prison. God cursed all the decedents of Adam and Eve with original sin, do nds like a loving, forgiving, perfect, all powerful God to me lol. The snake/satan he told Adam and Eve the truth they be more like god by understanding difference between, and evil. Bible also sass if taken literally, God committed genocide, Noah flood, killing first born in Egypt including children, Sodom and Gomorrah and etc. which goes back to Adam and Eve bringing sin into the world. It seems to me God has accountability issues and blames others for what he did. Christianity is self refuting, Jesus and God supposedly one and the same, therefore God cannot be all powerful, all knowing, all loving, forgiving and perfect because God has limitations by not being able to just forgive humanity, instead God went through all the trouble of turning himself into a human in order to sacrifice (human sacrifice) himself to himself to please himself which we told is why Christians don’t have to commit animal sacrifices anymore. In both old and new testaments are contradictory on lots of things example slavery. A lot of passages support slavery and some can be interpreted against it, no biblical laws clearly against owning humans as property. There no scripture in bible supporting democracy nor mention of anything similar to democracy, USA founding was a product of the secular age of enlightenment, a lot of the founding fathers were not even Christians example Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, read his Jefferson Bible. No scripture clearly supports child labor laws, no scripture supports women equal rights, No scripture clearly against child marriage in which was common around the world including in Christian majority countries for grown men to marry female children. There still some USA states which have laws allowing child marriage but most states made laws stoping it reletivly recently within last 100 years. I can go on and on with examples of moral human rights the Bible, Quran and etc doesn’t support nor mention. If the Abrahamic Religions holy books had strong clear laws against child marriage would have ended it thousands of years ago instead of more recent times. Your God probably doesn’t exist and your religion is bullshit. The bible, Quran and etc doesn’t have timeless morality it a product of the time period it was written in and the good morals in bible are nothing special, majority of societies and religions around the world have laws against murder, it not unique to Abraham religions and predates them, it a natural survival instinct to not want to live in a society with rampant murders. Religion are all man made and humanity needs to move away from and all other dogmatism to including political dogma, communism, fascism and etc.
Our not understanding of something (as a premise for God) = God of the Gaps. 3:03 "Belief in God [doesn't require evidence]. It's commitment." Now I'd call that an illegal chess move, myself... I love JP, but we part ways on this very subject rather quickly.
JP is like a fairy tale. Some of his quotes are applicable to real life but it's written as fantasy, because he writes for an audience that believes in fantasies and desperately wants to have worldview validated.
I pray for the day when Jordan finally professes his faith in Christ. Keep praying for him everyone. We're ready for him to marry the psychoanalytical and the literal together.
When's he coming back btw? It's been 2,000 years. Ever think that your religion is just as false as all of the other 4,000+ religions throughout history?
@@themanufan8 Yeah if you dig a big hole of confirmation bias, you’ll find anything you want to find at the bottom. That’s why there have been over 4,000 different religions throughout history, each with followers who were just as committed as you are now.
The fact that they would even pose this question or title the discussion this way demonstrates they don't even understand what atheism is.... Atheism requires no "argument".. It's not a position or a worldview and it makes to claims or assertions... It's simply a state of unbelief on a single topic (God). Unbelief doesn't require justification... More word salad and argument from ignorance from Jordan Peterson... 🙄
plenty of good arguments for the divine, however one might come to understand it. many different ways of understanding it, but atheism seems to be the dismissal of all of it simply on the basis that it does not manifest before our eyes in ways we expect it to. I dont need a divine force to appear as an angelic being in this physical world and tell me "hey, im real!" its something we understand through experience of our own consciousness. If we choose to call it different things, thats fine too.
No every Athiest makes the claim of "there are other possible explanations for the beginning of the universe" if they are all somehow falsified then Athiest position is false although I don't see that happening
There are plenty of reasons one might believe in a god. Being a skeptic and going against the grain is human nature. It's biological. So I wouldn't say that's true.
@@nawunny Bigfoot isn't a supernatural being, second, you cannot, since they cannot exist without other supernatural beings which created them, implying a god also what even was your point?
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. I can be wrong, but regretefully I am and atheist. So whatever he says he is wrong.I know what I feel.What an entitled thought eheh. The second worst thing he says is that in desingenious to ask for a proof, sign, something that can makes us atheists see the light. Why? If we don´t need a proof to believe something, in the limit everything that we can´t prove that´s wrong, it´s true.
He could make more money doing other things if he's so calculating and dishonest. He once said that he spent the first half of his life living more or less as an atheist so now he is spending the second half of his life repenting by slipping preaching into his speeches about psychology. If you don't believe in God or believe Jordan's arguments that's fine but I believe that Dr Peterson is sincere.
@@NotAffiliated I think he is sincere, but I also think that he would not be doing any of this if it did not pay his bills. And he may be even more "sincere" in his positions exactly because it pays the bills for his extravagant jackets. "He could make more money doing other things if he's so calculating and dishonest." How do you know that, and like what?
@@Eigelstein Nobody has the luxury to do anything other than what pays their bills. If you rob people for a living your a bum. If you heal people for a living then you are a good man. I'm tired of people suggesting that J.P. is "doing it for the money" when he has been a dedicated healer and shrink his entire life. Every once in a while people strike it big because they are exceptional. J.P. is more wise and insightful than everybody else so he's on top. That's the natural order of things. People just like to try to tear him down because they don't like his message. Some people would rather bitch about their dirty room than just clean it.
Because it is not worth arguing for. It’s an absurd ideology. Life randomly popped into existence? Then it randomly evolved to complex multicellular forms? Then it randomly developed to a life form with rational wills? Evolution can only make sense if it was guided. DNA is code and code requires a programmer (and that’s only ONE argument for God)
Not now, but it will in the judgement. And the law of God is written on our hearts. The only way to be saved from God's righteous judgement against our sinful lives is Jesus Christ.
I appreciate your willingness to help atheists and to bring them to what you believe to be the correct path and heaven. Since the video didn't really supply it here's an argument for atheism. Every conversation that I had with someone of Christian faith goes somewhat similarly. Personal experiences with God, promise of Paradise, Answers to where we come from and morality comes from. That's all fine and I enjoy these conversations. But here's my issue. There's not one piece of concrete evidence that a Christian can supply to support their faith, that a Muslim or a Buddhist can't. And that matters. Because the leap of faith is necessary. Real evidence is not sufficient to imply the existence of the Christian god. How can a loving good God expect me and others to worship him on lack of evidence? I would really be open to see some. A standard of evidence that would fall outside of justifying faith in other religions, say.
Alex O'Connor did. "If I took a Panasonic video camera... And places it in front of Joseph's tomb.... Would it show Jesus walking out? Peterson: Yeah...but what does that mean? 😂😅😅
Yes this are just points of view. And the way JP Articulates his speech is so complex that might go right over the heads of many people but he means to entale much information with very few words so we can think about it and make our own conclusions
@@Wow-hr1gl God created gravity and can be seen everywhere in His creation. ROMANS 1: 20 For the invisable things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eterna lpower and God head; so that they are without excuse. 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise , they became fools. This directly addresses you from the Creator thousands of years before you were even born.🤔🤐
There can't be any arguments for atheism. I'm an atheist because I haven't found convincing arguments supported by evidence for the existence of any god. Unless provided with such, I'll remain unconvinced. This isn't about proving there's no god, it's about the lack of good reasons to believe in one. In that case, the 'I don't know' position is the most rational. I don't need to pick a side on every single claim.
@@StageWatcherPersonally, I'm just me 😊 If pressed, I'd definitely call myself an agnostic-atheist because it's the most honest position I can hold. I'm agnostic in the sense that I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can KNOW that there isn't "some" entity out there that would qualify as a God. I'm atheist because I don't believe that this entity has been demonstrated convincingly.
@StageWatcher Here we go again. The word "atheist" is an imported word and comes from the Greek "atheos" which literally means "without god". That perfectly fits anybody who doesn't believe in a god. Agnostic is another word with a different meaning - without knowledge. We are all agnostics, because none of us really knows, even the theists. It's really frustrating when so many people don't even bother learning the meaning of words they use.
While this line of reasoning is well and good at present, it surely won't stand up against the judgement of God. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." And if you want evidence for the existence of God, seek it. The prophecies of the books of the Bible are testament to the truth of God's Word. The historicity of Christ is better documented than Caesar's. The scientific evidence of intelligent creation, and the scientific veracity of the Bible can easily be found. Ultimately though, if you want to know the truth, ask. Jesus said, "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him."
Would I go on a date with a woman who I won’t be able to see? Hear? No! Because I need to know that the woman is real! Same with god! Don’t know how Jordan can’t see this
I love using a similar analogy. Imagine if the love of your life, the most important person in the world to you. Imagine if at least half of the struggle of your relationship with her was simply over wondering if shes even real in the first place since you’ve never actually interacted with her in any way. How stupid of a “relationship” is that?
Jordan Peterson is a brilliant thinker and communicator on every topic except religion. When he talks about religion he's as dense and impenetrable as the French philosophers he hates, and as illogical and irrational as as people defending indefensible political nonsense. His problem is that he's trying to intellectualize faith. If you believe, just say so. I can respect that. But all the pseudointellectualism is offputting.
No. There's a process in faith. Seeing creation. Seeing truth, beauty, and goodness. Seeing miracles. Seeing evil and sin. Making sense of all of it....and concluding there is a God of order who makes it all make sense. But then there's faith to receive Christ. The leap of faith from seeing, contemplating, logic, etc, to choosing to believe in the things you can't see. The spiritual realm. Logic then faith.
@@id9504 you seek evidence but claim its not proof, so you are lying but don't see your lie. claiming theres no evidence is like the fish asking wheres water.
@@gerardjones7881 Ugh... the fish asking "what's water" is the most obnoxious metaphor. If a fish had the ability, it would measure its surroundings and very quickly discover what water is. We are not fish. We have the cognitive ability to use tools and measure reality. If something is "real," it should have a measurable, predictable impact on the real world. Every religious claim fails this test. They are all unfalsifiable. "God will make XYZ happen. If XYZ doesn't happen, he's not ready for it to or he's 'testing' you" and other bullshit like that. No way to prove it wrong. Religious people LOVE this. It allows them to spout claims confidently without any accountability. Nobody will ever be able to prove them wrong, so they assert claims with total confidence to boost their own egos. Just like JP is doing here.
@@meb280 they’re space unicorns you blasphemer! And they’re all knowing and all powerful - so of course it can create anything. Says so in the space unicorn bible.
@@739jepMuch more logical to think everything came into being out of nothing. Don't need intelligence to create order, design, complexity and information. Why, I'll bet there is no 'person' behind this response of yours, it's likely a parrot randomly pecking at a keyboard. Polly want a cracker?
When an author writes a book, he has an end in view before it is written, and all of the characters in the novel have a purpose which is gradually unveiled by their interactions. Sometimes the interactions of the characters change the understanding of those involved and help to bring about the envisioned end. “Let us make mankind in our image, according to our likeness” (Gen 1:26).
Wow. It is a chore getting through this interview. Jordan is just hysterical and incoherent. His certainty and fanatical belief in nonsense is chilling. I deeply hope I am never so arrogant as to not even consider opposing views, as he is. A real shame for someone with such intellect to be so utterly lacking in integrity.
