Peter, your game, Spectrum Street Epistemology, gets people fired!! Well seriously sanctioned but we know for an associate professor it is the same thing. Leigh Revers is an associate professor in the department of chemical and physical sciences at the University of Toronto. He used the game and it was ok to ask if "Pineapple belongs on pizza," but ask if: “Prof. Jordan Peterson requires media training” and this is too “stressful to our students.” Next came the ultimate trauma bomb, four simple words: “Men can become women.” All hell breaks loose
As a Christian, I can see where the heckler was coming from (those specific Bible verses are from a common evangelism method from decades ago). But I love Peter's point that that method is the same method "woke" hecklers are using today. It doesn't work well. It's not persuasive. It should be abandoned.
I believe that the Bible is for the believer and the wisdom within is to delivered by example. I believe that the most pursuasive argument a Christian can make is with their character. Live in such a way that people want to know what motivates your behavior and then you share with them your beliefs. Of course, I may be being a hypocrite right now so figure that one out.
@@TragedyOfTheDay Lifestyle is a big part of reaching out to people that disagree with you for sure (whether it's on religion, politics, or otherwise). But words are fine too. You just need to read the room. Truth is a flashlight. You shine it at people's feet in the darkness, they thank you. You shine it in their eyes. They're not so appreciative.
It is the same method as the woke, sure, but it's a different message and it's a message that is correct so it's an appropriate form of engagement. Peter is on the edge of eternal destruction. That man was engaging in love to warn Peter before it's too late because it's obvious he had no chance to reach Peter otherwise and intellectual reasoning had failed thus far.
He should know that saying "the fool has said in his heart there is no God," is a Begging The Question fallacy. The God of the Bible is real because the God of the Bible says he's real.
I notice Peter's posture here, and i want to acknowledge his ability to remain firm. not calm, not mean or aggressive in retaliation, but firm. not just addressing claims and disagreements, but inquiring about the people in the audience opinions, as well as his own. well done and thank you for your commitment to civil discourse!
I noticed around 2018 that young people were confusing the word "interview" or "conversation" with "interrogation". They would interpret a well executed interview as "grifting" or "right wing" because the interviewer didn't shame or accuse the guest of anything. It's scary and sad.
You haven't been around long. What passes for "interviews" now are basically just vapid hours-long puppy-dog sessions with "experts" and a fun or cool guy who doesn't know enough to question anything significant.
It became cool to question everything. literally, everything, down to reality and truth itself. I believe that's called sophistry and is the hallmark of post-modernism. It was cool to question the teacher, cool to question authority figures. Question polititians. But now you just question your friends, you question your culture, your religion, question reality. I'm quite sympathetic to that, as I always saw myself as a doubter, questioning many things. Not making a claim if it's good or bad. personally i think its quite reasonable to question your religion, because if you believe something strongly it shouldn't crumble to questions. And if it does, do you really want to believe strongly in it? And because everything is seen as a vector to attack, we lose sight that language is a beautiful tool to find common ground, to relate and make friends, to share wisdom and improve ideas, to defuse stressful and dangerous situations. People want to be cool and right because they want to be the center of attention. But if you want whats best for those you talk to, you will inevidably enrich your life.
In the UK, it's expected for interviews of politicians to be combative, and the interviewee goes into it expecting tough questions and to have their worldview challenged vigorously. Whether or not the interviewer agrees with the interviewee, it's seen as their job to bring up common criticisms to the claims they hear. Watch Shapiro's BBC interview with Andrew Neil for an example of this and how it can cause confusion with someone who doesn't expect it. Personally I think it's a pretty good norm, and one that should be adopted in the US. People making strong or controversial claims should be ready to defend them against tough questions and common criticisms. They shouldn't always expect an easy ride, like a liberal going on MSNBC or a conservative going on Fox News.
@@ZonalarSophistry is something quite different; it is fundamentally quite separate from the questioning of things, and from postmodernism, for that matter. Questioning everything is _philosophy,_ including natural philosophy, as science used to be called. I don't know if philosophy recently became cooler than at any other time, but of course it's not new.
shot. Went further saying he wouldn't believe no matter what, that's just stupid. It's not argument or thought, it 100% telling you he's untrustworthy and a liar.
One could argue the opposite to him as well, that the possibility of god entails god just as validly as the opposite that he counted as a legitimate denial ....i donno im kind of an amateur @@denroy3
@@denroy3 The very fact that it is a belief means it's not based in truth. So it is your CHOICE to believe or not to believe something. You don't have the same choice with FACTS. A belief is not a fact.
Thank you Peter. I read your book and am continuing to work on the rule, "Don't be an asshole." Thank you for providing a model of how to disagree with integrity.
I really admire Peter Boghossians ability to stand firm in the face of zealots from both left and right. There really aren’t too many of us old style liberals out there
There are plenty, but we're usually labelled right-wingers today, and in the face of the left woke type, some are okay with that and even adopted the label. I know what I am and I know who I don't want to be, that's all that matters, the left can call me anything they like. Unlike them, I can actually have reasonable discussions with right-wingers and not be cast out for simply attempting it.
@@OptimalToastSame here. Peter put me on the path of epistemology. I have come far with his help. I currently also find discussions with people on the right to be more interesting. Although I am an atheist I consider myself to be a cultural Christian (I stole this one from Douglas Murray).
Christians are not immune from pride, to be sure. Better that we own it honestly, ask for forgiveness when necessary, and get back to living in humility.
What's gonna happen when they switch to Islam? It's ok I'm sure you will be fine May the force be with you;) So easy to attack Christians isn't it Now please do Islam
I will try throwing out a Tolkien quote next time I get a Bible quote thrown at me, just to see the reaction. Maybe toss in a bit of Phillip Roth just for good measure.
The vast whelming majority of people in the world believe in God. People don’t believe in God make up a God like environmentalism. It is a human need. You have a God it’s just something else and you don’t want to admit it. You probably don’t even recognize it. Finally, we know, for a fact, Jesus was a historical person because the Jews wrote about, and Muslims wrote about him, in addition to the Bible. Even people like the Dalai Lama admit that Jesus lived.
@@nedhill1242 Before Abraham went out on his nocturnal walk around 1800bc we were all pagans. Does that validate different paganistic and shamanistic faiths as true?
I couldn't imagine being this faithless and invested in what is essentially rick and morty cosmology. Imagine believing in an utterly impossible physical phenomenon (time travel) and aliens before a creator, smh.
No more silly than believing in an invisible sky daddy, that for 2k years nobody has been able to prove exists. And aliens are way more likely than any god.
I'm a Christian and I fully agree with Peter. It's ultimately up to the Holy Spirit whether he becomes a believer or not. I am grateful for conversations he has with true followers of Christ.
Only the Holy Spirit? Or Holy Spirit + act of the will to choose God? ( Is anyone capable of choice at that point, i.e. choosing still to not convert? I guess it's the age-old debate of Free Will vs Irresistible Grace. )
I appreciate you so much Peter. Whether or not I believe, there is a polite way to act in public! Blame not the folks in church more than the folks in the hospital. ❤
I am Catholic and I stand with Peter! The guy is amazing, he fights, he listens, he thinks… he rejects the things I reject and is hated by the same people who hate me. Sounds like a brother, not an enemy!
Kind of similar to, "If you point your finger and curse at someone, you also have 3 fingers pointing back at yourself". That one gave me a solid oof, when I heard it too.
