Religion claims that the things they taught are true, so can u accept their truth of killing homosexual to death, Prohibiting women to go outside without burkha, or there philosophies which doesn't resonate with you. we do have conscience, we have a rational part in our brain According to us, truth is facts or reality which have evidence backed by it, the sun in our solar system is universally accepted fact
I think it's about the structure of the debate he's talking about. They base the debate on scientific truth and the religious people lack that because the bible never talks from a scientific perspective. Every bit of detail is focused and directed towards spiritual empowerment rather than explaining science which wasn't a study until recently. What's hard to understand here? He speaks the truth, Christianity and all othe religions don't have a good defending platform against science and he's right
You're equivocating and think you're equating. Post modernism seeks to have no limiting parameters or definitions or set truths within the particle world. The world of objectively set truths. Quantum mechanics/meta-physics, IS the world of YET UNSET truth. This is established science. Do you need the world famous studies you cannot have possibly missed? Do you need the basics of physics explained to you?
@@CorbinB-RaxWhat is this category you call quantum mechanics slash meta - physics? Is it really 'established science'? What constitutes 'estsblished' here? Do you see the problem...?
Seems like you don't even try to understand his point. The thing that IS definitely true about the bible is the message behind the stories but are the stories truthful real events or just stories? Who knows, hence why he asks "what do you mean by truth". On one hand you could ask if the stories are true or you could ask if the message is true, and specifying what you mean matters. Jordans point is that you shouldn't disregard the bible as something untruthful to ignore just because the stories might not be real events, there is a lot of wisdom from the bible that many people can benefit from, and those benefits are definitely TRUE. Not even once did he ever say that you should make up your own truth about the structure of the world, which is what postmodernism is.
His version of the truth means he can state that he hasn't had any hair replacement treatment.. is the Bible true? A profound question? oh, JP always tells the the truth.
But what does True mean to you? To me it is only True if it is 100% accurate for the events being referenced. However, we also have terms such as mostly true, somewhat true, half true, partly true, (X)% true, so there is no 1 definition for True. Also there is this, something doesn't have to necessarily be TRUE for it to be TRUTH. If the Bible is Truth, as most proponents espouse, than it does NOT inherently lead to it having to be True, as well. The problem is when you adopt the position that everything in the Bible is an absolute accurate retelling of an actual occurrence or event. And I think that is what JP meant by his statement.
@@n00n1n the basic idea of communication is to make people understand you, if what you speech is not understandable by majority then there is pretty much no difference in gibberish and highly intellectual and genius talks. JP uses these complicating of simple topics to give arguments which aren't there. Meaning of truth is pretty much the same for everyone it is not so different for everyone as he is claiming it to be.
@lxstcheckll9348 Yeah, because biblical scholars hold a lot of merit in the intellectual world 🤡 Biblical scholars can't even agree on what is literal and metaphorical, NEXT
Depends on your definition of "facts" Too many people present their opinion as though it's a fact. What Jordan is asking is true at what level? Is it a true story? Is it a true account? Is it a true collection of actual writings? There are different levels of what can be called true.
@markd3250 I'm gonna go with Matt's definition of "objectively verifiable phenomenon in reality" because in my experience, that seems to be the most reliable.
@@Maltlicky50 That would be a good general definition, a rule of thumb so to speak, but when you're talking about something like the Bible, you need to be more specific than just asking "Is the Bible true?" Then you walk right into a realm where "objectively verifiable" isn't necessarily possible; you only have circumstantial.
@@barrywhite1770 lol. No. This is who he always was. He has been trying to break into media like this for almost 30 years now. He is a character. That is all. In his terms he would probably describe himself as the archetypal wise sage. He would think of himself as the truthful jester. In reality he is just a snake in the grass leading people away from The Truth. He would rather be the messiah. Watch this dude end up as the pm of Canada because their leadership sucks.
@@barrywhite1770 it's all good brother. He is a very intelligent man. I'm glad you found value in what he provides. Still doesn't change the fact that he has been trying to do this for 30 years. I'm not really sure where you were going with that. My wife does that. Well most women really. They just have to be heard. Tell me more about yourself. What's your favorite food? Maybe that will further your point. Go back to maps of meaning. Maybe you haven't found it yet.
This is what I hate about this guy. Master manipulator and gaslighter. He'll dismantle and deconstruct things that can not be so he's always in theory and the abstract, and his followers cling on to that thinking its profound and meaningful when anyone can reconstitute anything to their view in abstraction/thought/theory.
@allergy5634 no, it‘s not. why? whilst there is such a thing like a commonly accepted definition of truth it means nothing if common people see claims as truth as it is quite usual. hence the science guys are right when they feel the need to ever explain it again. besides, in the beginning peterson here says the bible is a story. what do you all think he thinks then and what that means? actually he‘s quite clear.
@@greenogre22just because certain people decide to use they’re own definition of medicine when trying crystal healing, it doesn’t mean it’s accurate or anybody who’s informed should respect it. Also, he clearly didn’t explain it well since at least half the people here are confused about it.