Well of course not. The best/only arguments for not being convinced that a deity exists, is the lack of good arguments that a deity _does_ exist. Also, even after all these years and all these talks, I _still_ don't understand Peterson's position on whether or not a god exists or does not exist. It's almost like he doesn't want to lose the favor of all the conservatives/people on the right that do believe in a god, yet at the same time seems to recognize that the arguments for a deity existing all fall short, so(like he often does on all sorts of issues), he delves into metaphor, and imprecise language to the point that nobody knows what the hell he's talking about.
“You’ll take no solace in your accomplishments, if they are of second rate quality” That is an absolute truth. To me, it’s a source of guilt when I let that happen. (Which is try like hell not to, but often fail)
I'm sorry you feel that way about yourself. I used to be like that too, and it almost drove me to end things. Eventually I discovered that I'm okay with not being perfect all the time, and I'm much happier for it. It's actually okay to feel good about something you didn't put your entire being into and is just "good enough".
@@gustavoaraujo3587 What happened at Fatima? Something we haven't explained. Let me repeat - something we have not explained. That means it is not explained, not "fill in whatever explanation you like and pretend it's the truth."
What about the fact that no reason to actually believe god exists has ever been found? That’s a pretty good argument for atheism. Otherwise there wouldn’t be atheism. “What is the evidence” is actually a perfectly valid question. Religious doctrine is certainly something one believes like a set of descriptive facts. To deny that is to avoid responsible inquiry and appropriate assessment. One of the worst cop outs I have ever heard. I just lost all respect for Peterson after seeing this appeal to ambiguity and “god of the gaps” argument.
There’s a big difference between believing in God-as-a-metaphor-for-higher-purpose and believing in God-as-actual-magic-sky-man and I don’t think he did a good job separating out those two things. I absolutely believe (for instance) that if I sit around eating cake all day instead of accomplishing something, I’ll be punished with a sense of disappointment for not achieving the potential I could have. But that’s a far cry from accepting there’s literally some conscious being up in space clucking his tongue at me.
@@rogeliorodriguez9350 Instinct to a neurotic psychotherapist who spent time in a mental institution and who wrestles mightily with the mere concept of being alive is never going to be profound in any way.
@@Andre_XX I don't think it's instinct to what you describe. He's had plenty of clients and research into this topic to come up with that analysis. He wrote a whole book called "Maps of Meaning" that quotes the Bible quite a bit. When you think about it and it is, the bible is a book on the human condition and the relationship with the good and evil of a person. It's weird to use his time in a mental institution as a way to discredit his quote. I wouldn't call him neurotic, that's not the right word and doesn't give him credit for his accomplishments. The reason I think it's a deep meaning is because I've had my personal moments where I have prayed and continued to pray to a god that I don't even know exist. Look back thousands of years, all civilizations have prayed to some spiritual being. It's like it's a primal thing to so. Why is that? That's why it's deep. We've all been there. To trivialize that statement to "he's neurotic and has been admitted to a mental health clinic" does a huge service and honestly I think its a shallow and lazy analysis on your part.
@@rogeliorodriguez9350 If you think praying to an entity (God) created in the minds of clueless people thousands of years ago is deep, then I wonder what you would consider to be shallow?
@@elijah5791 nah, he is to far gone. Selfperception has left him, until something happens that really sho2s the stupidity of much of what he says. Syncoohants not goona do it
Was jordan peterson always this lunatic and fanatic religious person? i swear i remember him not being as fanatic as he is nowadays, i used to take him seriously, nowadays, i'm afraid he might come up with an argument to the existence of the Easter Bunny.
The first time I encountered Peterson was way back when Canada (or some province) was considering passing a law that would punish businesses for intentionally calling people by their non-preferred pronouns. (Sorry if my facts are a little off.) He said this amounted to "compelled speech", which I thought was an interesting argument. Even if I didn't fully agree with it, he was fully coherent. Now, every time I hear him, it just sounds like word salad.
Why would my rational position of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented - require an argument?
Did you see how he deflected the question asked at 2:52? He basically asked why would a person believe in god, if there is no evidence for it. And Jordan Peterson deflects the question by deliberately misinterpreting it and answering it as if asked what belief in god is.
Why does atheism need an argument? I just dont believe a gods real cause no one has been convincing enough to persuade me. I can't help that. I can't pretend, i believe.
Exactly. athiesm literal means a lack of belief in a diety. I am not going to argue for athiesm because there is not point. just respect my lack of belief, and I will respect your belief.
There’s a ton of holes in the theories surrounding existing assumptions of how the planet is formed and how we all got here that allows us to qualify the absence of a creative force in our theories. Feels like Atheism, Agnosticism and Creation all require similar amounts of faith
@markeburne5106 So you think that I have faith that I'm not convinced of something someone said to me? That seems a little odd. So for everything thing I don't know, I have faith that I don't know it?
@@markeburne5106 Holes in theories is not a place for your god of the gaps and even if you disproved those theories that wouldn´t prove your god in any way! I need exactly zero faith to not accept your claim of a god for which you have no evidence! I do appreciate that you understand just how useless faith is so you will do everything to try to drag atheism and agnosticism down to your level but that doesn´t in the slightest make it so, it just shows that you are ignorant about the meaning of words which seems to be a common theme amongs you sky wizard people. Just please stop posting such nonsense.
okay dude. If you don't believe then you just don't. No one can convince you. I would ask you to ponder on whom you are worshipping then cuz it's human nature to worship smth regardless of our beliefs. Perhaps you are worshipping the self? Is that ideal? I don't know. Good luck.
He redefines everything in his own way, but his definitions are fluid and almost no one else adheres to them. He literally may as well be having a chat with himself. But he claims to know what God is, pretty arrogant for someone who can't answer a simple question without redefining every other word
Hahaha atheism needs no arguments it’s the status quo. There’s no objective verifiable evidence for god therefore I have no reason to accept or believe a god exists.
Are you going to post the full podcast here in RUclips? I know it is available in Locals, but Locals is unavailable here in Brazil... They didn't accept our government censorship so they were removed from our country and now I can't access the full episode 😅
To live as God's people, not possible. I'm sure they would let you, as they reverse the analytic and don't make any sense; they are using them in the atmosphere. To believe in God is some hard theory on the creation of the universe. New atheism is simply what it is, becoming who you are through the emergence of God's people. To live as God's people as a proper function in being is the job, you didn't get that job did you, but you did, for 8 years and you kicked my dirt. Yes you did.
Jordan completely lost in word salads and pseudo intellectualism. He’s got a fanclub to please for selling his books. American presidents do the same to please a certain public for their votes.
OK, the reason God doesn't just open up the skies and shout "I AM REAL" to all of us is because of His Mercy. He is allowing us to have excuses. He knows that if He proved to us without a doubt that He was real, it would come with the expectation that, now that we know without a doubt, we would HAVE to follow him, worship Him in his desired way, obey him, sacrifice our self will for Him, and be a part of His church. And the unfortunate truth is, many (if not most) people would end up saying "OK, God is real. I know now. But I'm still going to do whatever I want." And God would not be able to forgive them. They would have no excuses, and no benefit of doubt. They would be condemned to hell. They would have no excuse whatsoever for not surrendering themselves to God's will. God remains mysterious in most people's lives so that when they die they may have at least some excuse. That is Mercy.
"Hello creation of mine, here is indisputable proof that I exist, you have to join my church now" "I prefer not to, maybe I'll change my mind after I do my own thing, but I have this other stuff that I prefer at the moment" And then he gets mad and unleashes his wrath on his creature forever and ever, because I mean he just has to at this point. What a strange series of events
@@Greyz174that won't be how that works. God's wrath is an expression of justice and love. You can choose to enjoy God's love, or resent it. Hell isn't an arbitrary thing God subjects you to, it's the natural consequence of rejecting him. Like JP said in the vid, if u enjoy the chaos, so be it, but you're heaping the coals on your own head
I disagree with this theory. He already did that with the angels and some fell. But the end result of your premise is that they still end in hell, it's just not as clear cut as undeniable proof. How is it more merciful to judge someone to death when they had partial information, but you had the ability to give them all information so they could make a fully informed choice? I believe God doesn't split the skies as you say, not because of mercy, but because of love. If God did that then it would be the same as holding a gun to our head. "Either you believe in Me right now or you die." Yes, the end result is the same, but He gives us time to decide, pleads with us to choose life, died for us to make life possible. He loves us so much He does everything He can to lead us off the path to destruction, but He won't force us. It is still our decision.
@@carlant_III original commenter says that God will condemn the person to Hell because they have no excuse for their rejection of him, not that they do it to themselves. God will do this to us instead of forgiving us. In response to deciding to go their own way, God will condemn them to Hell. This is one person purpousefully doing an action to another person, not just one person torturing themselves because they choose to be upset at God's love forever
if something can’t be explained in plain language it is usually rubbish. peterson has done this for years. peterson believes in a MUCH more metaphysical interpretation of religion/god than 90% of all religious people on this planet. it’s disingenuous to pander and not upset his base who majority of adhere to a very literal interpretation of christianity and the bible.
@darkdrifter_mirai >literal interpretation of the bible and Christianity Forgetting of course that the bible and Christianity have literal elements but are also awash in highly figurative, symbolic messages that complement the more literal elements. There is no one who actually believes in Christianity who has a simply literal view of it, because to do so would be to discard a vast swath of the religion. As we see with the saints how someone views and interacts with God can highly differ, yet that does not invalidate any of these interactions, much like how one child may interact with their father in a very different way than their sibling does, yet both are loving the same person. There is nothing disingenuous with Peterson's approach to these things. Ehat is disingenuous is your attempt to drive a false wedge between harmonious positions! And even worse, you seem to be struggling with understanding Peterson's own positions, which are increadibly simple when you get down to the basics. He makes many easily understood but spiritually deep statements in this short video and yet it seems you weren't capable of understanding it yourself. Perhaps you should give it another try
@@TheDoctorProfessor he didn't say anything that makes sense. If he did someone else would be able to explain it. We're not talking quantum mechanics here. He refuses to actually explain what he believes. It's just disjointed sentences .
@@tesu2000Actually, sir. Everything that is worthwhile can not always be said in plain language. Try reading an advanced cognitive psychology Article for example. Maybe the problem lies in your word comprehension ability, og lack of reasoning (which is btw, even when done with system 2 and provides the correct logical answer, the process is seldom based on purely logic and is far from nominal)
There is no good argument for gods existence. Plenty for atheism. Jordan just twists words to not offend his religious fan base. And that’s coming from a guy who generally has a positive view of Peterson.
Atheism does not require a good argument, much to the chagrin of those addicted to arguments. Atheism is simply an acknowledgement of the absence of belief.
It requires an argument if and only if it's an assertion or denial of some proposition. If it's neither, then what you're calling "atheism" doesn't rise to the level of a disagreement with theism, since disagreement requires the assertion or denial of some proposition.
“Created in the image of God means you wrestle with potential”
Jordan B. Peterson
I love JP but he keeps putting God as an EXAMPLE of the highest good. He is THE highest being and must be worshiped. God is not just a philosophy.