It always amazes me how many people who are cheering for totalitarianism think they'll come out on top when they get their wish and that the people in power will continue to listen to them.
I'm very sorry that happened to you, Peter. My Christian brother who basically called you a fool is committing a couple of errors including a serious sin. A Bible-reading Christian will know of the example of Apostle Paul who engaged in Athens via public discussion/debate as one who respected Non-Believers as fellow human beings seeking truth. He affirmed the man who believed in "An Unknown God"; he didn't heckle him and call him a fool. Which is where this man sinned against you. Reference a teaching of Christ from the Book of Matthew in the Bible: You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell” (Matthew 5:21-22 NIV) Christ was teaching on how a deeper troubling spirit within a person springs forth with calling another "a fool". It is to be taken very seriously, not a mere passing insult. IMHO, it is very offensive to God, especially since Christians believe that every person is made in the Image of God. It is a version of a human making themselves out to be God in passing hateful judgment upon another human being. ( I know you don't believe in God, just giving context as a fellow Christian about my spiritual brother's actions here which were clearly offensive. ) Again, I am very sorry you were attacked like that. Yes, glad for the second questioner who did ask and challenge in a civil way.
If nothing internal will change your mind, and nothing external will, does that mean that sound reason and logic will not change your mind- since they are internal to you? And, do you apply the same idea consistently to everything in life or only to God?
"You are becoming what you hate". I'm so glad I was able to see this in myself, and constantly check to see if I am doing it the other way. So many things helped me see clearly, but it is a daily thing, we need to constantly check within ourselves. ❤❤
I think what Peter was saying is that it is far more rational to believe that there is a natural explanation than a supernatural one given that everything that occurs within our universe must inherently be "natural".
I lean toward a created universe myself but every side has half-wit bullies that muddy our attempts at knowledge. Logos surely isn't everything, but it must be permitted a just arena.
@@infillvaluecreation I know. I was just having fun with it. I've had to record a video at least four times because I kept misspeaking! Everyone misspeaks, to my knowledge.
I'm a Catholic, and I was frustrated by the heckler because I was quite interested in what Peter had to say, but he never got the chance to get to his main point of what would convince him of God's existence.
Only recently come across Peter Boghossian and this response makes me all the more interested in what he has to say. Love it. And everyone saying 'I'm a believer....blah blah' - you would do well to check your belief isn't just your ignorance gaining confidence.
Except he was wrong, because there are exceptions to the rule. Professor Richard Wolf bulldozes his way through debates - it's not wrong to call him out on it David Pakman is a bad faith actor - its not wrong to call him out on it Hugh Grant is a serial womaniser - it is not wrong to claim that his interest in keeping celebrity lives out of the press is motivated by his own misogynistic behaviours Bill Clinton is a known liar - it is not wrong to imply that nothing he says can be trusted without evidence (see Douglas Walton and Charles Taylor for more)
Alien tricksters would be similar to demonic tricksters etc. Nothing to be ruled out also requires God is indeed active in this world of contradictions & contrasts.
Why do followers of religion think that atheists have nothing to base their morality on? Morality is not dependent upon having a priestly class (or deity) tell you what is moral. Surely, having to adhere to certain moral values because religion says so devalues your moral choices. You are not being good because you are moral, but because you fear punishment in the afterlife.
The question of what is the basis for an atheist’s morality isn’t to prove they have nothing to base their morality on. You seem to not understand the premise and point of that question. It’s to critique the basis of their morality as being subjective, and in the course of doing so what actually begins to ensue is the atheist reveals they have a moral foundation that is actually based on Christian theology.
“You seem not to understand the point of that question” - how rudely patronising. What do you think humans based their morality on prior to the advent of Christianity? Your premise is ludicrous.
Ignoring the question of God's existence for a moment and just focusing on the material world: Where do priests get their morality from? The Bible. Where does the Bible get its morality from? Again, assuming God isn't in this equation, then it comes from decades or centuries of tradition. Where does tradition come from? Human beings trying all sorts of things over centuries or millennia and keeping what works. Or here's another version. Where do priests get their morality from? Their deity. Where does the concept of this deity come from? Intuition and instinct personified, and probably some level of social confirmation. Where does THAT come from? Millennia of evolution, where the human psyche - collective AND individual - have adapted to various conditions and kept central what works. In contrast, modern Athiests focus on reasoning. Which is great, but it doesn't have the experience or evolution of ages to truly cement it in, and its also highly dependent on having a good basis of hard data as the foundation for the reasoning. It is better for questioning whether old morality schemes fit into new conditions that tradition and human psyche haven't yet evolved for, as well as things that have clearly defined variables, such as physics or mathematics (as opposed to things like psychology or ecology, where hard data are bitterly hard to discern from noise, or contradict each other.)
@amyb you’re making a circular argument. Nothing you have said proves anything. You’re basically saying (without any evidence to prove it) that religious people have learned from the experience of millennia and atheists haven’t. That’s just a ridiculous assumption. You seem to have a very narrow and prejudiced view of what an atheist is.
@@gilly5094 Given that the Celts used to dump their enemies in a pit and pull them out to eat them when they got hungry, I would say their morality was based on something we would call "expediency".
I’m a believer. I’m also a philosophy grad (from a top 10 global uni, with a first class pass and told more than once by lecturers that I could teach it, apparently I was good a translating complexity into simple language- anyway none of that matters except to establish where I’m coming from on this) I COMPLETELY understand why so many, especially those applying philosophical methods, reject the spiritual. It’s an almost unavoidable conclusion when applying western logical and NECESSARY cognitive scalpels. It’s those same scalpels which reject faith that have also given us the pinnacle of civilisation, of advancement, of decency, humanitarian empathy and ultimately the realisation of Christian values. But there’s an undeniable chasm being reached now, whereby it’s taken us so far that’s it’s now turned in on itself and is destroying that which it built. I’m going to get some heat for this, que sera, but I think it’s now time to reintroduce the sacred, the holy, the revered back into our culture. Because when it went it set off a time bomb on our values system & the clock has now run down causing societal explosions all around. And for the record I have as little time for those who scoff at faith in the ineffable as those who force their beliefs on others as this hectoring bully attempted and who Peter, as always, dispatched so elegantly. You may not realise it yet but sooner or later we’re all going to have to choose: Marx, Mohammed or Jesus. It’s reaching critical mass.
During the beginning of the Enlightenment during the late 17th Century , there begins the ACCEPTANCE of the scientific method over Religion and the promotion of Classical Liberalism ( The promotion of equal rights of ALL citizens and the toleration for those with differences of opinion ). As Patrick Deneen pointed out , Liberalism has now succeeded and is now turning in on itself .
very well said. I too am a believer and really appreciate peter and his quest for truth even if he and I part on the faith part. I think he really values the truth, is seeking more of it and defends the truth he has currently discovered. His street epistemology is great.
It feels as though the Era of Enlightenment is waning fast and we're speeding towards the Era of Stupidity. Much like Religion, the faith in science is waning, and rightfully so. Science is increasingly being captured and corrupted by politics and the delusional who expect you to believe in nonsense and have no real footing of moral integrity.
@@waakow It's sad how much cling to the falsehood of secularism. And act so morally smug in all the comments it's like - do you not see how you come across on the internet?