@@RabidLeech1 Depends on your presupposittions in relation to dependence as such, it is not obvious what you hold cardinal in relation to your comment, or that you have said anything to explore and defend your territory
Y'all keep trying to discredit and joke on him out of ignorance and jealousy, but nobody's actually disagreeing with him. Cause he's not wrong. Our definition of what's true is dependent upon what our five senses can detect in this 3D reality. Religious people can't win the God debate on scientific grounds because they're trying to prove the physical existence of something that exists beyond our 3rd Dimension out of our ability to detect. The only way we can try to discover or prove God exists is through reasoning.
"Depends on what you mean by true." I love to listen to Jordan Peterson. I really do. Because while I'm listening to him, I not just see the gaslighting, I can smell the petroleum.
@@PInk77W1 No. Nothing exists beyond objective reality. To say it does is a misuse of the term. And your mother’s feelings of love are the result of a chemical process that would take place whether or not we were aware of it. With the proper technology, it is objectively observable. Just like Peterson, you’re playing around with words. Fables might point to things that are true, but the fables themselves are not.
I think the proper question for Jordan in regards to God, is "What do you think happens to your consciousness when your brain and heart stop functioning?"
@@davidtarumian4648 I also have no memory of anything before the age of two or three, but I was still alive. I hope you're wrong about the nothingness.
If one were cynical, one might say that his caginess and coyness about answering the question is deliberately calculated to promote his mysterious public image so as to make people even more interested in him. If you were a public relations agent for Jordan Peterson, you would tell him don't you dare answer that question straightforwardly. By not answering it, by being coy, it increases the mystique of Jordan Peterson and makes him interesting. People talk about it. They debate whether he really believes it or not. It increases his public notoriety. Whereas if he were to simply come right out and say yes or no, the debate would be over. It wouldn't be nearly as interesting. People wouldn't talk about it. So if you were cynical, you might say that this is just really well-calculated public relations. (William Lane Craig on Jordan Peterson)
He says some people will call his assertion weasel words - a common marketing strategy where one discounts an objection by stating it, without addressing it.
Amazing that he admits religion can only be true when you refine truth itself. By that logic anything can be true and there is no such thing as falsehood. What a hack.
Peterson has shown that he is scientifically literate and logical. So his thing with religion is really strange. Its like he becomes a different person.
Yeah have u seen him debate Matt dillahunty? I like jordan n I don’t like Matt. But Matt completely destroyed him. Jordan sounded like a raving lunatic
It’s because Jordan Peterson is actually really terrible at philosophy. You should go back with a critical eye to stuff he’s said about other topics than religion, I think you’ll find this is not the only sphere where his takes are awful.
Because he sees religion as the only antidote to nihilism, and so he needs to convince himself that religious literature is sensible and valid in some way, shape or form.
In all fairness, when it comes to the Conservers, they couldn't care less about what he says, they care about conserving their reality at all costs, and this is what they think JP is doing. Half of the time they don't understand what JP is saying, the other half their attention span reaches its limit.
Right. So, that would be everyone in this comments section who thinks that literal, objective fact is the only possible form of truth, and that there's no such thing as moral truth or literary truth whatsoever. These comments are full of people where, if you read them an Aesop fable, their only reaction would be, "But did that _really_ happen?"
@@bobmusil1458 No, just facts. Subjective truth are things like opinions on abortion. There are no facts if abortion is right or wrong there are just different ways of seeing it. So a conservative may say, a fetus is a baby even before it gains conciousness. That's not a fact. It's an opinion, it's a subjective truth. And a liberal might say, a fetus is a baby after it gains conciousness. Which is also a subjective truth.
Yeah...sometimes I think he goes out of his way to twist, turn and distort the conversation in order to confuse people. And that is his intention. Then he gives them his interpretation of what the solutions are, thereby making it look as though he has the answers.
@@janedoe1107 Or you could possibly just not understand him, which isn’t a bad thing or a slight on your end. Just because you can’t follow doesn’t mean he’s distorting things or doing something for some nefarious purpose.
"It depends on what you mean by 'true.'" He pretends like he's not sidestepping the question when he says things like that, but that is precisely what he is doing, especially when no alternative definition of truth is proffered. Peterson really achieves nothing but obfuscation with his handling of truth. He sounds like a postmodernist.
Spot on. Peterson the "public intellectual" is so popular because people want someone to defend their ideology. What he does is make this stuff sound plausible. Thats all.
Every video I have watched of JP in "discussion" with various interviewers is basically this, he throws out a question in answer to a question e.g. Interviewer " is it true......" JP " well depends what you mean by true?".../ or "define true". He rarely gets around to answering the original question and if pulled up on this he then resorts to personal attack and obfuscation with jargon e.g." that's Postmodern Marxist garbage" Thought Richard Dawkins dealt with him beautifully..."Rubbish".
If you read a book of Aesop fables, and they have morals that are so wise they are useful to people even today, does it matter that the events in the story did not literally happen? THAT'S the alternative definition of truth. *A useful moral.*
"You cant assume true and cram the Bible into that." Actually, assuming "truth" is exactly what you have to do in order to seriously take any side of an argument. Even people who believe in the Bible must first assume the Bible is "true" to defend it.