@roshinvarghese6879 You think maybe his argument is that too much points in that direction in psychology, meaning, instinct, etc. Therefore there is a transcendent conscious principle that orders these things, and ordered them in such a way that conscious beings must align with him to properly function, and in effect his only issue is either he presents it withinthe argument he found compelling, or that he can't make the last leap to say he knows for sure that this being is 100% portrayed correctly in the Bible, but rather that his conviction is close enough to what would be recognizable as the true deity, that he concludes that it must be the most accurate reflection, but given that his reasoning grants the difference between faith and knowledge, he only argues it in so far as he can make a strong argument rather than forcing the last leap of faith on a person? Maybe you should just let people come along at their own speed, which is either what he's letting others do, or the journey he himself is on. Just because he won't say definitely that he knows what God is while making in argument that there is one doesn't mean you know his own private convictions beyond what he feels he can argue with sufficient certainty to argue publicly.
@@roshinvarghese6879I think he is already Catholic. While he is hitting Truth, Bishop Barron is simultaneously hitting the Beauty front drawing people to the church. I could be wrong but it seems that way. It might be intentional he is using the abstract language to bridge the gap because he goes in and out of direct language consistent with our theology. To play devils advocate I get tired of our Catholic brothers and sisters painting him as “dangerous” because that seems to be trendy at the moment, it’s a Protestant mindset. Know and find comfort in truth and to your point yes correct him with the correct order of delivering truth.
Typical JP psychologizing word salad. The truth is that JP is as much of a materialist as Marx or Freud
@sweatincowboy4692 I pray he does find faith, but tremendous damage can be done if he keeps preaching Christ's teachings in a materialistic framework. Islam, Mormonism, New Agers, JP, etc. appropriate Christ's sublime moral teachings but conveniently disregard His claims of divinity, heaven, hell, the resurrection, etc.
Pints does a great job pushing back, not in a destructive way. But in a way that invites Peterson to explain his thinking further. This is great.
"explain his thinking further" or, more accurately, expose that Peterson has nothing. Worse, he not only has nothing but insults those who refuse to be convinced by fairy tales and mysticism. Disappointing.
I think Pints was trying super hard not to laugh or sigh after the third round of nonsense.
True, unfortunately, Peterson doesn't follow at the same level
Surprised he didn’t start with “Well that depends what you mean by argument. And what do you mean by atheism. It’s complicated.”
Which Jordan completely failed to do
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Dead on! Thank you!!
I love our beautiful wise Ancients.
Who is the majority?
@@trucidusrex2242 Quotes are usually general, so the majority could be anyone. The quote just says to resist conformity
@@onionsans I agree. But I'm sure the original poster was thinking of a group being the majority or insane. I was just curious who they were thinking of.
"A sugar daddy gifting me a theme park if I stop masterbating" is probably the funniest thing Ive heard in months
George Costanza!!
*masturbating
Might be the best line I’ve ever heard in a JP convo, and I’ve listened to many. 😂
*masturbation
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
“The price for Life is Death”
"The wages of Sin is Death."
@CameronRabie this is why, in christian theology, hell and the lake of fire are also referred to as "the second death". Because no matter how good or bad you are, no matter whether you're saved or not, you will pass from this life through death to the other side. So the verse saying, "the wages of sin is death" *could* be referring to physical death (as in, some sins will lead to death) but can also be understood as the final death. The second death. The eternal death. A death that, once passed through, is the end, rather than a doorway into what lies next.
@@WarPoet-In-Training Yes, this first death is just relocation. Its the true death in the lake of fire that people need to worry about. The wages of sin is death, easily applies to both the body and the soul. As both were corrupted. When Jesus came, he did not come to save the body, he saved US, our souls, and filled those who believed with the Holy Spirit. We are protected from the second death and do not have to fear it, it has no power over us. Neither do we fear the first death, since it brings us to our Lord, our long awaited reunion. But while we are alive, we have work to do, which the Lord has ordained for us to do.
@@WarPoet-In-Training yes. the 'wages of sin is death'. It is not referring to physical death, but spiritual death. The physical things around us, the planets, the stars, are all temporary. Spirit is eternal. Physically, we all die once. If you happen to be a believer in Jesus the Christ, then you'll be with Him in Heaven for eternity. If you are not a believer, then you'll be subjected to the second death - the spiritual death.
Revelation 21:8 - _But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death.”_
Its useless, in the surface Peterson words seem kinda dumb and Not easily understandable but he is right💯
"Asking for evidence for god is an illegal move" If god gave us the ability to ask for evidence, and since asking for evidence is a prerequisite for coming to the truth, how can he ask of us to not do the same for his existence? And if rationality should not be applied on him, then why do we try to logically explain his decisions? His actions would be nonsensical to us, but instead we seem to only want to apply logic wherever it makes god look good.
that still implies that god is a rational, thinking being. Its possible to understand god as not conscious like we are, more as an intrinsic force. many different ways to interpret it, but its just easiest to argue against the typical Abrahamic view because most Christians dont explain it very well to begin with, if they understand it at all.
@@zaclovesschool2273 Saying you understand it better than others implies you have ways of proving to me that the others are wrong, no? And I mean prove, not theorize.
@@MarioTsota I'm not saying I understand all of it better than others, I'm just saying there are many ways to understand complex texts like the Bible, and some end up missing the initial ideas behind it due to not understanding the structure of the text itself. That it's made of different types of writing, some poetry, some narrative, some in descriptive passages, etc. And therefore needs to be carefully read. But if people don't do that, or believe completely in the words of someone who doesn't bother to think for himself, then I'd argue people set themselves up for misunderstanding. I like the way Jordan interprets it personally, maybe many others would say it's blasphemous or whatever...but I enjoy the way he thinks about it. Unless you mean for me to prove the existence of God or angels or whatever, then sorry I can't do that without either an essay or a long honest talk, but even then it's still a belief I have and it's not even in the way most western people would think of God. So unless you were wanting to explore the spiritual stuff already, not much I say would convince you. I can say that my views align ~the God of Spinoza, but I've explored things like Nondual Saivist Tantra, western esotericism (arguably born from mostly left current Tantra), but am also someone who loves learning science, and I don't see conflict between the sciences and spirituality. Though depends, if you believe the world is 6000 years old that's rough. Also to note, again I've not read the Bible myself so I'm not an expert, I've just taken courses on it's composition and history.
@@zaclovesschool2273 That's good and all but arguing that I or others are wrong because you "believe" something to be true, doesn't disprove our theory. Either use logic 100% or don't use it at all. There is no inbetween where feelings should take precedent when it comes to arguments. Either you can prove your claims or let me believe what I want and don't argue with me based on feelings.
@@MarioTsota I'm still unsure what claims you want me to prove. I already explained why I can't give you empirical evidence for God, though if I were to, I would point to all things in the natural world and cosmos which are so ordered and follow laws of the universe, or to the origin of our universe still being such a contentious subject. The problem is that you're essentially asking me to prove the existence of love in the human heart with hard logic (and by the way, a person can argue a logical concept without hard evidence, it's called reasoning in the realm of ideas). If you're referring to my comments about people misreading the Torah or the Bible, then that's another story, I didn't use my feelings or beliefs for that. But my point on beliefs is that whether you choose to believe in something is up to you and what evidence you choose to see as lining up with that belief. We believe in scientific theories because of the evidence they provide not only for their theory, but also the evidence used against that theory. But while the study of the divine can be undertaken with a scientific spirit, it does not have defined parameters aside from the laws we already understand, and yet there are many we don't. Abstract ideas are inherently harder to explain in a defined way than observations of a material phenomenon. I'm not arguing that God is supernatural. I'm arguing that we embody that force called God through everything all the time, but especially through our ability to be conscious in the first place. It's essentially the all pervasive consciousness working through biological machinery to interact with itself. That's my understanding so far, but I was a hardline atheist for about a decade so I understand the skeptic view as well. I've just found it to be stale at a certain point because it blankets all of these potential experiences with an air of cynicism or skeptical judgement. But again, it's about personal experience and belief just like anything is. Just depends on how you wish to look at things.
you guys are killing me with these teasers. I'll have to join the locals at some point!
"Why isn't your solar plexus conscious" said with such a force has got to be the funniest thing I heard in ages
He’s spitting though
Let him cook! 👩🍳👩🍳👩🍳
Still a BS argument.
Nice try christians. (If I can even call this nutcase a Christian)
Why isn't the solar plexus conscious??
Well, why isn't it conscious under YOUR VIEW of "spirit from God"??
It seems like "the spirit of God" can cause something to be conscious only when there is a SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity.
Why can't this magical spirit cause anything else to be conscious?? Why isn't your palms conscious? Why aren't your kidneys conscious? Why isn't you solar plexus conscious ? Why isn't a rock or a table or a chair conscious ??
It seems like your all powerful God's spirit can work ONLY under very specific orientation and working of the nervous system. Hmmm WEIRD.
OR the simpler answer is that consciousness is the result of a SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity.
BS argument.
Nice try Christians. (If I can even call this nutcase a Christian).
Why isn't you Solar Plexus conscious??
Well let me turn it around and ask you why isn't your solar plexus conscious in YOUR view of "spirit from God"??
Seems like this magical "spirit of God" requires SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity to work......Weird.
Why isn't your palms conscious? Why aren't your kidneys conscious ?? Why isn't a rock conscious?? If it is a result of the spirit of an all powerful God.
The simpler answer is that consciousness is a result of a specific type of neural activity.
It might be. He doesn't know that
"no good argument for atheism" is a non sequitor. Atheism is not an argument...it is simply not accepting a claim.
You say you have a magic coin in your pocket that is invisible. I say "I dont believe you".
How daft a 3rd party observer would have to be to lean in and say "what is your argument for not believing that?"
I think the benzos fried his brain. unfortunately.
@@Hobohunter23 As much as we would like to blame his behavior on his literal brain damage, he was like this before he suffered that.
The truth he is just pandering.
@@sadsongs7731he moved all the way from being a psychologist in canada to a televangelist in america. he’s just following the money. change my mind.
@@m11_m11 come on! you can't say that. It makes you look close minded. I like the "change my mind" slogan because of its intellectual integrity.
I agree he is partially following the money. But I do think he has another, more noble purpose. Jordan seems to think people are weak, stupid, superstitious and manipulable and will *inevitably* to Communism and/or Islam without American-Christianism.
@@m11_m11 it's still dishonest. Even with good intentions.
Matt. Really well done. I definitely like your approach.
Agreed!!!
I guess he is doing it like Aquinas would? Setting up counter-arguments, but for his guests.
Every clip of this pod I’ve seen have been straight bangers
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Yes very funny
I saw Jordan Peterson in concert recently. The best part of the event was when his daughter said, she was born again.
And he responded: “YOU HAVE TO BE PRECISE” and the audience erupted in tears and a frenzy of applause.
Well praise God for that -- and good for Makahla!!! (or however she spells her name!)
What would Jordan Peterson say about that comma you used after the word "said?"
Does JP sing? Or do you mean "in concert" as in multiple versions of him agreeing with himself. Because either option is a scary thought.
Sounds like his daughter is as nutty as he is.
Beautiful discourse and exchange!
The only reason I’m on my spiritual journey into Christianity is thanks to Jordan Peterson. Ten years ago I was a hardcore atheist, the obnoxious kind, and if you’d told me then where I would stand today, I would not have ever believed it.
Looking forward to watching this whole episode. Thank you.
You gave up on facts for a convinet lie. Nothing more obnoxious than that.
@@shadyd2544 if you think theology is about facts, you’re completely missing the point.
@@MrD3000Then you are no better than the people that agree with gender ideology. Because they say feelings matter more than facts. So do you with religion.
Stop beliving in stories and start accepting the truth.