This reminds of the film, 'The Gods must be crazy'. A pilot throws a glass Coke bottle out of his plane, and it lands near a member of a Khoisan tribe. Not knowing what airplanes or glass bottles are, he presumes it's a gift from the Gods.
A while back a group of idiots organized a "protest" outside the house of my neighbor who was on the city council. She was the furthest left person on our city council at the time and really wanted to "reimagine" the police but, she wasn't moving fast enough for them. Many of them were wearing black block outfits and face masks. they had people armed with long pikes guarding the streets so the neighbors couldn't leave in their cars. They gave really crazy speeches accusing her of doing all sorts of awful things - none of which were true. It felt like they were going to burn cross on her lawn. Instead, they paintballed her house. In context, a very clear death threat.
What is the meaning of this book quote?: "so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."
This is excellent. I have recently moved to the US Conservative Party after being a lifelong liberal and I have been surprised by how different it is from how the left portrayed it. I love the values and the ability to speak my mind on social issues. What I strongly dislike are the deeply entrenched Christians who feel that they need to make you believe what they do. I think they need to realize that to further their aims in policy, they need to respect that others can share similar values without believing in their religion. If they can’t make space for others, the right will be just like the left in 5-10 years. I recently discussed with my husband that I think we’re liable to see a very large religious backlash in the US in the coming years. As much as I’ve valued my secular upbringing, I am increasingly concerned that humans aren’t capable of living in a secular society. Dangerous ideologies fill the gaps where reason and logic were supposed to prevail.
I think the vast majority of people will always worship and revere something even if they do not realize it. If not a religion or god, it becomes something else. Right now for many it's woke ideolegies. I agree with your conclusion, I'm not sure it's possible to have a completely secular society. There will always be some monument to gaze at.
The heckler shouldn’t have heckled. He was acting like the Leftist college kids. At the same time, Peter ironically wound up sounding woke himself, lol.
I recently made the observation that people on the right would rather call names than persuade someone. The reply I got was "You can lead a moron to water but you can't make him drink." The lack of self awareness was as bad as any wokester. Most people left or right prefer defending their current beliefs over learning anything.
I disagree with Peter about faith and religion. I do really enjoy watching what he does. I would love to talk with him, and I'm sad I didn't get to see him when he was in Portland (when I lived near there)
These kind of talks are very interesting as someone who has been an agnostic for the first 38 years of my life. I’ve recently become a full on Christian this year so I’ve been on both sides of this topic.
Great answers! Some people say that you can’t have morals without believing in a god. But that’s just not true. Many people can be good and make the right choices without following a religion. History shows that people in different cultures have had their own rules for being good, even if they didn’t believe in a god. Famous thinkers like Aristotle and some modern philosophers have explained how we can have strong morals without needing religious beliefs.
He def hit the nail on the head. Christ does teach how to, and how not to, engage people. The lessons of the Bible are timeless, because people are the same as we were 2000 years ago. And this proves that point. So although I don’t agree with him on God, it’s interesting that he used a Christian belief to argue his moral and ethical position, while the “christian” did not.
I need to know how you answered the question about the basis of your morality, because I'm continuously seeing people in discussions with folks like Jordan Peterson or debates with evangelicals who have lackluster answers that frustrate people like me who think it's blatantly obvious that people don't need a book to tell them not to poop in their bed because they will have to deal with the consequences, and that the world is the big bed we all sleep in together... It just doesn't get any simpler than that to me, so I was really hoping to see how you answered that guy.
I don't know Peters answer, but it isn't a hard question TO answer. Its natural in us as a social species. This can be shown because we see altruistic behaviour in other social animals where they risk themselves to help others. I remember an example it was a prariedog that will make noise to warn others of danger (predatory bird), which would draw attention to itself from the danger. This altruism, helping others, is the basis of morality.
These sort of people don't want to convince anyone. It's purely an act of ego stroking after they've been insulted by the fact that someone believes differently than they do.
you are undertaking a similar premise and fallacy Peter referenced. The Heckler was obviously a man of faith, who, as we know, have a subject of 'faith' they put aside from critical thinking. its not from ego in most cases, it's from fear.
@@antoncarmoducchi6057 What premise and fallacy am I engaging in exactly? And what is that man of faith afraid of? Nothing Peter said threatened his well being in any way. But disagreeing with a person's views very much can elicit feelings of being offended that originate with their ego being bruised by said disagreement.
I agree with Peter. There is no verifiable evidence that confirms the existence of God, all they have is faith in their belief in God, unfortunately, faith in one’s belief is evidence of nothing.
I have to tell you, Peter, that despite the fact that you are an atheist and I am a 5th generation Jehovah's Witness I do truly enjoy your thought exercises. And too often, people respond emotionally to what would otherwise be a respectful debate. You can't change people's minds when you call them names. 😂
That I find fascinating. The JWs I know are the nicest people I've ever met, and I enjoy talking to them, but I could never imagine any of them ever following Peter Boghossian
@@wjdeoliveira3809 well I don't agree with all his positions but I appreciate the fact that he helps people to reflect on WHY they believe the things they believe. The Apostle Paul admonished us to always be testing our beliefs as to their trueness. Always examine our beliefs and make sure they are on solid ground and rooted in facts, not just emotions.
@@RussellStrosnider Cool. That does fit with my impression of JWs. I have never discussed the details of theology and doctrines, as I find them boring, but we have great philosophical discussions
The very fact that it is a belief means it's not based in truth. So it is your CHOICE to believe or not to believe something. You don't have the same choice with FACTS. A belief is not a fact.
I always love it when theists ask people where they get their morality from if not religion. As if religion has been a great bastion of morality over the years. Wars in the name of God, calling for death of non believers and apostates. Advocating for slavery, control of women and let us not forget the repeated issues with the Catholic church and child abuse. Religion has shown its inability to stick to its so called moralities so why would anyone turn to it for such advice?
Do wars exist outside of religion? does abuse? It is incorrect to blame religion for malevolence when billions of people follow said religions. Humans are known to do bad things irrespective of the situation. Blame the individual. Would you accuse baseball caps of evil, because a crime was committed while wearing one? Atheists are coasting on the morals systems created of the religious while acting like they plucked their moral system out of thin air. If religions were to die out, the atheists would be left with nothing but hot air.
I wonder what he thinks about people who have a moral belief and a strong affinity that is directly opposed to the moral belief that then use faith to overcome the offending affinity?
But do we approach anything else in life with the skepticism he’s expecting ppl to use to approach claims of God? If you go to sit on a chair, do you immediately question if it’s a chair, inspect it, think of everything else it could possibly be (hologram, hallucination), then sit? Wouldn’t that be irrational? His argument begs the question. It assumes in the outset that claims of God are irrational and need inspecting when that’s the exact thing it sets out to prove.
I believe the Christian story. I believe Christ is risen. I also believe that Peter Boghossian is an honest, decent man. Everyone’s path to faith is individually distinct and personal. It’s his journey. At least he’s not telling the wanting crowd what they want to hear. He has integrity and calls it like he sees it. Respect.
Totally acknowledge the sound guy trying his best to get it so we could hear. Def have mic in hand, it's tough though, people self-edit, first takes are best. Subtitles for the people speaking miclessley
@@itistrue101 what atheist miss is that faith isn’t false either. It’s just faith. And faith needs no proof. You can’t out logic faith. You can’t out proof faith. You can’t out argue faith. Faith is to believe in something even when there is lack of proof. In other words believer don’t and won’t care what you say. Because everything atheists say is irrelevant to faith.