In fairness, these shorts libraries do tend to shove this content down our throats. I probably allign ideologically with JP or Joe Rogan or Ben Shapiro, but I find myself skipping a lot of theie content within these shorts. More isn't always better.
“People say that’s weasely” Yeah, cos defining ‘truth’ in your own unique way is a brilliant method of showing everyone that you aren’t really that interested in what’s true.
You see this is where Peterson starts to loose me. There are so many things that I agree with him on when it comes to social issues but the minute he starts getting into religion, he starts talking in circles and is never able to say anything definitive on the subject. "It depends on what you mean by the truth." Come on man lol give me a break.
He’s branding. He’s essentially creating a larger audience for monetary gain. With his current rhetoric and stance on religion, he is seen as a “gem” to Christians in the west. He is luring the Christian community into book sales.
@@Secularexpansion9 Bingo. He’s a grifter, a charlatan. His fans see him mix all these words: “look, let’s get all cognitive neuroscience on this shall we” (from his debate with Sam Harris). And they go gaga! They proclaim him to be a genius, because he uses such words. What they don’t grasp is he’s using those words to evade real exchange of ideas, and/or to attempt to dazzle.
Do you think that a story can have a message that is applicable to your own life? Yes? Then that's a truth that's not literal, objective fact. If a metaphor conveys a complex idea simply and accurately, then it is true. It doesn't matter that it's not literally true. If I use the phrase "blind watchmaker" when explaining evolution, then your response shouldn't be, "Obviously evolution is not true, because that's crazy to think that a blind watchmaker is directing the growth of all these animal species."
Lennox just repeated all the bullshit Dawkins heard 5000 times in his life, such as "the evidence is all around us" etc...He just said it in a more elegant way.
For all those scoffing at the idea that truth could have ambiguity, it could be the joke's on you after all. While you're living life in your heads, the meaningful and otherwise special experiences of your life which can't be described in terms subjectable to the vaunted scientific method pass you by, or at least your stuck viewing these moments as a clinical observer in your own life.
JP didnt say otherwise. But you still have to define what you are talking about. Something can be true but irrelevant if its off topic. Is the Bible true? True about what? Human character or nuclear physics? Is it untrue because it doesnt address Marxist economic theory or Plate tectonics?
@@TV-um6ub cuz it’s the root of the worlds problems. Everybody warring and truly believe that gods on their side. Religion is poison, every aspect of it
@@jeremycleary2002 Human beings are the ones who create all the problems in the world, not religion, science, or anything else. People use religion, science or something else to hurt others while some people use them to benefit others.
@@TV-um6ub human beings created religion. I completely agree with you all human beings are capable of doing bad, but it takes religion to make good ppl do evil things that they wouldn’t otherwise do. Religion had ppl offering their children as sacrifice. Religion is why we are in perpetual war. Religion makes Muslims kill homosexuals and women for the dumbest reasons.
@@jeremycleary2002 it takes anything including religion to make good people do evil thing that they wouldn't otherwise do. Innocent people have always been brainwashed to do evil things by an evil person or a group of evil people. The examples you've listed are exceptions to prevalent benevolent characteristics of religion. For example, according to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 121, or 6.87%, had religion as their primary cause.
Learning is always different than acting on what is learned. Education does not equal common sense or wisdom or experience, it sets most up for failure because the instant they accept what is told they've limited their thoughts. They're constrained.
I knew the debate between Peterson and Dawkins will be in the last episode of the internet. WW3 is coming and they release the Peterson VS Dawkins finale.
@@thorstenmarquardt7274 was refering to "last episode of the internet" and "WW3 is coming", just pointing out the end of the world hasn't happened or isn't anytime soon, as for the conversation itself I totally agree Jordan totally embarrassed himself lol, kinda felt bad for the man honestly.
It's so weird how Jordan goes from being totally science oriented and rational when discussing Male/Female or racial differences in brain structure and psychology, then starts talking like this when it comes to weird superstitious beliefs and ancient myths.
Because he needs to keep his listeners happy, it earns him a lot of money. I think he’s an agnostic in reality, but doesn’t like to say it because most of his followers are highly religious who love him for his evidence and data-driven points that can be shoehorned into their regressive beliefs.
"Truth" is what's factual, and a fact is a point of data that is objectively verifiable. The stories on the Bible are mostly myth, not fact, and so, they're not true. It's as simple as this: Genesis for example, never actually happened.
Dawkins absolutely neuters Jorbie Peterson in every way imaginable and I’m more than certain that Dawkins views Peterson with disdain and contempt. Peterson is, after all, a complete charlatan at this point.
Well said. I get sick and tired of hyper intellectuals like Peterson who apply Amazing reason to any argument but do not apply the same reasoning to religion. His IQ drops a 1000 points when religion comes into it
This man literally says nothing. It's actual mental gymnastics. Richard Dawkins is much more logical. Also the way he said "no it's not" sounds like a 3 year old
John Lennox wipes the floor with Dawkins to the point that Ric D has requested not to debate him anymore. The Bible isn’t an abstract book. In fact, it is a closed book to the skeptic, the cynical and the “I know better” person. God says He resists the proud person, but gives grace to the humble. The one who goes low to meet the Most High.