@@flavius2884 wrong. It’s much bigger and deeper than that. Maybe you’ll understand one day, maybe not.
And what do you mean with “the truth,” exactly?
@@MrD3000 Facts. What is real, correct. The opposite of false.
Also, you theists are soo with your noses in the air. Claiming that a being far above you is your friend and cares for you.
Stop living in delusion and start accepting reality. That made up gods and afterlife because the fear of death
Also, it is not that I don't understand you, it is that I dissagree with you.
He's coming around! I am enjoying his journey. Sail on!
He's not coming around to Christianity. You can forget it. The Bible is wrong. God is real and so is Jesus. But professing faith in the Bible alone does not guarantee you a ticket to Heaven.
@@DestinyAwaits19
Nonsense.
You want him to believe a random anonymous Internet guy over an age long book of wisdom.
Sorry but we're not all idiots.
@@DestinyAwaits19what are you on about ???
Bible is wrong ? But Jesus and god is real.
That does not make ANY sense.
@segagenysis6918 please stop and attempt humility. What a narcissist!
Which one?
Maybe I'm simply not smart enough but Jordan Peterson is such an expert in obfuscating things.
Because he refuses to make clear the other side...if the Bible stories are TRUTH to him it doesn't matter nor does it seem right to him to say otherwise even if you could prove they were all made up. The message to him is true truth of the way life is and should be lived to him it doesn't matter.
The fact that you realize this means you are smarter than most people who follow him.
"Maybe I'm simply not smart enough..." No, you are one of the smart one who sees that Emperor Peterson is naked!
LOL Jordan talking about god is like Bill Clinton talking about getting blown in the oval office
@@123lowp "I did not have miracles with that deity."
This is an excellent example of a very smart person whose mental faculties completely turn to bread pudding In the face of religious claims.
There is no rational justification for believing in magic. There never will be.
Especially not on a planet teeming with alternatives to Christianity. According to his own "logic", Peterson makes illegal chess moves against Islam, Buddhism, etc. Let's not make the mistake that he is advocating the belief in any deity. He is specifically enamoured by the Jesus-variant of all religions; a religion that is not only obviously based on others that came before it but also evolved in order to compete with what other religions had to offer. The trinity nonsense was not unforced, it was a hack to establish a living god on earth. Peterson is like a child who likes Christmas too much in order to relinquish belief in Santa Clause.
magic? what's magic? that's not at all what he is talking about.
@@zaclovesschool2273
It is precisely what he’s talking about. He is saying there are things that cannot be explained by physical law. That’s magic.
I liked the "ordinary guy asking dumb questions" approach. Sometimes the "dumb" questions are the most pertinent ones. And they're sometimes precisely the ones that academics strategically avoid. "But my wife exists." It's a good point. It's a very good point.
In that analogy, imagine a guy who is being given ALL the signals that a woman loves him dearly and he’s too clueless to see it. (Or he thinks he’s too good for her or something) She may as well not exist to him. THAT’S atheism imo.
@@swish007 Well, if the the only sign of her was stuff written in a book and nobody has ever seen, communicated with, or knows where she lives or how to contact her, then yeh, she might as well not exist.
I'd argue there's FAR more evidence for God's existence than there is that the girl (in the scenario I mentioned) was actually into you. but neither she nor God really exist to someone who is clueless
@@swish007With the difference that god's writings are closer to the ones of a crazy stalker.
He's a keeper!
@@swish007 How FAR is zero?
Praise jeebus.
As an atheist, I agree with Dr. Peterson when he says there is no good argument for atheism!
The thing is though, I don't need to have an argument for atheism. Atheism is the default position. If you believe in the existence of God, you adopt the burden of proof. It is not up to me to disprove God.
Really? I think if you applied your discerning thinking skills to the matter you could come up with a few options: enhanced scientific and technological advancement, potentially a more harmonious civil and social society, a more rational legal system, etc.
so are you saying you believe that by avoiding the burden of proof, you effectively find a loophole? im a little confused.
either way, i believe your thought process is a little shallow. all this bible stuff could be fake, along with Islam and paganism and any concept of a supernatural being, and there really could be nothing beyond the physical. however, were you to not believe in something beyond the material, and something really is beyond the material, you would be wrong. by this logic, you lose nothing other than some of your time and effort by believing in something, but you take a chance at losing everything by believing in nothing at all. if you value that time and effort of believing in something over a potential eternity in a great place beyond the physical, then that is up to you to decide for yourself, but if you are merely going off logic, you are standing in the shallow end of the theological pool. reconsider. look at all religions and what they offer. I have personally, and the one that makes the most logical and historical sense is Christianity. Jesus saves. look in the Bible, and if you look closely enough you will find it.
The good arguments for atheism are the thousands of arguments against theism and the fact that one makes better decisions if one is not misled by some baseless fairy tales.
There is no default. There is either a cause that caused the construct of space, time and matter or no cause that brought them up. Possibly being agnostic as in not really knowing of either is the default
@@creed3500 Even if a creator is granted, a Christian still has pretty much all of their work ahead of them to argue that the creator of the universe also cares about on what day of the weeks humans work, in which positions they have intercourse and with whom, etc. How inflated must one's self-importance be to think that the creator of the universe pays attention to one?
3:10 "Belief in God is not propositionsl acceptance of a set of facts. It isn't. So what does it mean to follow in the footsteps of Christ? To believe? To hoist your #$%%^$# cross and walk up the hill....the religious doctrine is not a scientific theory. It's not something you believe like a description of a set of facts. It's a mode of being. It's a mode of apprehension. It's a mode of perception. It's a mode of action....to marry your wife you need to take a leap of faith." -Jordan Peterson
A leap of faith in marriage is not the same leap of faith that the God belief requires. You also have preset notions you cna trust your wife... you have nothing to start for a god belief. Also you can have all that without the god belief. Not one set of the special rules to live by actually requires a god belief.......yet to do the harmful things that god belief makes people do. That does require a god and people will do some bad stuff to appease a god that they can not prove exists but will leap of faith for.
"This is an all in enterprise" ought be on a billboard in front of a Church somewhere in Middle America.
Absolutely loved every bit of this. Thank you Jordan.
What do you think Jordan thinks an atheist is. I am pretty sure 99 percent of his followers have no idea
@@markwilson2421Reddit is that way sir
To believe is not by forcing u to believe, it is to surrender all
But if you don't, you're damn... that is called 'under duress' 🤔
What happens to criminals when they break the law, they no doubt get sent to prison. Same when we break God's laws, we all deserve hell because we've all failed to keep his laws. However, God is offering us a presidential parden if you will, we can either accept the conditions of the parden, or we can face the full weight of God's justice on ourselves. That's not a choice under duress, that's a willful choice of your own choosing, it's not forced on you in any way. Christ has plans to flulorish you, not to cause you to parish. But if you don't want him then that's what hell is, eternity without him.
@@TwistedJedi2288 The equivalence is a little different. How about unlike judiciary system God by definition can do anything, therefore God can also be held accountable for not getting rid of the root cause of evilness? I honestly think the answer to this would be "God has a plan". Which is really nothing to argue against we probably would have to circle back to whether or not a God exists.
@@HockeyRiveNord But the same is happening with Atheism 🤣💀Atheist are so darn hypocrite that they claim that if you believe you are a fool , Join us have no belief and you are smart 🤣
@HockeyRiveNord you live in a world bound by rules... break the laws of physic and see what happens... it's simple. you are free to break those laws but don't cry when you see the repercussions.
They’re not arguments FOR atheism. They’re arguments AGAINST theisms, and they’re all really, really strong.
Sure. Stay in your faith of "nothing created everything."
@@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia do you need faith to say “i don’t know how the universe was created”? Stay in your hubris of thinking you have the answers to everything
@@Anti-Alphabet_MafiaThis isn’t what I believe
@@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia
You're the one that believes that if you're a Christian...
God says words and out of literally nothing,everything is created
Atheism doesn't even talk about creation LMAO
@@jonde-cent4897 No. But that's not what you believe. Atheists always say "I lack a belief in God," but then turn around and say "God doesn't exist." Like if you knew. At that point it becomes a belief.
And the irony of you saying that I know it all is that atheists think they know it all. That's why they call religious people "dumb" and "uneducated." Which is funny cause most atheists are white, and most religious people are brown people, and most of them are women. Talk about sexist and racist.
There's a great argument for atheism; there's no evidence for a God and the claim is an extraordinary one. I don't believe in your God the same way you don't believe in the Roman Gods.
@ronaldorivera4674 evidence has a definition. A body of facts or information indicating a belief is true.
Evidence that a God exists such as a sighting, verifiable facts which support his existence, heck even narratives which don't conflict with each other. But why do you believe in your God and not the Roman gods or the God of Islam or any other gods?
@ronaldorivera4674 I not only defined the term, but I answered the question. How other people interpret evidence is irrelevant. If you can present a God whose nature isn't a contradiction and show me any evidence of that God, I'd more likely to accept that God. It could a physical image of that God, it could be a message given to us directly from God, it could be material from God, it could be any number of things which gives credence to the claims of your God.
Again what is it that leads you to believe in your God and not any other God? The answer is simple; geography. You believe in your God because that's what the people in the time and place believe in. If you were born in a different time or place, you'd believe in a different God without any evidence leading you to that belief. The only people who believe in any God believe in that God because of the influence of other people. No one gathers a bunch of evidence and uses inductive reasoning to objectively formulate a belief in a God.
@ronaldorivera4674 again I answered your question directly. I gave a bunch of examples of evidence which would convince me. I gave a definition of evidence and even stated that the examples of evidence are only some of what I would need to accept a God as there are so many possible forms of evidence I would accept.
Go back and reread both my previous comments because again I directly answered this; for the third time seeing God, an image of God, getting a direct message from God, getting material from God, and again these are just some of what I would consider convincing evidence.
Are you not reading? What's the issue here?
And why can't you answer my question? I've answered yours 3 times now (despite you not reading it); why do you believe in your God instead of the God of Islam or the Roman gods?
@ronaldorivera4674 I answered that too. How other people interpret evidence is irrelevant. Can you demonstrate the evidence actually backs up your claim? For example, the Bible would not be considered evidence because it could be a lie, it could be incorrect, other religions have their own holy books. The evidence needs to demonstrate the claim regardless of how other people interpret the claim. Something isn't evidence if there are alternative explanations which are just as likely or more likely.
@ronaldorivera4674 no, I'm saying "being convinced of something" and "evidence" are two different things. Evidence has a standard that needs to be met. Being convinced doesn't and can be blind faith. You may have blind faith in God existing but that doesn't negate the very good reason for someone to be an atheist; the lack of evidence to the extraordinary claim. And that doesn't even begin to touch the problem with the contradictions of the nature of God
Peterson adheres strictly to the scientific method in all of his other areas of study; psychology, sociology, etc. follow the data and see where it leads.
And then in the area of religious belief he just throws that out the window. Very strange.
It's a cope
I thought he had something when he suggested the bible is metaphorically true. However, this stuff sucks.
Joker is metaphorically true. Joker did not exist. However, that doesn't mean if you cross mentally loners with a society that treats them like trash, you won't end up like Murray Franklin or Thomas Wayne.
When delving into different fields of study some rules won't apply. I don't understand how atheists only want to use one ruleset to discern the reality around them. Even when I was a child, I knew that reality was so much more than what is observed measured and repeated.