@@AlphaToOmegaXG "Faith needs no proof"... then it is of no use at all. I have FAITH that you're God does not exist is as silly as saying I have FAITH my God does exist. Yet in your mind both must be of equal value - since evidence is not required.. The atheist position is simply that Theists have not provided enough (any) evidence to convince them of the claim that "a God exist". Theists make a great claim, yet provide nothing ( except "faith") to prove that it is true. If I made the claim that huge pink jellyfish aliens exist, you'd not require proof?
@@AlphaToOmegaXG "faith needs no proof" then it is no use at all. It would be just as silly of me to say I have FAITH that God(s) do not exist, as it is for you to say God does exist - yet in your mind both statements must be of equal value as "no proof is required". The Atheist position is simply that Theists are yet to provide any evidence for their extraordinary claim. If I was to claim that monster jellyfish aliens were to invade earth would my FAITH be enough, or would you require I provide some evidence?
@@AlphaToOmegaXG "faith needs no proof" then it is no use at all. It would be just as silly of me to say I have FAITH that God(s) do not exist, as it is for you to say God does exist - yet in your mind both statements must be of equal value as "no proof is required". The Atheist position is simply that Theists are yet to provide any evidence for their extraordinary claim. If I was to claim that monster jellyfish aliens were to invade earth would my FAITH be enough, or would you require I provide some evidence?
"What do you base your morality on" ... What a question.... I am a non-believer my whole life and people know me for being an moral person. It is called common sence and it has all to do with parenting. I don't need no religion to know whats right and wrong. I pity people who are only living a moral life because they are afraid of gods judgement. But i got to understand that some people need religion as their guideline through life. As long as they don't bother me (for example: lawmaking influenced by religion, or missionaries) i accept them and i don't judge them for their believe.
While I have by own doubts about god and Christianity, I have one question for those that do not believe at all. The things we see around us everyday, living plants and animals so meticulously perfect in many ways, just came about because the universe belched? Or grew from an ameba into this complex world? We are just an accident of what? Nature?
At first I thought this kind of person was arrogant and unintelligent, but I'm afraid it's a traumatized person who feels challenged by alternative beliefs. It is so sad that a world view can make a person so afraid that they cannot participate in a civil conversation.
The tribalism we're seeing today is pretty clear evidence that the villain isn't and has never been a class of people, but rather a way of doing things - systems of organization and power, and what it invariably does to those participating in it. There are uncomfortably many parallels in the way today's tribes are interacting with the rest of the world around them. Groups are so calcified around their respective righteousness, and many people in them have little to no experience of working functionally (or even personally knowing people) outside of their groups, so I worry about what it will take to break this down again.
Atheism is like saying you are alive but you don’t believe you come from a line of fathers with a beginning because you haven’t seen them. There is a beginning and an author to the line of fathers and the most probable answer by far is that it is a personal intelligent being. The one with the most compelling accurate claim is still Jesus. We learned from research that the forces of nature are unified and perpetual by design, that all people have a common ancestry, so there is one Creator source not many. It is in the current social agreement to acknowledge a Creator, read the Declaration of Independence, these intellectuals haven’t found an alternative, their educated ignorance has no merit and leads nowhere, it’s the blind leading the blind.
There are tons of phenomena we can not see with the naked eyes. More to be discovered using advanced methods... some we will never discover. Good luck to the unbeliever.
Watch the full lecture: covid19criticalcare.com/courses/conference-2024/lessons/building-a-powerful-community-and-how-to-have-impact/?
Peter, your game, Spectrum Street Epistemology, gets people fired!! Well seriously sanctioned but we know for an associate professor it is the same thing. Leigh Revers is an associate professor in the department of chemical and physical sciences at the University of Toronto. He used the game and it was ok to ask if "Pineapple belongs on pizza," but ask if: “Prof. Jordan Peterson requires media training” and this is too “stressful to our students.” Next came the ultimate trauma bomb, four simple words: “Men can become women.” All hell breaks loose
I do have to say, as someone who does see Jesus as the Son of the living God… you are absolutely my FAVORITE atheist.
@@sarahbeardsley227
Right up there.
Where can I find the full answer of what you _would_ have said, had you not been sidetracked by the heckler?
Lol - this is the most Peter Boghossian way of handling a heckler.
His argument here was so stupid as to be embarrassing.
@@denroy3
Can you timestamp the argument and dismantle it?!
Well said! Very Funny.
@@denroy3I didn’t hear an argument of any kind. Just some guy who was out of line and wanted to be right by being an asshole.
bunch of SIMPS in here
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” -Socrates
Nice.
That would be a claim. Can you conclusively establish that?
''One's ability to quote something doesn't make it true'' -guy in the video above
Not according to Snopes if you can believe them that is. Where can the text be found? Where is the genesis of this? I am genuinely curious.
@@thechoosentwice1312 'I'm too drunk to taste this chicken' -Late great Col. Sanders
As a Christian, I can see where the heckler was coming from (those specific Bible verses are from a common evangelism method from decades ago). But I love Peter's point that that method is the same method "woke" hecklers are using today. It doesn't work well. It's not persuasive. It should be abandoned.
I believe that the Bible is for the believer and the wisdom within is to delivered by example. I believe that the most pursuasive argument a Christian can make is with their character. Live in such a way that people want to know what motivates your behavior and then you share with them your beliefs. Of course, I may be being a hypocrite right now so figure that one out.
@@TragedyOfTheDay Lifestyle is a big part of reaching out to people that disagree with you for sure (whether it's on religion, politics, or otherwise). But words are fine too. You just need to read the room.
Truth is a flashlight. You shine it at people's feet in the darkness, they thank you. You shine it in their eyes. They're not so appreciative.
It is the same method as the woke, sure, but it's a different message and it's a message that is correct so it's an appropriate form of engagement. Peter is on the edge of eternal destruction. That man was engaging in love to warn Peter before it's too late because it's obvious he had no chance to reach Peter otherwise and intellectual reasoning had failed thus far.
He should know that saying "the fool has said in his heart there is no God," is a Begging The Question fallacy. The God of the Bible is real because the God of the Bible says he's real.
@@Durzo1259 are you real? If you say you are real. Does that suddenly make you not real? See how absurdly biased you are?
I notice Peter's posture here, and i want to acknowledge his ability to remain firm. not calm, not mean or aggressive in retaliation, but firm. not just addressing claims and disagreements, but inquiring about the people in the audience opinions, as well as his own. well done and thank you for your commitment to civil discourse!
I noticed around 2018 that young people were confusing the word "interview" or "conversation" with "interrogation". They would interpret a well executed interview as "grifting" or "right wing" because the interviewer didn't shame or accuse the guest of anything. It's scary and sad.
That and the general inability to know the difference between a tough question and a loaded question.
You haven't been around long.
What passes for "interviews" now are basically just vapid hours-long puppy-dog sessions with "experts" and a fun or cool guy who doesn't know enough to question anything significant.
It became cool to question everything. literally, everything, down to reality and truth itself. I believe that's called sophistry and is the hallmark of post-modernism. It was cool to question the teacher, cool to question authority figures. Question polititians. But now you just question your friends, you question your culture, your religion, question reality.