So before I even begin to read and study the Bible, I have to believe it is true. There are demonstrable errors and contradictions in the Bible making one skeptical about at least some aspects of the Bible.
He’s mostly a philosopher now. I find it funny how many people in the comments don’t understand the concept of truth or rather they believe they have a sold definition of what truth is. Why don’t you read a book on this subject before commenting on it like you know anything. Start with Alan Watts and then move into some Manly P. Hall. Maybe then you’ll actually be able to think for yourself.
@elijiahburgess5506 Metaphysical substrate. That should clear up for you what original poster is talking about. Clearly you are a JP fan...and that's cool. He is spot on when it comes to free speech, woke culture, and youth need for self-discipline. But being his fan doesn't mean you can successfully defend him on 'everything'. Because he (like everyone else) is not right about 'everything'. JP, for all his strengths - is an absolutely blabbermouthed idiot when it comes to religion. As for 'truth'. Yes, there are philosophical approaches to truth, meaning, and interpretation. But religion is not 'true' when it comes to comparing how science is 'true'. Here I will make it simpler...evolution is TRUE. Intelligent Design (so called) is false and has zero evidence for it and a mountain of evidence in the other direction.
@leebode4643 thank you! Rereading it, I hope I don't come off as a jerk. Didn't mean to. JP is one of those people in that category where, people who like him struggle to find any fault in him. I for instance, am a huge fan of Jocko Willlink, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Dan Gilbert (the psychologist...not the Cavs owner). They all definitely have their points where I don't just disagree, they are systemically incorrect. That is just humans for you. I likely have a mountain of thoughts I am systemically incorrect about. So I hope it was received well.
@@renewed6250 let’s be reasonable here. I never said or even hinted that I find no fault in him. The original poster is also not exactly in line with you either. I don’t think they wrote enough to even be able to steel-man anything. Yes you are correct that there is a difference between truth in regards to different subjects and their respective axioms. But by my estimation Dr. Peterson is more in line with philosophical religious “truths” rather than scientific truths which he is also completely aware of. I believe he is struggling with the problem of perception ultimately and he does indeed come off as sort of beating around the bush but I don’t think it’s because he can’t answer any specific question in line with a mainstream answer but rather he wants to answer it on his terms through his own perspective. But no I don’t and won’t defend him in all he does. I dislike his hyper vocal tendencies, his lack of self control in a conversation, his need to repeat everything to new people. Best example would be the Richard Dawkins interview. It’s was unbearable. I stopped listening to him for the most part after that. But overall no I don’t think you were being a jerk or anything. However this wasn’t your conversation in the first place and your comment to me seemed like a well placed barb to attract a vicious response. Could be wrong.
"Well NO IT'S NOT" always gets me 😂. That means: it is weasely, but I can un-weasel it for you, to the point where you no longer need to think of it as weasely, even though it totally is.
Peterson is right here. To many it sounds confusing, but he's talking about a book that contains a tremendous amount of information, life lessons, metaphores and stories. Lots of it does not conflict scientific facts and especially on human nature and how to deal with life itself.. its unbelievable how ignorant people are to simply discard books like the Bible and take the world as a simple black and white answer. Dawkins problem is that he sets the wrong context and then slams religion based on what he thinks religion is all about.
What I really don't understand is, people crap on the bible because they say it was written by man....but what I don't understand is, science is created by man. Measure is created by man. So what is the difference? It takes just as much energy to beleive there is no higher power as it does to walk the road of faith believing there is an almighty God.
Yes but science is based on evidence. If you perform a experiment you will receive the same result as someone did 200 years ago. It's an absolute rule. God on the other hand has no guarantees. Also believing in God does not mean that you don't believe in science.
science is repeatable and testable continuously by lots of "man"...and women. the other is unverifiable faith. science=every modern luxury you know faith=hope these ancient guys where right
@@samknowles3189 I'm pretty sure God has guarantees. Prophecies are screaming louder than ever before. For me, science is valuable. But for man kind to have a creation called science, someone (personal beleif) my God almighty created everything in existence. It's free will. To beleive in something else that has pretty convincing information or to stand strong on his word and follow him no matter what is out. For me the argument is already won. God has set so much out and if we walk the path we have peace. Life might still be very hard but we have peace. I really love reading these comments. The power of personal thought and belief.
@@samknowles3189 "Science is based on evidence.." This statement can certainly be subjective. The real issue here is comparison of two subjects that are totally unrelated.
Well Jordan you should have met Christopher Hitchens and he would have shown you in the true sense what it means to be eloquent and also have factual integrity when talking about the sheer stupidity of religions. It’s just sad that he passed away so soon.
@@matc87 America society was founded in the enlightenment period. A separation of church and state. Democracy. Scientific reformation was the foundation of the United States. It was a rejection of religious fundamentalism and the rights of religious organisations of heredity. The USA is fundamentally a non religious organisation.