When you see beauty and wonder and order and goodness in the universe but also evil, you start to wonder why about all of it.
You exactly pointed out your issue. You rigidly demand scientific evidence to believe everything, and that's what makes you think you're one of the smart ones.
Still vague language, lots of advanced words, word salad. Peterson is a shame to reason and science
I sometimes wonder if he underwent a trauma...
damn that last statement about consciousness being the Spirit of God brooding on the face of the water was 👌
Agree and it’s so beatiful. First time I’ve heard it.
If consciousness is nonphysical, then why does general anesthesia work?
@@draedon_ because you affect it's container - the brain.
Thank you for saying. I didn't understand what they said in that last bit.
Let me add something more on conscious: everything we do on earth is recorded in our conscious, and one day, when we die, we will see what we have done throughout our entire lives in front of Jesus with big screen.so be careful with your actions on earth!
There is no "argument for atheism". A-theism is not a claim. It's a RESPONSE to a claim.
"I'm not convinced."
@@WizardImp Atheism is the belief/claim that there is no God. It is the active assertion that God does not exist. Maybe what you are thinking of is Agnosticism? Which is, of course, the suspense of belief in a God or Gods. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god, while an agnostic is someone who does not believe it is possible to know if a god exists.
@ARyeFowler No. A-theism is the lack of belief that a god DOES exist... which is not quite the same thing. It means to be unconvinced.
I don't claim gods don't exist in the same way I don't claim the tooth-fairy doesn't exist. I can't disPROVE either. ("Prove" is HELL of a big word....)
But... what reason do we have to accept this proposition? Does it seem likely?
I have no use for the term "agnostic". If someone who tends toward a-theism asserts "there is no god", that's a positive claim... which assumes a burden of proof.
They can go ahead and disprove the tooth- fairy while they're at it....
@ That’s fair, and I wasn’t trying to start an argument, just wanted to try and clarify. It seems that nowadays people interchangeably use atheism in multiple ways. There are definitely people who classify themselves as “atheist” who do assert that “there is no God” although, albeit, I’d say those who do so are mostly those who are less philosophically inclined in terms of how philosophers typically define atheism. It is interesting to see the debate about stuff like this continue on, makes philosophy so much more interesting! Especially for someone like me who has been studying it for a short time now and still has much to learn. Appreciate your insight and thoughts! Adds to the pot of “things to consider and think about”!
@@ARyeFowler Good chat!
Peterson is just awful at making a rational, convincing argument for a god. And I'd argue that all evidence suggests he's 100% an atheist, himself. Oh, he believes in things like a conscience, love, instinct, the value of hard work, etc., and is willing to call them "god," but to my knowledge, he's never indicated that he believes in (or attempted to make a case for) anything that any theist would identify as a literal GOD.
This interviewer makes so much more sense than Peterson who is just shouting cliches at him
And what’s that cliche?
"Evidence.. meh..!" lmao
the defiance of the atheist is just their anguish at finding there is no proof for god.
@@gerardjones7881 I've never met an atheist with anguish that there isn't evidence for God. There is profound evidence of God. One has to close their eyes to the very fabric and nature of the universe to not see evidence of a Creator, and ignore the most basic underpinnings of humanity to not see an uncreated superior morality woven into the fabric of humanity. No, there is no anguish over a lack of proof - perhaps grief that we do not wake up in this world with a schematic of history and a presentation of God in the format and clarity we can find in a legal contract and a textbook. Grief, perhaps, at the demonic betrayal of those who falsely pretend to carry God's name and authority and yet reject both His holiness and His love in their hearts.
But, no, not once in human history has an atheist grieved the absence of evidence of God. Except perhaps a man who sees only darkness, who rages at the absence of light because he refuses to open his eyes.
@@gerardjones7881 I was relieved when I was convinced there is no hell I risk going to. God is a monster, it's a relief they aren't real
His arguments are weak. The conversations he had with Matt Dillahunty and Sam Harris really showcase this.
He is a postmodernist professor alright.
I feel sorry for the host trying to be civil in the face of JP's rampant irritability.
I feel more sorry for all the people who are unable to distinguish this from smartness, and especially those predisposed to being persuaded by the kind of venom that he's practically spitting.
Sketch
He’s disagreeable at worst, not bitchy, or irritable. And it’s wisdom, not smartness.
@@jaybee9269 which bit is wisdom though?
He outwardly dismisses what amounts to the scientific method: evidence, materialism and determinism - all the things that directly led to the technology to enable him to broadcast his objections to the world at the touch of a button... simply because things look a little bit more complicated at the quantum level. And as we've all seen countless times before, here comes the Jesus smuggling - the "God of the gaps" to fill in the ever decreasing realm of things we don't yet fully understand: instead of "illegally" trying to prove what's real, just commit yourself to a tale because you have an instinct to act socially (conscience), and religious tales often condone acting how we already were. He mistakes correlation with causation - the classic religious error (along with confirmation bias).
"And you think well that's not God, well have it your way, like y'know, you're playing games". The game playing is making the jump from the verifiable and falsifiable to all the religious mysticism, for literally no reason than to make it match up with the story you were taught as a kid because you it to be true, which is where the confirmation bias comes in. Perhaps he's saying it in a way that sounds like wisdom to you, but pick it apart and it most fundamentally isn't.
@@Nyghl0 >> The aggregate is wisdom. And he doesn’t dismiss evidence; if anything his academic corpus is intensely evidence based. It’s his conclusions in conversation that are often inductive. But inductive logic is valid. I wish I’d had Jordan as a therapist. I know Jordan’s religious philosophy is like nailing Jello to a tree for some very bright and callow young people. But he wants the best for us, after all. I can’t help but wish I’d seen Jordan debate the late Christopher Hitchens.
@@jaybee9269 2:57 "Evidence, euargh. Like I said, it's an illegal game move". He literally dismissed evidence in this very video, I wasn't simply falsely accusing him - everything I've said has been backed by evidence or reason. Given his academic background, don't you find it odd that he is quite happy to go along with scientific method, except when it comes to God, when suddenly it's all nonsense?
Religious logic is abductive, which is an invalid form of reasoning, it's not inductive. I've no doubt that he means well and does want the best for us, he probably would have made a good therapist for you - I reckon he does believe every single word he says. That's what gives him the conviction in his delivery - same as Hitchens. I'm unsure how well the dynamic between them would have gone though. They both have/had high levels of disagreeableness, Hitchens probably moreso. He tended to run down his opponents like a ruthless but calm and collected juggernaut - I think he exhibited psychopathic traits similarly to his brother, whereas Jordan still retains instincts of a listener underneath his relative aggression. Combine that with their different approaches - Hitchens would moralise politically, but Peterson is much more postmodern with his treatment of truth. Similar to your nebulous "the aggregate is wisdom", he seems to view truth as an emergent quality of action and customs, reasoning something along the lines that the bible "must mean something" given its historical pole position in western literature. It doesn't really mean anything, but it sorta "seems like it should" - and he places this as more true than things you can actually prove to be true. Perhaps Hitchens could have adapted to this, but mostly I think they would have been talking past each other like every other debater of note does with him.
Atheism is the rejection of a claim. Saying "There's no good argument for atheism" is utterly nonsensical.
🤓☝🏻
Having no idea is a negation, not a rejection. So, making no affirmative claim is nihilism at rest, materialistic determinism the moment after.
JP is utterly nonsensical so it makes sense that he would say something so nonsensical.
@@ericdavis1660 You claim there is a god, you don´t have any evidence for that claim, I reject your claim. That doesn´t say that I have no idea and I don´t need to claim that it doesn´t exist as I withhold belief untill it´s been proven and am willing to change my mind if evidence is presented. I have zero confidence in such evidence ever being provided as people have been trying to prove gods existing for a long time and they still just provide bad arguments, logical fallacies and ignorant nonsense so I´ll stick to not accepting claims about such silly nonsense and will continue to watch gods being led off to the scrapheap of bad ideas one by one untill hopefully one day mankind will move past such silly superstition.
It isn't the rejection of a claim, otherwise atheism wouldn't be trendy. It's a claim.
In debate the minority has the burden of proof. Most of the world (especially the west) holds to religion. It's the common stance. If they claim, they have a reason, as people actually study what they believe. They've done so (in Christianity at least) for over 2000 years. More often than not they provide those reasons. If you reject, it helps to have a reason. If not, you're the odd one.
There IS no good argument to reject God, let alone his existence. By definition. If you do so at least don't go around saying there's no reason to believe in God without giving your own reason. That's mindless.
When you acknowledge that you don't know anything it's an illegal chess move for Peterson, but it's the foundation for a philosopher.
I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what he said. Dr. Peterson was stating that atheism is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of existence and the order and construction of the universe.
@@vipe650r Hi. No one understands the universe that's for sure.
We can only reach for understanding not understand it. For example, there is a best understanding of things we call theory. Big bang theory currently shaking because of new evidence from the James Web telescope.
@@valentinaselektrikas Not fully, of course. That’s impossible. But, there are underpinnings and components and systems and factors and ingredients and forces at play that can begin to paint a profound picture of design and structure and rules and intentionality. Laws and the field do science as a whole exists purely because of the supposition that order exists and questions can be answered.
The change in jordans demeanor from jokingly laughing to intense thought at the very start of the video cracked me up 😂
Does JP remind anyone else of the farting preacher when he tilts his head back and closes his eyes like he's thinking of something profound?
The problem with Cain's sacrifices wasn't that they weren't the best he had. The problem was he didn't sacrifice because of love and fear of the Lord. They were prideful. He expected because he was first born that his sacrifice was sufficient and deserving of reward. He expected God to accept his sacrifice because of his lineage.
Both can be true... because he felt entitled, he gave his second best to God.
@@shaulkramer7425 But it's still not the real reason why. Those who pray to God and boast of their lineage find no favor with him.
@ronaldorivera4674That doesn't really make sense. If Cain wanted to earn God's favor by works then he would've given the best he had in order to "bribe" God.
@ronaldorivera4674 The Bible doesn't indicate that at all. That is eisegesis. If it was purely faith then no sacrifice at all would've been offered. I do agree that it is most plausible that it had something to do with the intention of the sacrifice though
@ronaldorivera4674 You got me curious on what the talmud has to say about the difference in Cain and Abel's sacrifice and most seem to suggest that Cain's sacrifice was just leftovers. Some say he brought his meal (which he ate of 1st) before offering it up to God and that Abel didn't touch his sacrifice at all and gave to God 1st before expecting his own portion.
When you are a phd and dont know that atheism is lack of belief ...
Atheists believe in lots of things….just not God. Atheists love lots of things…just not God.
People who don’t believe in God will believe in anything.
@@302indian I don't believe in god. And I definitively don't believe in "anything". Your argument is not persuasive unless you are only preaching to the choir.
@@sadsongs7731 He means the other sheep like himself. And he's not wrong. Most atheists just wind up clinging to some other kind of loopy dogma, like the woke cult. Free thinking atheists are really hard to find. It takes a certain amount of mental/emotional stamina to refuse to give up one's faculty of reason when surrounded by believers. I've had the most luck in Japan, but their culture is a whole other nut to crack as an outsider.
@@302indian Projecting much are we?
This is a far cry from "i don't believe God exists, but i live like he does." Praise God.
clearly there has been evolution in his views, right?