I'm quite sympathetic to that, as I always saw myself as a doubter, questioning many things. Not making a claim if it's good or bad. personally i think its quite reasonable to question your religion, because if you believe something strongly it shouldn't crumble to questions. And if it does, do you really want to believe strongly in it?
And because everything is seen as a vector to attack, we lose sight that language is a beautiful tool to find common ground, to relate and make friends, to share wisdom and improve ideas, to defuse stressful and dangerous situations. People want to be cool and right because they want to be the center of attention. But if you want whats best for those you talk to, you will inevidably enrich your life.
In the UK, it's expected for interviews of politicians to be combative, and the interviewee goes into it expecting tough questions and to have their worldview challenged vigorously. Whether or not the interviewer agrees with the interviewee, it's seen as their job to bring up common criticisms to the claims they hear. Watch Shapiro's BBC interview with Andrew Neil for an example of this and how it can cause confusion with someone who doesn't expect it.
Personally I think it's a pretty good norm, and one that should be adopted in the US. People making strong or controversial claims should be ready to defend them against tough questions and common criticisms. They shouldn't always expect an easy ride, like a liberal going on MSNBC or a conservative going on Fox News.
@@ZonalarSophistry is something quite different; it is fundamentally quite separate from the questioning of things, and from postmodernism, for that matter.
Questioning everything is _philosophy,_ including natural philosophy, as science used to be called. I don't know if philosophy recently became cooler than at any other time, but of course it's not new.
“I think therefore I am not sure.”
― Ljupka Cvetanova
shot. Went further saying he wouldn't believe no matter what, that's just stupid. It's not argument or thought, it 100% telling you he's untrustworthy and a liar.
One could argue the opposite to him as well, that the possibility of god entails god just as validly as the opposite that he counted as a legitimate denial ....i donno im kind of an amateur @@denroy3
That's not what he said, and you've just engaged in ad hominem, just like the heckler. Well done for making Peters point.
I'm stealing this!!
@@denroy3 The very fact that it is a belief means it's not based in truth. So it is your CHOICE to believe or not to believe something. You don't have the same choice with FACTS. A belief is not a fact.
1:27
A fool says in his heart "There is no god!"
"Well, if a fool can work it out, what's your problem?"
Thank you Peter. I read your book and am continuing to work on the rule, "Don't be an asshole." Thank you for providing a model of how to disagree with integrity.
The heckler came to a battle of wits only half armed.
that's a good one
@@gwerjio83
That is sure to be the origin of a half-wit.
The heckler forgot not to throw pearls before swine
@@TheMuttonHeadDigest circular logic is a pearl?
Sure..😂
I really admire Peter Boghossians ability to stand firm in the face of zealots from both left and right. There really aren’t too many of us old style liberals out there
There are plenty, but we're usually labelled right-wingers today, and in the face of the left woke type, some are okay with that and even adopted the label. I know what I am and I know who I don't want to be, that's all that matters, the left can call me anything they like. Unlike them, I can actually have reasonable discussions with right-wingers and not be cast out for simply attempting it.
@@OptimalToastSame here. Peter put me on the path of epistemology. I have come far with his help. I currently also find discussions with people on the right to be more interesting. Although I am an atheist I consider myself to be a cultural Christian (I stole this one from Douglas Murray).
Absolutely a perfect response. Logical, resonable and articulate and 100% correct.
Correct? Logical? Reasonable? What a bunch of shit.
It's always hilarious when Christians throw out a bible quote, as if to say "Ha! I sure showed him!"
Christians are not immune from pride, to be sure. Better that we own it honestly, ask for forgiveness when necessary, and get back to living in humility.
What's gonna happen when they switch to Islam?
It's ok
I'm sure you will be fine
May the force be with you;)
So easy to attack Christians isn't it
Now please do Islam
I will try throwing out a Tolkien quote next time I get a Bible quote thrown at me, just to see the reaction. Maybe toss in a bit of Phillip Roth just for good measure.
The vast whelming majority of people in the world believe in God.
People don’t believe in God make up a God like environmentalism. It is a human need. You have a God it’s just something else and you don’t want to admit it. You probably don’t even recognize it.
Finally, we know, for a fact, Jesus was a historical person because the Jews wrote about, and Muslims wrote about him, in addition to the Bible. Even people like the Dalai Lama admit that Jesus lived.
@@nedhill1242 Before Abraham went out on his nocturnal walk around 1800bc we were all pagans. Does that validate different paganistic and shamanistic faiths as true?
Bravo, Peter. I hold dear an adage that says: "Truth is that which comports with reality, all else is mortal speculation".
That rhymes satisfyingly with “all models are wrong but some are useful”
I couldn't imagine being this faithless and invested in what is essentially rick and morty cosmology. Imagine believing in an utterly impossible physical phenomenon (time travel) and aliens before a creator, smh.
No more silly than believing in an invisible sky daddy, that for 2k years nobody has been able to prove exists. And aliens are way more likely than any god.
I'm a Christian and I fully agree with Peter. It's ultimately up to the Holy Spirit whether he becomes a believer or not. I am grateful for conversations he has with true followers of Christ.
Only the Holy Spirit? Or Holy Spirit + act of the will to choose God?
( Is anyone capable of choice at that point, i.e. choosing still to not convert? I guess it's the age-old debate of Free Will vs Irresistible Grace. )
but he didn't say that
@@machtnichtsseimann I should have said as opposed to any human being convincing another.
This 1000%
Peter is not much of thinker on issues such as God, almost anti intellectual
Great responses and you kept your cool! 👍
Edit: A link to the full video would be very much appreciated. 🙏
x.com/covid19critical/status/1768718187561169049?s=46&t=MU9OnElpkP1BDE5JyxU1dg
Thank you for the contribution! Your support is greatly appreciated.
@@drpeterboghossian Thank you for sharing the link! 😊
I appreciate you so much Peter. Whether or not I believe, there is a polite way to act in public! Blame not the folks in church more than the folks in the hospital. ❤
I learnt a lesson today.
I learnt from that heckler's fail to never heckle the big PB.
I am Catholic and I stand with Peter! The guy is amazing, he fights, he listens, he thinks… he rejects the things I reject and is hated by the same people who hate me. Sounds like a brother, not an enemy!
Well done Peter. Years of listening to people's perspectives has really given you excellent perspectives to respond with.
He should not have said "l feel sorry for you", such a loaded phrase.
We should feel sorry for the deluded.
Perfect response, and not only that- Peter refrained from titling the video "Heckler DESTROYED with facts and logic". Pure class.
Yeah that was old a decade ago.
Oof - The pendulum will swing...
Solid.
It usually works that way. The pendulum swings back and forth, even wildly at first before eventually settling on an equilibrium.
Kind of similar to, "If you point your finger and curse at someone, you also have 3 fingers pointing back at yourself". That one gave me a solid oof, when I heard it too.
This alone should tell you all you need to know about beliefs…all beliefs.
It always does.
It always amazes me how many people who are cheering for totalitarianism think they'll come out on top when they get their wish and that the people in power will continue to listen to them.
I'm very sorry that happened to you, Peter. My Christian brother who basically called you a fool is committing a couple of errors including a serious sin. A Bible-reading Christian will know of the example of Apostle Paul who engaged in Athens via public discussion/debate as one who respected Non-Believers as fellow human beings seeking truth. He affirmed the man who believed in "An Unknown God"; he didn't heckle him and call him a fool. Which is where this man sinned against you.