@@gobbled123 wow with all that enlightenment going around I'm surprised anyone owned or used slaves to build their family property state and country. yes freedom of religion thank fuck because we can see what not having freedom of religion produces. I'm not American so I cannot say but I try stay up to date with religious legal affairs over there. it deffinetly seems like alot of politics leans into the religious pandering
Yeah, why is it that humans have differences around the world? Why is it that geographical differences completely change what a human looks like? Doesn't that prove evolution to an extent? Or nevermind, a book made by some dudes in the desert that has been mistranslated a thousand times and also given a second edition for some reason is what we should believe. The dudes who wrote the book ate dumber than you and you still believe them.
@@luv83 go educate yourself. Those who lived in the days actually were alive at the same time in most cases. And for it all frustrated handed.. stupid is as a stupid does.. Seek the truth for yourself. And not by what someone who hates religion writes... the fact of the matter is scientist are now say the Bible is accurate.. but as always anti religion people an the media won't report on it. Anyone with commonsense would know that evolution fake and false
@@chocolatechip337 Tell me why people look different around the world then? Tell me why people from different races have different affinities? Humans are the same species but different subsets just grew out of some God's ass I guess. Nothing to do with adaptation aka evolution.
@@chocolatechip337 Lol. Point me to a published Scientific paper about the bible that has gone under peer review and agreed upon as fact. I love how you tell this person to educate themselves while being ignorant. Please show me where I can find a so called Scientist that believes in: Virgin births Taking snakes Forever burning bushes Zombies Water to wine Walking on water and much more claimes that are outside the laws of physics. Let me know what lab this person works in.. I would feel compelled to contact the appropriate people so they're aware of a crack pot working for them.
@@luv83 The differences could be less from evolution and more to due with the fact they have unique subspecies DNA from mating. sub-Saharan African's have DNA from a human group no other modern humans do and the same with the Europeans and Asians.
I thought I knew the meaning of true until I heard Peterson’s definition of true. He defines the word in a long paragraph and you end up not knowing what true means even more.
@Clockwork Man I'll say. Fauci changes his mind, like every month. You can see him state masks don't work to stop viral infection in the past, and that covid will be like a bad flu season; and then he comes out touting masks and saying covid is not like the flu; Then he says wear two or three masks; then it's back to masks don't work. Yep, science changes. Just wish it weren't arbitrary, as it has become in the last two years...
@Clockwork Man Oh, one more thing - no. They said sunlight helps immunity and kills viruses 100 years ago, and that is still true today. Go look it up - they put flu patients in the sun 100 years ago...
There are more definitions of truth. Look at Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson’s last podcast together from a week ago. Truths aren’t just derived from facts (science truths). In order for something to be true, it has to come from a set of values or else that truth cannot be true (the is/ought conundrum). There are also deeper levels of truth that extend themselves further than factual truths…. Such as telling a fictional story with deep truths within it that don’t come from facts themselves.
I totally disagree with his assessment. Dawkins gets demolished regularly. Has for years. He's awful at debating. When you're losing to Protestants who are ideologically all over the map, that's embarrassing. Furthermore, when he does mop up, it is only due to the abject ignorance of his opponent, and their dogmatic refusal of fact. What's that tell you? You don't see him doing this to Catholics.
@@cyruslad5462 As I am curious of your understanding of anything. He's come off rather poorly on the whole even against people like William Lane Craig, who obstinately assert things thoroughly debunked by science such as the so-called 'irreducible complexity' of the eye. A lot of it has to do with Dawkin's really bad habits of ad hominem attacks, hot temper, asserting moral outrage at God and religious morality... while maintaining an ideological position on morality that is decidedly subjective at best, and amoral at worst. You can't say morals are subjective, and then fly off the handle in a fit of moral outrage as if your morals carry weight and authority and are objective. You probably also shouldn't do it if you've publicly stated that there is nothing wrong with fondling the genitals of little children... and yes he said that. This is why he tries to pull well respected fundamentalistic leaders of the Evangelical establishment who deny science on multiple serious points, into arguments. He can, in theory, "beat them up with facts." But the moment any discussion about "truth" and morals comes up, he's immediately out of his depth, and can only point out tensions in the moral sphere. Another favorite of his, is to pretend that the God of Calvinists is the definitive God of Christianity... because it is morally insane, and obviously so to even the most unpracticed person. Therefore, he begins regularly with a strawman. Or he'll do the same, and try to hold his opponent to a fundamentalist, one dimensional reading of scripture... and if he can't he knows not what to do. He has nothing to say and no possibility to win against a person like Dr. Peter Kreeft, for instance. And so, it's a bit like Bertrand's vendetta against St. Thomas Aquinas; he took the greatest personal exception, even to the point of hatred of St. Thomas... but Bertrand was never able to refute him, and he knew it. And so did the rest of the atheist intelligentsia, which is why they abandoned metaphysics and took another tactic... discrediting it, slandering it, and smearing it. Which is why W.E.I.R.D. societies (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Developed) societies are living in the decay of objective working moral systems, and we're all in a living hell of moral subjectivism. Dawkins is a biologist, and that is all he is... anytime he goes outside of that he doesn't do very well. And only very pedestrian intellects that want him to be right, hate Christians and Christianity, or have some bigotry they want sated... think highly of his work. He's very popular amongst young people, iconoclasts, and avante garde types... and it's precisely because of their colossal, intransigent, visceral contempt for the type of people he's debating. They like to see them jammed up, because they feel their lives have been jammed up by religious morality and authority in common society. But that speaks nothing of the merit of Dawkin's methods or substance. In fine, there is nothing remarkable about him, at all.