He says belief is substantiated by actions and therefore he shows his knowing of Gods existence thru his actions. Unlike most Christians who think it’s just by saying a few words. His point is that you’re gambling with eternity so you don’t just get off that easy.
But then he says that God is commitment, admitting that he doesn't believe in an actual god
He never said he doesnt believe but he explained what believe mean by saying he lives as if He does.Clearly you misunderstood
@@danieltransvant3933 of course he doesn't say he doesn't believe. But he refers to God as "commitment" here. In other places he uses other nebulous terms for god that don't mean anything close to a god that people pray to or assume exists. I don't understand him because what he says simply doesn't make sense or is so ambiguous as to be meaningless.
Simple argument : Show me God or an Angel or a Demon and let us talk to them directly. You can't? therefore I have no reason to believe you
Occultists would disagree with you.
@Dylan_96_ nah, they're equally full of $***
As if that would be a thing a random person could do. Also that implies that angels and demons are physical beings that manifest in a way we experience like we do with rocks and computers, etc. Also implies that you are asking for evidence from the Abrahamic faith specifically, and a fundamentalist view that takes the words of the bible completely literally. There are many different ways to interpret the concept of god, a being in heaven looking down and judging is just one. Its the easiest one to argue against and is not the one I would argue for since the texts are not often literal.
@@zaclovesschool2273 still a matter of evidence, not about what x religious book says. Why would I even pay attention to the bible or quran in the first place?
Materialistic Determinism is itself a loaded statement. With an end goal in mind, there has to be a Mind.
Determinism was debunked long time ago by double slit experiment.
Yeah but that's the point there is no really good argument for Atheism.
Don't believe everything you THINK. 🧠
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@silversxm2609 yeah, I kinda reiterated what he already said🤣
What ‘end goal’ is in mind?
There is a very good argument for atheism; it’s the same argument for not believing in a million invisible, intangible kestrals, or for rejecting the idea that water is liquid sin. We have no reason to believe that for which we have no evidence; if we believe in one non-evidential thing we must of necessity believe in every single other non-evidential thing. Put more simply, if you believe in a god, why not also the kestrals, or the sin-water?
Out of all the many thousands of gods that have ever been posited, Christians seem to believe that they chose the right one. Atheists simply believe in one fewer.
I would believe in God any God and Religion if there was actually evidence. I been an atheist majority of my life but an uneducated none believer when I was younger who didn’t know anything about science and evidence against Religions/Gods especially Christianity. In 2004 age 19 I was going through a deep depression and I was given Lee Strobel books from deeply religious people I knew. I fell for Christian apologetics and creationism because I didn’t know any better. Wasn’t until I researched science and counter apologetics for the first time I realized apologetics are liars.
Lee Strobel and others like him lie for money, their arguments reinforced there no evidence for Christianity. Lee Strobel and other like minded apologetics use bible as evidence for the Bible, like the eye witness to Jesus resurrection, empty tomb and etc. with no evidence outside the bible supporting it. Even the exact location of Jesus tomb hasn’t been discovered, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Talpiot Tomb, Roza Bal, The Garden Tomb, Kirisuto no haka, are popular beliefs of tomb location with no solid evidence for resurrection from any tomb. There are suicide cults like Havens Gate who castrated male members as a requirement to join. Most people in the cult died from intentionally drinking poison for a lie (Doctrine) they deeply sincerely believed in, even the cult leader Marshall Applewhite believed what he preached, he died like his followers, Marshall suffered from mental illness. There other suicide cults to. Also none of the gospel writers were actual friends of Jesus, they were written in Greek decades even a century later as is the case of Gospel of John. Writers are anonymous who used the names of Jesus friends, wrote down the oral stories about Jesus, which was common among the minority of literate people/Christians at time period. There was a lot of different gospels written. I recommend you read Bart D Ehrman books to learn much more in-depth factual information. Even if they were eyewitness of Jesus resurrection, there are people alive today who claimed to have seen, big foot, fairies, elvis sightings after his death, space aliens and etc. if you unwilling to dedicate your life to people you can talk to today, why dedicate your life to claims of people who lived thousands of years ago?
The old testament ancient Jews and modern day Muslims sacrifice animals to the Abrahamic God, God wants animal sacrifices which seems stereotypical satanic ritualistic and no different than the many pagan religions. Was God unable to have come up with better options than animal sacrifices, maybe God has limitations which contradict with Gods attributes of being, all powerful, all knowing, perfect, all loving and etc. Reasons for animal sacrifices is due to repentance for original sin caused by Adam and Eve bringing sin into the world which makes no sense. God created Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil aka right, and wrong much like a baby understanding. God supposed to be all knowing, all powerful and perfect somehow expected adults with a baby like comprehension of right and wrong to obey him and not eat the forbidden fruit in which God created and placed in their midst (garden of eden). It like if parents placed a poisonous plant into theirs babies play pen and get angry their baby didn’t listen to them about not eating poison plant. Such parents deserve to spend rest of their lives in prison. God cursed all the decedents of Adam and Eve with original sin, do nds like a loving, forgiving, perfect, all powerful God to me lol. The snake/satan he told Adam and Eve the truth they be more like god by understanding difference between, and evil. Bible also sass if taken literally, God committed genocide, Noah flood, killing first born in Egypt including children, Sodom and Gomorrah and etc. which goes back to Adam and Eve bringing sin into the world. It seems to me God has accountability issues and blames others for what he did.
Christianity is self refuting, Jesus and God supposedly one and the same, therefore God cannot be all powerful, all knowing, all loving, forgiving and perfect because God has limitations by not being able to just forgive humanity, instead God went through all the trouble of turning himself into a human in order to sacrifice (human sacrifice) himself to himself to please himself which we told is why Christians don’t have to commit animal sacrifices anymore.
In both old and new testaments are contradictory on lots of things example slavery. A lot of passages support slavery and some can be interpreted against it, no biblical laws clearly against owning humans as property. There no scripture in bible supporting democracy nor mention of anything similar to democracy, USA founding was a product of the secular age of enlightenment, a lot of the founding fathers were not even Christians example Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, read his Jefferson Bible. No scripture clearly supports child labor laws, no scripture supports women equal rights, No scripture clearly against child marriage in which was common around the world including in Christian majority countries for grown men to marry female children. There still some USA states which have laws allowing child marriage but most states made laws stoping it reletivly recently within last 100 years. I can go on and on with examples of moral human rights the Bible, Quran and etc doesn’t support nor mention. If the Abrahamic Religions holy books had strong clear laws against child marriage would have ended it thousands of years ago instead of more recent times.
Your God probably doesn’t exist and your religion is bullshit. The bible, Quran and etc doesn’t have timeless morality it a product of the time period it was written in and the good morals in bible are nothing special, majority of societies and religions around the world have laws against murder, it not unique to Abraham religions and predates them, it a natural survival instinct to not want to live in a society with rampant murders. Religion are all man made and humanity needs to move away from and all other dogmatism to including political dogma, communism, fascism and etc.
Our not understanding of something (as a premise for God) = God of the Gaps.
3:03 "Belief in God [doesn't require evidence]. It's commitment."
Now I'd call that an illegal chess move, myself...
I love JP, but we part ways on this very subject rather quickly.
JP is like a fairy tale. Some of his quotes are applicable to real life but it's written as fantasy, because he writes for an audience that believes in fantasies and desperately wants to have worldview validated.
I pray for the day when Jordan finally professes his faith in Christ. Keep praying for him everyone. We're ready for him to marry the psychoanalytical and the literal together.
When's he coming back btw? It's been 2,000 years.
Ever think that your religion is just as false as all of the other 4,000+ religions throughout history?
@@donkler5476 not from my experience brotha... God speaks very clearly if you are opening to listen
Jesus is the only verifiable historical deity. @@donkler5476
@@donkler5476 "This one will get them for sure!!" 😂😂 🤡
@@themanufan8 Yeah if you dig a big hole of confirmation bias, you’ll find anything you want to find at the bottom.
That’s why there have been over 4,000 different religions throughout history, each with followers who were just as committed as you are now.
All frauds have a tell and religion is JP's biggest one.
The fact that they would even pose this question or title the discussion this way demonstrates they don't even understand what atheism is.... Atheism requires no "argument".. It's not a position or a worldview and it makes to claims or assertions... It's simply a state of unbelief on a single topic (God). Unbelief doesn't require justification... More word salad and argument from ignorance from Jordan Peterson... 🙄
Atheism does not need arguments. If Theism had good arguments, Atheism would not be a thing or would not be popular.
exactly. it’s literally just “i don’t believe your claim.”
plenty of good arguments for the divine, however one might come to understand it. many different ways of understanding it, but atheism seems to be the dismissal of all of it simply on the basis that it does not manifest before our eyes in ways we expect it to. I dont need a divine force to appear as an angelic being in this physical world and tell me "hey, im real!" its something we understand through experience of our own consciousness. If we choose to call it different things, thats fine too.
@@zaclovesschool2273 Good arguments such as?
No every Athiest makes the claim of "there are other possible explanations for the beginning of the universe" if they are all somehow falsified then Athiest position is false although I don't see that happening
There are plenty of reasons one might believe in a god. Being a skeptic and going against the grain is human nature. It's biological. So I wouldn't say that's true.
Atheism doesnt need an argument. Its our default state. The burden of proof always lies on the one making a positive assertion.
Atheism assumes naturalistic determinism, and therefore is not the neutral position.
@@onionsansno, not all atheist think like that. The only common denominator is the lack of beliefs in any gods. Your argument is not valid.
@@nawunny "lack of belief in any god(s)" ...which inversely requires believing in naturalistic determinism. use your brain bud.
@@onionsans it does not, you can believe super natural beings like bigfoot and unicorn without god.
@@nawunny Bigfoot isn't a supernatural being, second, you cannot, since they cannot exist without other supernatural beings which created them, implying a god
also what even was your point?
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. I can be wrong, but regretefully I am and atheist. So whatever he says he is wrong.I know what I feel.What an entitled thought eheh. The second worst thing he says is that in desingenious to ask for a proof, sign, something that can makes us atheists see the light. Why? If we don´t need a proof to believe something, in the limit everything that we can´t prove that´s wrong, it´s true.
goes from a Canadian psychologist to be a tele-evangelist in America
That’s where the money is
Yes it’s total baloney
He could make more money doing other things if he's so calculating and dishonest. He once said that he spent the first half of his life living more or less as an atheist so now he is spending the second half of his life repenting by slipping preaching into his speeches about psychology. If you don't believe in God or believe Jordan's arguments that's fine but I believe that Dr Peterson is sincere.
@@NotAffiliated I think he is sincere, but I also think that he would not be doing any of this if it did not pay his bills. And he may be even more "sincere" in his positions exactly because it pays the bills for his extravagant jackets. "He could make more money doing other things if he's so calculating and dishonest." How do you know that, and like what?
@@Eigelstein Nobody has the luxury to do anything other than what pays their bills. If you rob people for a living your a bum. If you heal people for a living then you are a good man. I'm tired of people suggesting that J.P. is "doing it for the money" when he has been a dedicated healer and shrink his entire life.
Every once in a while people strike it big because they are exceptional. J.P. is more wise and insightful than everybody else so he's on top. That's the natural order of things. People just like to try to tear him down because they don't like his message. Some people would rather bitch about their dirty room than just clean it.