Reference a teaching of Christ from the Book of Matthew in the Bible:
You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell” (Matthew 5:21-22 NIV)
Christ was teaching on how a deeper troubling spirit within a person springs forth with calling another "a fool". It is to be taken very seriously, not a mere passing insult. IMHO, it is very offensive to God, especially since Christians believe that every person is made in the Image of God. It is a version of a human making themselves out to be God in passing hateful judgment upon another human being. ( I know you don't believe in God, just giving context as a fellow Christian about my spiritual brother's actions here which were clearly offensive. ) Again, I am very sorry you were attacked like that. Yes, glad for the second questioner who did ask and challenge in a civil way.
If nothing internal will change your mind, and nothing external will, does that mean that sound reason and logic will not change your mind- since they are internal to you? And, do you apply the same idea consistently to everything in life or only to God?
Peter Boghossian's rejection of God will not stop us from praying for him. The heckler was wrong in his approach.
"You are becoming what you hate".
I'm so glad I was able to see this in myself, and constantly check to see if I am doing it the other way.
So many things helped me see clearly, but it is a daily thing, we need to constantly check within ourselves.
❤❤
The true debate stage is in the minds of all of the audience.
And here we are at nihlism You can't trust your senses, you can't trust your feelings. You can't make decisions, you can't take actions.
I think what Peter was saying is that it is far more rational to believe that there is a natural explanation than a supernatural one given that everything that occurs within our universe must inherently be "natural".
HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE BACKED HISTORICAL FACTS PLUS MEN WHO WENT TO DEATHS FOR WHAT THEY SAW
Who are you screaming at? 😂
I lean toward a created universe myself but every side has half-wit bullies that muddy our attempts at knowledge. Logos surely isn't everything, but it must be permitted a just arena.
"This is not a conversation in which you are no longer involved." -"So... I *am* involved? That was a curious double negative, sir."
Lol, a kindred spirit. I thought that too. It would have been so much more badass, if he HADN'T done that.🤦♂
I thought that too!!! Haha!!!
He obviously just mis spoke meant to say the heckler is no longer getting interacted with
@@infillvaluecreation I know. I was just having fun with it. I've had to record a video at least four times because I kept misspeaking! Everyone misspeaks, to my knowledge.
People such as we are just can't help it. "Fist bump".
I'm a Catholic, and I was frustrated by the heckler because I was quite interested in what Peter had to say, but he never got the chance to get to his main point of what would convince him of God's existence.
Only recently come across Peter Boghossian and this response makes me all the more interested in what he has to say. Love it. And everyone saying 'I'm a believer....blah blah' - you would do well to check your belief isn't just your ignorance gaining confidence.
If one feels the urge to commit an ad hominem attack, one should reassess their confidence level in the belief.
These guys always hold firm to agnostic beliefs until they reach their deathbeds
I feel sorry for Peter. Such a sharp mind and we'll-reasoned intellect yet still unable to grasp the truth of Chrst that has been made evident.
… or you can't grasp the problematic aspects of your religion.
@@tosuchino6465 Is that an insult? Or an attack on all who are Christians? That is an interesting position to take.
@@Drowning_Girl
Neither. It is just fact.
If I recall correctly , Aristotle pointed out the " Ad hominem " arguement , where a person resorts to personal comments , rather debating the topic .
Except he was wrong, because there are exceptions to the rule.
Professor Richard Wolf bulldozes his way through debates - it's not wrong to call him out on it
David Pakman is a bad faith actor - its not wrong to call him out on it
Hugh Grant is a serial womaniser - it is not wrong to claim that his interest in keeping celebrity lives out of the press is motivated by his own misogynistic behaviours
Bill Clinton is a known liar - it is not wrong to imply that nothing he says can be trusted without evidence
(see Douglas Walton and Charles Taylor for more)
It's like he's an actual Philosophy Professor, who knew?
Alien tricksters would be similar to demonic tricksters etc. Nothing to be ruled out also requires God is indeed active in this world of contradictions & contrasts.
I'm glad this is how you handled it. This was actually productive.
Why do followers of religion think that atheists have nothing to base their morality on? Morality is not dependent upon having a priestly class (or deity) tell you what is moral. Surely, having to adhere to certain moral values because religion says so devalues your moral choices. You are not being good because you are moral, but because you fear punishment in the afterlife.
The question of what is the basis for an atheist’s morality isn’t to prove they have nothing to base their morality on.
You seem to not understand the premise and point of that question.
It’s to critique the basis of their morality as being subjective, and in the course of doing so what actually begins to ensue is the atheist reveals they have a moral foundation that is actually based on Christian theology.
“You seem not to understand the point of that question” - how rudely patronising.
What do you think humans based their morality on prior to the advent of Christianity? Your premise is ludicrous.
Ignoring the question of God's existence for a moment and just focusing on the material world:
Where do priests get their morality from?
The Bible.
Where does the Bible get its morality from?
Again, assuming God isn't in this equation, then it comes from decades or centuries of tradition.
Where does tradition come from?
Human beings trying all sorts of things over centuries or millennia and keeping what works.
Or here's another version.
Where do priests get their morality from?
Their deity.
Where does the concept of this deity come from?
Intuition and instinct personified, and probably some level of social confirmation.
Where does THAT come from?
Millennia of evolution, where the human psyche - collective AND individual - have adapted to various conditions and kept central what works.
In contrast, modern Athiests focus on reasoning. Which is great, but it doesn't have the experience or evolution of ages to truly cement it in, and its also highly dependent on having a good basis of hard data as the foundation for the reasoning. It is better for questioning whether old morality schemes fit into new conditions that tradition and human psyche haven't yet evolved for, as well as things that have clearly defined variables, such as physics or mathematics (as opposed to things like psychology or ecology, where hard data are bitterly hard to discern from noise, or contradict each other.)
@amyb you’re making a circular argument. Nothing you have said proves anything.
You’re basically saying (without any evidence to prove it) that religious people have learned from the experience of millennia and atheists haven’t. That’s just a ridiculous assumption. You seem to have a very narrow and prejudiced view of what an atheist is.
@@gilly5094 Given that the Celts used to dump their enemies in a pit and pull them out to eat them when they got hungry, I would say their morality was based on something we would call "expediency".
I’m a believer. I’m also a philosophy grad (from a top 10 global uni, with a first class pass and told more than once by lecturers that I could teach it, apparently I was good a translating complexity into simple language- anyway none of that matters except to establish where I’m coming from on this) I COMPLETELY understand why so many, especially those applying philosophical methods, reject the spiritual. It’s an almost unavoidable conclusion when applying western logical and NECESSARY cognitive scalpels. It’s those same scalpels which reject faith that have also given us the pinnacle of civilisation, of advancement, of decency, humanitarian empathy and ultimately the realisation of Christian values. But there’s an undeniable chasm being reached now, whereby it’s taken us so far that’s it’s now turned in on itself and is destroying that which it built. I’m going to get some heat for this, que sera, but I think it’s now time to reintroduce the sacred, the holy, the revered back into our culture. Because when it went it set off a time bomb on our values system & the clock has now run down causing societal explosions all around.
And for the record I have as little time for those who scoff at faith in the ineffable as those who force their beliefs on others as this hectoring bully attempted and who Peter, as always, dispatched so elegantly.
You may not realise it yet but sooner or later we’re all going to have to choose: Marx, Mohammed or Jesus. It’s reaching critical mass.