@@Monaghan3000 by all means provide a link where Richard is destroyed in a debate, by destroyed I assume you mean proved wrong and left speechless or feel free to elaborate on your definition of "destroyed". As you say, he's a biologist and on that subject I've not seen any evidence of ignorance or error from him. Please provide the link to the Protestants he "looses" to, I've not seen that, be interesting to see how they out maneuver him on biology. As far as the rest goes well I only judge Richard on his knowledge of biology, so he may have evidence or ideas as to why things like morals exist but as that's a question with no definitive answer it's meaningless in terms of winning a debate. I consider it disingenuous to judge him on subjects for which he is not an expert. If you're looking for general expertise and otherwise impeccable and unmatched knowledge I'd go with Hitchens. Additionally it must be noted that no thiest has ever made a compelling argument for the existence of a God let alone their God and the intelligence required to beat a creationist in a debate is not high.
No argument here. Peterson posits that the question, "is the Bible true " is invalid unless definition of true has to be ascertained first. Asking a question like, " I heard you are leaving the country tomorrow, is that true? " this question can be answered without pondering over "fundamental concept of true " It's a stupid argument to claim, "asking a question, is Bible true?" is profound. No. Bible is one of the many "sacred" books in the world.
Well the problem is the bible has stories in it which are wild and bold, but there is no supportive evidence to back them up. The story of Noah's ark for example a man and his small family build an ark that is over 500 ft long over 3 stories high and he lived 950 years! Yet there is no evidence in the soil that says flooding happened world wide, a boat of this magnitude has never bin found either. Also 950, when the life expectancy was like what 30.....
@Ch4rLz tHa PrInCe Yes, science is sure that within the time frame, no such flood gas left its mark keep in mind this isnt the most ancient of times the story took place about 2300BC this man in the bible lived 950 years..... now I'd you wanna say the bible isn't meant to be taken as literal and only interpreted, well it also has rules such as how disobedient children should be stoned.... how would one interpret that? The bible is so said to be directed by the word of god, who I would remind you is meant to be a flawless being that is and sees all..... nut he wrote an old testament 😆 if he knew all and the results as such, why would he inspire an old testament that would go outdated? If he knew and had such foresight one would think he would only write the news testament and never inspire the old.... Also a lack of evidence is evidence itself, and there is a massive lack of evidence supporting god. All that said I dont think religion is so bad it should be gone, in fact it's quite useful in many ways and I'm glad it helps people. But I can also say for myself that god doesnt exist.
@Ch4rLz tHa PrInCe But I was taught in Sunday school that the bible was written by man and both inspired/advised by gods word. Maybe you were taught different 🤷♂️
@Ch4rLz tHa PrInCe the consequences of sinning are pretty dire and yet the rule book was written by man? God is either insane or simply malicious. "Here you go humanity, generations of Chinese whispers and gobledygook that if not obeyed gets you a ticket to hell!"
People here in the comments are making fun of Jordan Peterson because they don't realize that he actually has a point, even though his articulation might not be clear. Jordan is bringing up a philosophical question about which of the different epistemological paths lead to truth. He is saying that people generally assume empiricism to be true, e. g. only directly observable phenomena can be said to be true. This is an unfounded assumption, as there are possibly other paths that lead to truth, and empiricism itself cannot even justify itself as being the only valid path to truth. Therefore, he is raising a valid challenge to what people generally define as "truth" in the theist/atheist debates, as many atheists simply presuppose a kind of naive empiricism.
All of his videos, where there are monumental amounts of negative comments towards him, are littered with this type of rhetoric: “All of you just don’t understand what he is saying” We do. We understand that he is trying to derive “truth” from the narratives. Almost all of the Christian community views the Bible as objective, in its entirety. They are not reading the biblical texts and looking for “narrative truths”. They really believe that God became angry when angels came down from heaven who started procreating with humans-causing the birth of 100 foot giants, they believe in the virgin birth, they believe in the resurrection, and they believe that heaven and hell are real places outside of time and space. He’s taking this stance on religion for monetary gain. He is far more well spoken than most Christian Apologists therefore he can be depicted as a “gem” by Christians. Christians are a great market to tap into when looking to make more money.
He don't want to waste his time with someone who thinks the world is 6000 years old. You can't argue with a mind like that .“It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.” - Bill Murray Cinespia.
@@kevinc4325a genuine question, without arguing or name calling, right now on the spot why would you think the earth is over 100k years just to start.
@@jif8802 Well typically, a Jehovah Witness, is well rounded, as they need to be, so that they have a means of understanding the people that they talk to about religion, and are able to withstand scrutiny as well. This means that they would more than likely be able to verbal joust efficiently enough or there abouts. At least I think so.