Atheism is not a position that needs to be argued for…
Because it is not worth arguing for. It’s an absurd ideology. Life randomly popped into existence? Then it randomly evolved to complex multicellular forms? Then it randomly developed to a life form with rational wills? Evolution can only make sense if it was guided. DNA is code and code requires a programmer (and that’s only ONE argument for God)
Yeah I just thought it was common sense. I still think belief in a god is a mental illness no matter what fancy things the smart man says.
Not now, but it will in the judgement. And the law of God is written on our hearts. The only way to be saved from God's righteous judgement against our sinful lives is Jesus Christ.
I appreciate your willingness to help atheists and to bring them to what you believe to be the correct path and heaven.
Since the video didn't really supply it here's an argument for atheism.
Every conversation that I had with someone of Christian faith goes somewhat similarly. Personal experiences with God, promise of Paradise, Answers to where we come from and morality comes from. That's all fine and I enjoy these conversations.
But here's my issue. There's not one piece of concrete evidence that a Christian can supply to support their faith, that a Muslim or a Buddhist can't.
And that matters. Because the leap of faith is necessary. Real evidence is not sufficient to imply the existence of the Christian god.
How can a loving good God expect me and others to worship him on lack of evidence? I would really be open to see some. A standard of evidence that would fall outside of justifying faith in other religions, say.
@@Meyer-gp7nq You say "randomly" but if you throw in a 100 billion years anything will develop with that amount of time.
I enjoy listening to Jordan when he's in this mood the most. He's treading a hirewire between tired /irritable and educational and guiding...
Has anybody asked him something like "you're in Joseph's tomb on the first Easter Sunday, what do you literally see with your physical eyes?"
Alex O'Connor did.
"If I took a Panasonic video camera... And places it in front of Joseph's tomb....
Would it show Jesus walking out?
Peterson: Yeah...but what does that mean? 😂😅😅
@@supremeakuma yep, a month after I posted this someone actually managed to pin him down.
Jordan Peterson hasn't convinced me one bit with his word salad.....not one bit
Congrats? You shouldn’t be convinced of god because of a podcast. How shallow would that be.
Yes this are just points of view. And the way JP Articulates his speech is so complex that might go right over the heads of many people but he means to entale much information with very few words so we can think about it and make our own conclusions
Great interviewer, great conversation
What do you mean by “there”? What do you mean by “isn’t ”? What do you mean by “a”?
What do you mean by “good”? What do you mean by “argument”?
What do you mean by "what"?
🤣
Wouldn't the 100% lack of any supernatural evidence be considered a good argument?
Argue that against unseen gravity when you walk off a cliff.
What do you define as supernatural and how do you know that their is 100% lack of it?
@@seeingeye14 gravity is measurable god is no where
@@Wow-hr1gl God created gravity and can be seen everywhere in His creation. ROMANS 1: 20 For the invisable things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eterna lpower and God head; so that they are without excuse.
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise , they became fools.
This directly addresses you from the Creator thousands of years before you were even born.🤔🤐
@@seeingeye14 all of what you said literally means nothing you have no good measurable evidence for the existence of god today idc what you say
I remember the apostle Paul of Peterson’s journey! Ride on …. Keep going!
Its mind-boggling that a smart professor like Peterson cant understand the atheist viewpoint.
@@JazzyArtKL I think you're misunderstanding what he's trying to say. He's not religious himself.
@@JustCammie Peterson is a Christian.
There can't be any arguments for atheism. I'm an atheist because I haven't found convincing arguments supported by evidence for the existence of any god. Unless provided with such, I'll remain unconvinced. This isn't about proving there's no god, it's about the lack of good reasons to believe in one. In that case, the 'I don't know' position is the most rational. I don't need to pick a side on every single claim.
Except that by calling yourself an atheist instead of agnostic, you've picked a side on this claim.
@@StageWatcherPersonally, I'm just me 😊
If pressed, I'd definitely call myself an agnostic-atheist because it's the most honest position I can hold.
I'm agnostic in the sense that I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can KNOW that there isn't "some" entity out there that would qualify as a God.
I'm atheist because I don't believe that this entity has been demonstrated convincingly.
@StageWatcher Here we go again. The word "atheist" is an imported word and comes from the Greek "atheos" which literally means "without god". That perfectly fits anybody who doesn't believe in a god.
Agnostic is another word with a different meaning - without knowledge. We are all agnostics, because none of us really knows, even the theists.
It's really frustrating when so many people don't even bother learning the meaning of words they use.
While this line of reasoning is well and good at present, it surely won't stand up against the judgement of God. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
And if you want evidence for the existence of God, seek it. The prophecies of the books of the Bible are testament to the truth of God's Word. The historicity of Christ is better documented than Caesar's. The scientific evidence of intelligent creation, and the scientific veracity of the Bible can easily be found. Ultimately though, if you want to know the truth, ask. Jesus said, "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him."
If God exists (we'll say the God of the Bible, given the channel we're on), what kind of evidence would you expect to find?
Would I go on a date with a woman who I won’t be able to see? Hear?
No! Because I need to know that the woman is real!
Same with god!
Don’t know how Jordan can’t see this
I love using a similar analogy. Imagine if the love of your life, the most important person in the world to you. Imagine if at least half of the struggle of your relationship with her was simply over wondering if shes even real in the first place since you’ve never actually interacted with her in any way. How stupid of a “relationship” is that?
@@nathaniel5261 seems to work for me. from, a skeptic
Jordan Peterson is a brilliant thinker and communicator on every topic except religion. When he talks about religion he's as dense and impenetrable as the French philosophers he hates, and as illogical and irrational as as people defending indefensible political nonsense. His problem is that he's trying to intellectualize faith. If you believe, just say so. I can respect that. But all the pseudointellectualism is offputting.
Idk why I decided to watch Peterson be psuedoprofound for another 10 minutes of my life.
Perhaps one day I'll encounter a christian who understands what atheism means...
So I guess we shouldn’t require evidence before we believe in something?
No. There's a process in faith. Seeing creation. Seeing truth, beauty, and goodness. Seeing miracles. Seeing evil and sin. Making sense of all of it....and concluding there is a God of order who makes it all make sense. But then there's faith to receive Christ. The leap of faith from seeing, contemplating, logic, etc, to choosing to believe in the things you can't see. The spiritual realm. Logic then faith.
@@RCGWho Where's the evidence though? Stop hiding behind the word salad like your JP does.
@@id9504 you seek evidence but claim its not proof, so you are lying but don't see your lie.
claiming theres no evidence is like the fish asking wheres water.
@@gerardjones7881Just more word salad. Evidence, please
@@gerardjones7881 Ugh... the fish asking "what's water" is the most obnoxious metaphor. If a fish had the ability, it would measure its surroundings and very quickly discover what water is. We are not fish. We have the cognitive ability to use tools and measure reality. If something is "real," it should have a measurable, predictable impact on the real world.
Every religious claim fails this test. They are all unfalsifiable. "God will make XYZ happen. If XYZ doesn't happen, he's not ready for it to or he's 'testing' you" and other bullshit like that. No way to prove it wrong. Religious people LOVE this. It allows them to spout claims confidently without any accountability. Nobody will ever be able to prove them wrong, so they assert claims with total confidence to boost their own egos. Just like JP is doing here.
What is the best argument for not believing in space unicorns?
There is no good argument for not believing in space unicorns ;) 😂
@@739jep It’s an illegal chess move!
What does a unicorn explain? Does it have the ability to create like intelligence does?
@@meb280 they’re space unicorns you blasphemer! And they’re all knowing and all powerful - so of course it can create anything. Says so in the space unicorn bible.
@@739jepMuch more logical to think everything came into being out of nothing. Don't need intelligence to create order, design, complexity and information. Why, I'll bet there is no 'person' behind this response of yours, it's likely a parrot randomly pecking at a keyboard. Polly want a cracker?
When an author writes a book, he has an end in view before it is written, and all of the characters in the novel have a purpose which is gradually unveiled by their interactions. Sometimes the interactions of the characters change the understanding of those involved and help to bring about the envisioned end. “Let us make mankind in our image, according to our likeness” (Gen 1:26).
Wow. It is a chore getting through this interview. Jordan is just hysterical and incoherent. His certainty and fanatical belief in nonsense is chilling. I deeply hope I am never so arrogant as to not even consider opposing views, as he is. A real shame for someone with such intellect to be so utterly lacking in integrity.
well why don't you wanna be arrogant? is it something bad? If yes, why?
Well of course not. The best/only arguments for not being convinced that a deity exists, is the lack of good arguments that a deity _does_ exist.
Also, even after all these years and all these talks, I _still_ don't understand Peterson's position on whether or not a god exists or does not exist. It's almost like he doesn't want to lose the favor of all the conservatives/people on the right that do believe in a god, yet at the same time seems to recognize that the arguments for a deity existing all fall short, so(like he often does on all sorts of issues), he delves into metaphor, and imprecise language to the point that nobody knows what the hell he's talking about.
Just say you can’t keep up with him and go.
“You’ll take no solace in your accomplishments, if they are of second rate quality” That is an absolute truth. To me, it’s a source of guilt when I let that happen. (Which is try like hell not to, but often fail)
I'm sorry you feel that way about yourself. I used to be like that too, and it almost drove me to end things. Eventually I discovered that I'm okay with not being perfect all the time, and I'm much happier for it. It's actually okay to feel good about something you didn't put your entire being into and is just "good enough".
I thought I had heard it all until "Evidence is like an illegal game move"...
He's taking about the paradigm. The Bible isn't a scientific text.
It’s a categorical error.
“Show me a square circle.”
@@CircumambulationMaedia Then we shouldn't take it that seriously as to dictate our life
@@prometheus1438”we don’t need evidence”
“Why not?”
“Because we said so”
Show me the evidence for that odd ought claim.
There is NO good arguments for the lack of belief in fairies ... Gotcha
Yeah I don't think there are good arguments to prove that something that can't be established to exist doesn't exist.
in deed have alot, look the miracle of Fatima. Jornals noticed the fact.
@@gustavoaraujo3587
What happened at Fatima? Something we haven't explained. Let me repeat - something we have not explained. That means it is not explained, not "fill in whatever explanation you like and pretend it's the truth."
No good argument for atheism, but agnostic is fine.
You are comparing a fairy against the fabric of reality itself. Nonsense comparison.
Peterson ending up just like any ordinary apologist, using the unknown to justify the existing of god.
Sad.
All gods, all religions, all "holy" books are the creations of mankind.
The deepest archetypal truths of mankind it's 6,000 years of experience. The Bible is a living thing not a book. God is the highest aim to be great.
And all humans are the creation of AI
But who created mankind
Give me a good argument against the existence of fairies?
What?
Gotcha!
You just made an "illegal chess move"! Thou shall not attempt to escape the inevitability of fairies.
What about the fact that no reason to actually believe god exists has ever been found? That’s a pretty good argument for atheism. Otherwise there wouldn’t be atheism.
“What is the evidence” is actually a perfectly valid question. Religious doctrine is certainly something one believes like a set of descriptive facts. To deny that is to avoid responsible inquiry and appropriate assessment. One of the worst cop outs I have ever heard. I just lost all respect for Peterson after seeing this appeal to ambiguity and “god of the gaps” argument.
There’s a big difference between believing in God-as-a-metaphor-for-higher-purpose and believing in God-as-actual-magic-sky-man and I don’t think he did a good job separating out those two things. I absolutely believe (for instance) that if I sit around eating cake all day instead of accomplishing something, I’ll be punished with a sense of disappointment for not achieving the potential I could have. But that’s a far cry from accepting there’s literally some conscious being up in space clucking his tongue at me.