During the beginning of the Enlightenment during the late 17th Century , there begins the ACCEPTANCE of the scientific method over Religion and the promotion of Classical Liberalism ( The promotion of equal rights of ALL citizens and the toleration for those with differences of opinion ).
As Patrick Deneen pointed out , Liberalism has now succeeded and is now turning in on itself .
very well said. I too am a believer and really appreciate peter and his quest for truth even if he and I part on the faith part. I think he really values the truth, is seeking more of it and defends the truth he has currently discovered. His street epistemology is great.
It feels as though the Era of Enlightenment is waning fast and we're speeding towards the Era of Stupidity. Much like Religion, the faith in science is waning, and rightfully so. Science is increasingly being captured and corrupted by politics and the delusional who expect you to believe in nonsense and have no real footing of moral integrity.
Nonsense
@@daheikkinenagreed. It's like hearing from the heckler if he hadn't been cut off.
"Jesus rose from the dead, how do you explain that? He was dead, and then he GOT UP! How about THAT?"
Yes like they said in the bible but not confirm by the historians because they can't proove the resurrection nor the existence of god.
Captain Obvious just called...he wants his superhero costume back... :DDDDD
There is NOTHING more deceptive (or as potentially destructive) as a fiction or falsehood someone has mistaken for a fact.
Isn't that the truth. Its a shame so many deny the undeniable truth of God.
@@waakow Thereby proving the point.
@@waakowoh dear 😂.
@@waakow It's sad how much cling to the falsehood of secularism. And act so morally smug in all the comments it's like - do you not see how you come across on the internet?
There’s more than one way to follow the bullying path of woke.
Peter is a class act. 👍
I claim to be a Christian but Peter is right here.
This reminds of the film, 'The Gods must be crazy'. A pilot throws a glass Coke bottle out of his plane, and it lands near a member of a Khoisan tribe. Not knowing what airplanes or glass bottles are, he presumes it's a gift from the Gods.
A while back a group of idiots organized a "protest" outside the house of my neighbor who was on the city council. She was the furthest left person on our city council at the time and really wanted to "reimagine" the police but, she wasn't moving fast enough for them. Many of them were wearing black block outfits and face masks. they had people armed with long pikes guarding the streets so the neighbors couldn't leave in their cars. They gave really crazy speeches accusing her of doing all sorts of awful things - none of which were true. It felt like they were going to burn cross on her lawn. Instead, they paintballed her house. In context, a very clear death threat.
Disrupting and insulting people like this is more often used to bully those with opposing views into silence.
What is the meaning of this book quote?: "so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."
Said like an absolute Don 👍
This is excellent. I have recently moved to the US Conservative Party after being a lifelong liberal and I have been surprised by how different it is from how the left portrayed it. I love the values and the ability to speak my mind on social issues. What I strongly dislike are the deeply entrenched Christians who feel that they need to make you believe what they do. I think they need to realize that to further their aims in policy, they need to respect that others can share similar values without believing in their religion. If they can’t make space for others, the right will be just like the left in 5-10 years.
I recently discussed with my husband that I think we’re liable to see a very large religious backlash in the US in the coming years. As much as I’ve valued my secular upbringing, I am increasingly concerned that humans aren’t capable of living in a secular society. Dangerous ideologies fill the gaps where reason and logic were supposed to prevail.
I think the vast majority of people will always worship and revere something even if they do not realize it. If not a religion or god, it becomes something else. Right now for many it's woke ideolegies. I agree with your conclusion, I'm not sure it's possible to have a completely secular society. There will always be some monument to gaze at.
The heckler shouldn’t have heckled. He was acting like the Leftist college kids. At the same time, Peter ironically wound up sounding woke himself, lol.
I recently made the observation that people on the right would rather call names than persuade someone. The reply I got was "You can lead a moron to water but you can't make him drink." The lack of self awareness was as bad as any wokester. Most people left or right prefer defending their current beliefs over learning anything.
I always thought it was a horse..
You will know them by their fruits.
Yes. Yes he did, Peter because this man has faith. You don't.
I disagree with Peter about faith and religion. I do really enjoy watching what he does. I would love to talk with him, and I'm sad I didn't get to see him when he was in Portland (when I lived near there)
These kind of talks are very interesting as someone who has been an agnostic for the first 38 years of my life. I’ve recently become a full on Christian this year so I’ve been on both sides of this topic.
Growing up in a fundamentalist house, I long ago made the connection between socially coerced religion and woke culture.
Great answers! Some people say that you can’t have morals without believing in a god. But that’s just not true.
Many people can be good and make the right choices without following a religion. History shows that people in different cultures have had their own rules for being good, even if they didn’t believe in a god. Famous thinkers like Aristotle and some modern philosophers have explained how we can have strong morals without needing religious beliefs.
He def hit the nail on the head. Christ does teach how to, and how not to, engage people. The lessons of the Bible are timeless, because people are the same as we were 2000 years ago. And this proves that point. So although I don’t agree with him on God, it’s interesting that he used a Christian belief to argue his moral and ethical position, while the “christian” did not.
The ones about slavery haven't held up too well.
JRR Tolkien was a devout Catholic.
Doesn't make Middle Earth real.
Nice !
Btw, i like the outro music, whos playing it?
Without proof there's no point in talking- Peter Cook.
I'm a conservative traditional Christian. The heckler forgot the Bible also tells us not to be a banging gong or clanging cymbal.
He quoted Scripture. Then confessed that Jesus rose from the dead. That sounds pretty conservative and traditional.
@peachmango5347 It's the manner in which it is done.
I need to know how you answered the question about the basis of your morality, because I'm continuously seeing people in discussions with folks like Jordan Peterson or debates with evangelicals who have lackluster answers that frustrate people like me who think it's blatantly obvious that people don't need a book to tell them not to poop in their bed because they will have to deal with the consequences, and that the world is the big bed we all sleep in together... It just doesn't get any simpler than that to me, so I was really hoping to see how you answered that guy.
Just because someone wrote it down doesn't make it true.
Just because someone wrote it down doesn't make it false.
@@waakow yes to both!
Spidermans house is a real address in NY. There's even colorful illustrated little bibles about him. Spiderman is real.
@@waakow desperate.
@K0RP53 His house or Aunt May's? Stan Lee said he lived in Forest Hills.
Aw, I would have liked to hear the answer to the morality question. Is the Q&A available anywhere?
I don't know Peters answer, but it isn't a hard question TO answer. Its natural in us as a social species. This can be shown because we see altruistic behaviour in other social animals where they risk themselves to help others. I remember an example it was a prariedog that will make noise to warn others of danger (predatory bird), which would draw attention to itself from the danger. This altruism, helping others, is the basis of morality.
I think it's linked in the description.
The man should not have made the statement from the crowd, but could have talked to him afterward.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Anyone know where the full video is?
In the RUclips description and pinned comment
@@drpeterboghossian thank you! I miss your classes
These sort of people don't want to convince anyone. It's purely an act of ego stroking after they've been insulted by the fact that someone believes differently than they do.
you are undertaking a similar premise and fallacy Peter referenced. The Heckler was obviously a man of faith, who, as we know, have a subject of 'faith' they put aside from critical thinking. its not from ego in most cases, it's from fear.
@@antoncarmoducchi6057 What premise and fallacy am I engaging in exactly? And what is that man of faith afraid of? Nothing Peter said threatened his well being in any way. But disagreeing with a person's views very much can elicit feelings of being offended that originate with their ego being bruised by said disagreement.