Everyone, and yes including Lennox. Peterson lays this out perfectly, these apologists don't have a clear conception of what they think truth means. Richard did. It's that simple.
The Bible has a lot of interesting information within it The discovery and translation of the NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY IN Egypt, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls cast a much different light on the Bible Then, when you look into the other "authentic" religions you find a string of agreement that goes through all of them. The obvious conclusion is that this is mankind's attempt to explain the unfathomable.
The strings of agreement you can find are incredibly spooky. A fundamental rewriting of what we understand as history, and even reality, kind of spooky. I just wonder what happened that led us to be so out of touch with it all. There've been a couple knocks on the door of drugs, which would bring some theories of human evolution more consideration, but it's a mostly untapped and dismissed well of information.
It could also indicate that there was one true region from God and as man made others they retained core truths. A central origin is also a good way to have universal concepts.
"Depends on what you mean by true."
Remember that this guy criticizes postmodernism.
Because post modernism is completely evil and has led to the slaughter of over 100 million people
Nice point g
if something is true it is an accurate representation of reality
lmao 💀💀💀 btw i’m agreeing with this comment
Religion claims that the things they taught are true, so can u accept their truth of killing homosexual to death, Prohibiting women to go outside without burkha, or there philosophies which doesn't resonate with you. we do have conscience, we have a rational part in our brain
According to us, truth is facts or reality which have evidence backed by it, the sun in our solar system is universally accepted fact
Jordan Peterson goes to a restaurant. A waiter greets him
Waiter: Hello sir. How are you today?
Jordan: Well that depends by what you mean by today?
I like how he didn't question the "sir" part as gender politics is the only topic he will ever give a straight answer to. 😅
Jordan peterson is the dumb guys smart guy
small brain
I think you got it backward. Jordan Peterson explains complicated matter in simple term.
Maybe you're just not that intelligent.
JP does a great job of saying absolutely nothing in 30 seconds
I think it's about the structure of the debate he's talking about. They base the debate on scientific truth and the religious people lack that because the bible never talks from a scientific perspective. Every bit of detail is focused and directed towards spiritual empowerment rather than explaining science which wasn't a study until recently. What's hard to understand here? He speaks the truth, Christianity and all othe religions don't have a good defending platform against science and he's right
@@ashwinraphael Atheist debaters also point out contradictions and flaws in religious’s people logic without using any science.
basically you’re not intelligent enough to translate what he’s saying into your basic form of language
@@stanleycullen2690 you've got it all figured out
@@Merciless_au thank you
therapist: post-modern Jordan Peterson isn't real, he can't hurt you
post-modern Jordan Peterson:
You're equivocating and think you're equating.
Post modernism seeks to have no limiting parameters or definitions or set truths within the particle world. The world of objectively set truths.
Quantum mechanics/meta-physics, IS the world of YET UNSET truth. This is established science. Do you need the world famous studies you cannot have possibly missed? Do you need the basics of physics explained to you?
@@CorbinB-Rax I think you knew the answer to that before you even finished. Lol
@@CorbinB-RaxWhat is this category you call quantum mechanics slash meta - physics? Is it really 'established science'? What constitutes 'estsblished' here?
Do you see the problem...?
Seems like you don't even try to understand his point. The thing that IS definitely true about the bible is the message behind the stories but are the stories truthful real events or just stories? Who knows, hence why he asks "what do you mean by truth". On one hand you could ask if the stories are true or you could ask if the message is true, and specifying what you mean matters. Jordans point is that you shouldn't disregard the bible as something untruthful to ignore just because the stories might not be real events, there is a lot of wisdom from the bible that many people can benefit from, and those benefits are definitely TRUE. Not even once did he ever say that you should make up your own truth about the structure of the world, which is what postmodernism is.
@@MrSkeltal69
Is the message true that donkeys and snakes can talk?..
"Richard Dawkins kicked the hell out of religious people"
Well then they must be happy to not have anymore hell in them
😂😂🤣
Dawkins stills kicks religious people's ass
😎
What a dumbass thing to say lol
@@stationorange very clear the only person seething is you based on that comment 😂
“It depends on what you mean by true” should be inscribed on Peterson’s headstone.
Depends on what you mean by 'dead'
@@junebuggy240 Depends on what you mean by "depends."
@@SniffnMeFingies Right. On one hand, we have adult diapers…
His version of the truth means he can state that he hasn't had any hair replacement treatment.. is the Bible true? A profound question? oh, JP always tells the the truth.
But what does True mean to you?
To me it is only True if it is 100% accurate for the events being referenced. However, we also have terms such as mostly true, somewhat true, half true, partly true, (X)% true, so there is no 1 definition for True.
Also there is this, something doesn't have to necessarily be TRUE for it to be TRUTH. If the Bible is Truth, as most proponents espouse, than it does NOT inherently lead to it having to be True, as well.
The problem is when you adopt the position that everything in the Bible is an absolute accurate retelling of an actual occurrence or event. And I think that is what JP meant by his statement.