I think the reason you don’t believe he did a good job separating out those two things, is because you won't offer your best to God.
Jordan Peterson the ultimate goal post mover!!!
“God is the deepest instinct” Jordan B. Peterson, that is so deep.
Actually, I think it is so shallow.
@@Andre_XX Why do you think that and how is it shallow?
@@rogeliorodriguez9350 Instinct to a neurotic psychotherapist who spent time in a mental institution and who wrestles mightily with the mere concept of being alive is never going to be profound in any way.
@@Andre_XX I don't think it's instinct to what you describe. He's had plenty of clients and research into this topic to come up with that analysis. He wrote a whole book called "Maps of Meaning" that quotes the Bible quite a bit. When you think about it and it is, the bible is a book on the human condition and the relationship with the good and evil of a person.
It's weird to use his time in a mental institution as a way to discredit his quote. I wouldn't call him neurotic, that's not the right word and doesn't give him credit for his accomplishments.
The reason I think it's a deep meaning is because I've had my personal moments where I have prayed and continued to pray to a god that I don't even know exist. Look back thousands of years, all civilizations have prayed to some spiritual being. It's like it's a primal thing to so. Why is that? That's why it's deep. We've all been there.
To trivialize that statement to "he's neurotic and has been admitted to a mental health clinic" does a huge service and honestly I think its a shallow and lazy analysis on your part.
@@rogeliorodriguez9350 If you think praying to an entity (God) created in the minds of clueless people thousands of years ago is deep, then I wonder what you would consider to be shallow?
This is great, just joined, and worth it
Losing more and more respect for jp. He knows no god exists, at least what everyone but him means by god
I’m sure he’s devastated.
@@elijah5791 nah, he is to far gone. Selfperception has left him, until something happens that really sho2s the stupidity of much of what he says. Syncoohants not goona do it
I don’t think he believe the Bible in the literal sense. But the idea of god are also not easy to grasp in the literal sense.
There are no good arguments for Jordan Peterson.
To think I admired him one time. I feel deeply ashamed of that now.
Was jordan peterson always this lunatic and fanatic religious person? i swear i remember him not being as fanatic as he is nowadays, i used to take him seriously, nowadays, i'm afraid he might come up with an argument to the existence of the Easter Bunny.
What I’m the world are you rambling about? Ffs just say you disagree already so f**king pretentious you are.
This all happened after his coma/drug experience as well as his wife's cancer recovery...
@@thinking-ape6483 Arm chair psychology is as cringe and bs as op’s comment.
@@thinking-ape6483 i think the benzos fried him, unfortunately.
The first time I encountered Peterson was way back when Canada (or some province) was considering passing a law that would punish businesses for intentionally calling people by their non-preferred pronouns. (Sorry if my facts are a little off.) He said this amounted to "compelled speech", which I thought was an interesting argument. Even if I didn't fully agree with it, he was fully coherent. Now, every time I hear him, it just sounds like word salad.
We don't need YOUR imaginary friend
For anything
Meaning of life = 42 god bless ty Sir JP
So these people believe you can exist outside your body? Love the psychedelic shirt Jordan, and the word salad is great as always
Why would my rational position of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented - require an argument?
Did you see how he deflected the question asked at 2:52? He basically asked why would a person believe in god, if there is no evidence for it. And Jordan Peterson deflects the question by deliberately misinterpreting it and answering it as if asked what belief in god is.
@@Maorawrath Exactly.
go back to 2010 youtube
@@alexanderryan1176 Huh?!?
@@alexanderryan11762010 youtube is sure as hell better than 2024 youtube
Why does atheism need an argument? I just dont believe a gods real cause no one has been convincing enough to persuade me. I can't help that. I can't pretend, i believe.
Exactly. athiesm literal means a lack of belief in a diety. I am not going to argue for athiesm because there is not point. just respect my lack of belief, and I will respect your belief.
There’s a ton of holes in the theories surrounding existing assumptions of how the planet is formed and how we all got here that allows us to qualify the absence of a creative force in our theories.
Feels like Atheism, Agnosticism and Creation all require similar amounts of faith
@markeburne5106 So you think that I have faith that I'm not convinced of something someone said to me? That seems a little odd. So for everything thing I don't know, I have faith that I don't know it?
@@markeburne5106 Holes in theories is not a place for your god of the gaps and even if you disproved those theories that wouldn´t prove your god in any way!
I need exactly zero faith to not accept your claim of a god for which you have no evidence!
I do appreciate that you understand just how useless faith is so you will do everything to try to drag atheism and agnosticism down to your level but that doesn´t in the slightest make it so, it just shows that you are ignorant about the meaning of words which seems to be a common theme amongs you sky wizard people.
Just please stop posting such nonsense.
okay dude. If you don't believe then you just don't. No one can convince you. I would ask you to ponder on whom you are worshipping then cuz it's human nature to worship smth regardless of our beliefs. Perhaps you are worshipping the self? Is that ideal? I don't know. Good luck.
He redefines everything in his own way, but his definitions are fluid and almost no one else adheres to them. He literally may as well be having a chat with himself. But he claims to know what God is, pretty arrogant for someone who can't answer a simple question without redefining every other word
Hey, can give you an example of the redefining?
@@robertblackwell8611 I wonder what recently happened to him recently. He wasn't like this a few years ago.
Hahaha atheism needs no arguments it’s the status quo. There’s no objective verifiable evidence for god therefore I have no reason to accept or believe a god exists.
Are you going to post the full podcast here in RUclips?
I know it is available in Locals, but Locals is unavailable here in Brazil... They didn't accept our government censorship so they were removed from our country and now I can't access the full episode 😅
I think they said it would eventually be released here ;)
It already was released
It looks to be posted now 🙏🏽
Censorship in brazil? What a pitty news
The full thing is on RUclips
I don't think Peterson even knows what atheism is
@@nakkadu he doesn't, you do.
@@unlimitedmind99 yes I do 👍🏻
To live as God's people, not possible. I'm sure they would let you, as they reverse the analytic and don't make any sense; they are using them in the atmosphere. To believe in God is some hard theory on the creation of the universe. New atheism is simply what it is, becoming who you are through the emergence of God's people. To live as God's people as a proper function in being is the job, you didn't get that job did you, but you did, for 8 years and you kicked my dirt. Yes you did.
Becoming who you are through the emergence of God's people
@@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine what?
Jordan completely lost in word salads and pseudo intellectualism. He’s got a fanclub to please for selling his books. American presidents do the same to please a certain public for their votes.
OK, the reason God doesn't just open up the skies and shout "I AM REAL" to all of us is because of His Mercy. He is allowing us to have excuses. He knows that if He proved to us without a doubt that He was real, it would come with the expectation that, now that we know without a doubt, we would HAVE to follow him, worship Him in his desired way, obey him, sacrifice our self will for Him, and be a part of His church. And the unfortunate truth is, many (if not most) people would end up saying "OK, God is real. I know now. But I'm still going to do whatever I want." And God would not be able to forgive them. They would have no excuses, and no benefit of doubt. They would be condemned to hell. They would have no excuse whatsoever for not surrendering themselves to God's will. God remains mysterious in most people's lives so that when they die they may have at least some excuse. That is Mercy.
"Hello creation of mine, here is indisputable proof that I exist, you have to join my church now"
"I prefer not to, maybe I'll change my mind after I do my own thing, but I have this other stuff that I prefer at the moment"
And then he gets mad and unleashes his wrath on his creature forever and ever, because I mean he just has to at this point.
What a strange series of events
@@Greyz174that won't be how that works. God's wrath is an expression of justice and love. You can choose to enjoy God's love, or resent it.
Hell isn't an arbitrary thing God subjects you to, it's the natural consequence of rejecting him.
Like JP said in the vid, if u enjoy the chaos, so be it, but you're heaping the coals on your own head
I disagree with this theory. He already did that with the angels and some fell. But the end result of your premise is that they still end in hell, it's just not as clear cut as undeniable proof. How is it more merciful to judge someone to death when they had partial information, but you had the ability to give them all information so they could make a fully informed choice?
I believe God doesn't split the skies as you say, not because of mercy, but because of love. If God did that then it would be the same as holding a gun to our head. "Either you believe in Me right now or you die." Yes, the end result is the same, but He gives us time to decide, pleads with us to choose life, died for us to make life possible. He loves us so much He does everything He can to lead us off the path to destruction, but He won't force us. It is still our decision.
@@Greyz174 this is the essence of pride
@@carlant_III original commenter says that God will condemn the person to Hell because they have no excuse for their rejection of him, not that they do it to themselves. God will do this to us instead of forgiving us. In response to deciding to go their own way, God will condemn them to Hell. This is one person purpousefully doing an action to another person, not just one person torturing themselves because they choose to be upset at God's love forever
This is some of the best word salad I've ever heard.
Then you didn't understand it
if something can’t be explained in plain language it is usually rubbish. peterson has done this for years. peterson believes in a MUCH more metaphysical interpretation of religion/god than 90% of all religious people on this planet. it’s disingenuous to pander and not upset his base who majority of adhere to a very literal interpretation of christianity and the bible.
@darkdrifter_mirai >literal interpretation of the bible and Christianity
Forgetting of course that the bible and Christianity have literal elements but are also awash in highly figurative, symbolic messages that complement the more literal elements. There is no one who actually believes in Christianity who has a simply literal view of it, because to do so would be to discard a vast swath of the religion.
As we see with the saints how someone views and interacts with God can highly differ, yet that does not invalidate any of these interactions, much like how one child may interact with their father in a very different way than their sibling does, yet both are loving the same person.
There is nothing disingenuous with Peterson's approach to these things. Ehat is disingenuous is your attempt to drive a false wedge between harmonious positions! And even worse, you seem to be struggling with understanding Peterson's own positions, which are increadibly simple when you get down to the basics. He makes many easily understood but spiritually deep statements in this short video and yet it seems you weren't capable of understanding it yourself. Perhaps you should give it another try
@@TheDoctorProfessor he didn't say anything that makes sense. If he did someone else would be able to explain it. We're not talking quantum mechanics here. He refuses to actually explain what he believes. It's just disjointed sentences .
@@tesu2000Actually, sir. Everything that is worthwhile can not always be said in plain language. Try reading an advanced cognitive psychology Article for example. Maybe the problem lies in your word comprehension ability, og lack of reasoning (which is btw, even when done with system 2 and provides the correct logical answer, the process is seldom based on purely logic and is far from nominal)
There is no good argument for gods existence.
Plenty for atheism.
Jordan just twists words to not offend his religious fan base.
And that’s coming from a guy who generally has a positive view of Peterson.
In fact, there’s a myriad of good arguments.
@@elijah5791 None for religion. Feel free to try to prove me wrong, though.
Atheism does not require a good argument, much to the chagrin of those addicted to arguments. Atheism is simply an acknowledgement of the absence of belief.
It requires an argument if and only if it's an assertion or denial of some proposition. If it's neither, then what you're calling "atheism" doesn't rise to the level of a disagreement with theism, since disagreement requires the assertion or denial of some proposition.
@@allenanderson4567 Precisely. Atheism does not imply anti-theism.
Thought we were supposed to steel man the opposition
This was epic, one of his best speeches❤❤❤❤