I agree with Peter. There is no verifiable evidence that confirms the existence of God, all they have is faith in their belief in God, unfortunately, faith in one’s belief is evidence of nothing.
I have to tell you, Peter, that despite the fact that you are an atheist and I am a 5th generation Jehovah's Witness I do truly enjoy your thought exercises. And too often, people respond emotionally to what would otherwise be a respectful debate. You can't change people's minds when you call them names. 😂
That I find fascinating. The JWs I know are the nicest people I've ever met, and I enjoy talking to them, but I could never imagine any of them ever following Peter Boghossian
@@wjdeoliveira3809 well I don't agree with all his positions but I appreciate the fact that he helps people to reflect on WHY they believe the things they believe. The Apostle Paul admonished us to always be testing our beliefs as to their trueness. Always examine our beliefs and make sure they are on solid ground and rooted in facts, not just emotions.
And name calling never won an argument.
A question for you, how can an impersonal force be grieved?
@@RussellStrosnider Cool. That does fit with my impression of JWs. I have never discussed the details of theology and doctrines, as I find them boring, but we have great philosophical discussions
Superiority is a sad state.
My friend Peter, you don’t need to yell for people to hear you. You have a microphone.
The very fact that it is a belief means it's not based in truth. So it is your CHOICE to believe or not to believe something. You don't have the same choice with FACTS. A belief is not a fact.
I always love it when theists ask people where they get their morality from if not religion. As if religion has been a great bastion of morality over the years. Wars in the name of God, calling for death of non believers and apostates. Advocating for slavery, control of women and let us not forget the repeated issues with the Catholic church and child abuse. Religion has shown its inability to stick to its so called moralities so why would anyone turn to it for such advice?
Do wars exist outside of religion? does abuse? It is incorrect to blame religion for malevolence when billions of people follow said religions. Humans are known to do bad things irrespective of the situation. Blame the individual. Would you accuse baseball caps of evil, because a crime was committed while wearing one? Atheists are coasting on the morals systems created of the religious while acting like they plucked their moral system out of thin air. If religions were to die out, the atheists would be left with nothing but hot air.
The woked could learn from this, but it's not in their nature.
I wonder what he thinks about people who have a moral belief and a strong affinity that is directly opposed to the moral belief that then use faith to overcome the offending affinity?
The inner Christopher Hitchens is awakened in Peter here.
As a Christian, this dude is acting whack. 🥴
Savage! Well done, Sir!
But do we approach anything else in life with the skepticism he’s expecting ppl to use to approach claims of God? If you go to sit on a chair, do you immediately question if it’s a chair, inspect it, think of everything else it could possibly be (hologram, hallucination), then sit? Wouldn’t that be irrational?
His argument begs the question. It assumes in the outset that claims of God are irrational and need inspecting when that’s the exact thing it sets out to prove.
I believe the Christian story. I believe Christ is risen. I also believe that Peter Boghossian is an honest, decent man. Everyone’s path to faith is individually distinct and personal. It’s his journey.
At least he’s not telling the wanting crowd what they want to hear. He has integrity and calls it like he sees it. Respect.
Arrogance is not a virtue
Totally acknowledge the sound guy trying his best to get it so we could hear. Def have mic in hand, it's tough though, people self-edit, first takes are best. Subtitles for the people speaking miclessley
Atheist miss the point of what makes believers believe. That is faith. It’s as simple as that. Sure you can ridicule, but the truth stays .
What Christians miss is that faith is not truth - as you just conflated.
@@itistrue101 what atheist miss is that faith isn’t false either. It’s just faith. And faith needs no proof. You can’t out logic faith. You can’t out proof faith. You can’t out argue faith. Faith is to believe in something even when there is lack of proof. In other words believer don’t and won’t care what you say. Because everything atheists say is irrelevant to faith.
@@AlphaToOmegaXG "Faith needs no proof"... then it is of no use at all.
I have FAITH that you're God does not exist is as silly as saying I have FAITH my God does exist. Yet in your mind both must be of equal value - since evidence is not required..
The atheist position is simply that Theists have not provided enough (any) evidence to convince them of the claim that "a God exist".
Theists make a great claim, yet provide nothing ( except "faith") to prove that it is true.
If I made the claim that huge pink jellyfish aliens exist, you'd not require proof?
@@AlphaToOmegaXG "faith needs no proof" then it is no use at all. It would be just as silly of me to say I have FAITH that God(s) do not exist, as it is for you to say God does exist - yet in your mind both statements must be of equal value as "no proof is required". The Atheist position is simply that Theists are yet to provide any evidence for their extraordinary claim. If I was to claim that monster jellyfish aliens were to invade earth would my FAITH be enough, or would you require I provide some evidence?
@@AlphaToOmegaXG "faith needs no proof" then it is no use at all. It would be just as silly of me to say I have FAITH that God(s) do not exist, as it is for you to say God does exist - yet in your mind both statements must be of equal value as "no proof is required". The Atheist position is simply that Theists are yet to provide any evidence for their extraordinary claim. If I was to claim that monster jellyfish aliens were to invade earth would my FAITH be enough, or would you require I provide some evidence?
Now i want to know the answer to the last question
"What do you base your morality on" ... What a question.... I am a non-believer my whole life and people know me for being an moral person. It is called common sence and it has all to do with parenting. I don't need no religion to know whats right and wrong. I pity people who are only living a moral life because they are afraid of gods judgement. But i got to understand that some people need religion as their guideline through life. As long as they don't bother me (for example: lawmaking influenced by religion, or missionaries) i accept them and i don't judge them for their believe.
While I have by own doubts about god and Christianity, I have one question for those that do not believe at all. The things we see around us everyday, living plants and animals so meticulously perfect in many ways, just came about because the universe belched? Or grew from an ameba into this complex world? We are just an accident of what? Nature?
At first I thought this kind of person was arrogant and unintelligent, but I'm afraid it's a traumatized person who feels challenged by alternative beliefs. It is so sad that a world view can make a person so afraid that they cannot participate in a civil conversation.
The tribalism we're seeing today is pretty clear evidence that the villain isn't and has never been a class of people, but rather a way of doing things - systems of organization and power, and what it invariably does to those participating in it. There are uncomfortably many parallels in the way today's tribes are interacting with the rest of the world around them. Groups are so calcified around their respective righteousness, and many people in them have little to no experience of working functionally (or even personally knowing people) outside of their groups, so I worry about what it will take to break this down again.
Atheism is like saying you are alive but you don’t believe you come from a line of fathers with a beginning because you haven’t seen them. There is a beginning and an author to the line of fathers and the most probable answer by far is that it is a personal intelligent being. The one with the most compelling accurate claim is still Jesus. We learned from research that the forces of nature are unified and perpetual by design, that all people have a common ancestry, so there is one Creator source not many. It is in the current social agreement to acknowledge a Creator, read the Declaration of Independence, these intellectuals haven’t found an alternative, their educated ignorance has no merit and leads nowhere, it’s the blind leading the blind.
You don't know what you're talking about.
'Educated' and 'ignorance' are mutually exclusive.
There are tons of phenomena we can not see with the naked eyes. More to be discovered using advanced methods... some we will never discover. Good luck to the unbeliever.
That was an epic takedown
Boom, you just got Boghossian'd.