Has this guy given a straight answer for once in his life ?
JP is a genius and he speaks like one, maybe that's why you're having a hard time understanding
@@n00n1n the basic idea of communication is to make people understand you, if what you speech is not understandable by majority then there is pretty much no difference in gibberish and highly intellectual and genius talks.
JP uses these complicating of simple topics to give arguments which aren't there. Meaning of truth is pretty much the same for everyone it is not so different for everyone as he is claiming it to be.
I try my hardest.
Stop watching RUclips and read a book.
@@n00n1n lol, Jordan Peterson is a moron (or at the very least is terrible at philosophy and has moronic takes
Long story short, Peterson basically said "Religious people can't argue against facts"
No need for all the other word salad.
Unless you face a biblical 🧑🏫
@lxstcheckll9348 Yeah, because biblical scholars hold a lot of merit in the intellectual world 🤡
Biblical scholars can't even agree on what is literal and metaphorical, NEXT
Depends on your definition of "facts" Too many people present their opinion as though it's a fact. What Jordan is asking is true at what level? Is it a true story? Is it a true account? Is it a true collection of actual writings? There are different levels of what can be called true.
@markd3250 I'm gonna go with Matt's definition of "objectively verifiable phenomenon in reality" because in my experience, that seems to be the most reliable.
@@Maltlicky50 That would be a good general definition, a rule of thumb so to speak, but when you're talking about something like the Bible, you need to be more specific than just asking "Is the Bible true?" Then you walk right into a realm where "objectively verifiable" isn't necessarily possible; you only have circumstantial.
JP with Dawkins.. this is something I have been waiting for years.
Is that what he’s saying? That him and Dawkins had a conversation at Oxford that they’re releasing? If so I can’t wait
@@jackthalmann6763 yep..
@@jackthalmann6763 some time soon… in the next few years hopefully we’ll get loads of conversations between JP and Dawkins and Harris
LETS GOOOOOOO
Man,I'm more hyped for this intellectual debate than been for Khabib vs Conor or even Rock vs Cena while I was a kid lol
For someone opposed to postmodernism, as am I, Peterson argues very much like a postmodernist.
Peterson doesnt even know what postmodernism is, he had just constructed an elaborate strawman that he keeps punching down.
He embodies everything he accuses "postmodernists" of.
Well I mean, it depends on what you mean by Postmodernism.
That's exactly why he is argues against it. To obfuscate the fact that he is one
He can't even properly define post modernism
JP: These post-modernists are trying to redefine words.
Also JP: Is the Bible true? What do you mean by true?
Dood exactly. He has become what he despised. Shoulda stuck to being a professor. His lectures were really good.
@@barrywhite1770 lol. No. This is who he always was. He has been trying to break into media like this for almost 30 years now. He is a character. That is all. In his terms he would probably describe himself as the archetypal wise sage. He would think of himself as the truthful jester. In reality he is just a snake in the grass leading people away from The Truth. He would rather be the messiah. Watch this dude end up as the pm of Canada because their leadership sucks.
@@twirlykaa2222 well whatever. I found his “maps of meaning” course very valuable.
All this left/right and Christian garbage, not so much
@@barrywhite1770 it's all good brother. He is a very intelligent man. I'm glad you found value in what he provides. Still doesn't change the fact that he has been trying to do this for 30 years. I'm not really sure where you were going with that. My wife does that. Well most women really. They just have to be heard. Tell me more about yourself. What's your favorite food? Maybe that will further your point. Go back to maps of meaning. Maybe you haven't found it yet.
I think it’s good, tho. You should always question these things. People always have, way before post-modernism
JP needs to stick to gender politics.
True
He's impressive, fearless and on point, but when he defends religion, he just sounds crazy 😂
This take was so bad I honestly almost couldn’t believe it
Why? Because Richard Dawkins likes that side of his arguments? 😏
If you can't beat them, confuse them!
😂
And to confuse them, you have to confuse yourself.
This is what I hate about this guy. Master manipulator and gaslighter. He'll dismantle and deconstruct things that can not be so he's always in theory and the abstract, and his followers cling on to that thinking its profound and meaningful when anyone can reconstitute anything to their view in abstraction/thought/theory.
@@standardprocedure7017 Is his answer wrong?
@allergy5634 no, it‘s not. why? whilst there is such a thing like a commonly accepted definition of truth it means nothing if common people see claims as truth as it is quite usual. hence the science guys are right when they feel the need to ever explain it again. besides, in the beginning peterson here says the bible is a story. what do you all think he thinks then and what that means? actually he‘s quite clear.
@@greenogre22just because certain people decide to use they’re own definition of medicine when trying crystal healing, it doesn’t mean it’s accurate or anybody who’s informed should respect it. Also, he clearly didn’t explain it well since at least half the people here are confused about it.
“Excuse me, do you have the time?”
JP: “Depends on what you mean by time. You know, Dostoyevsky said…”
true
@@holyisme6377Depends on what you mean by true!
@@RabidLeech1 Depends on your presupposittions in relation to dependence as such, it is not obvious what you hold cardinal in relation to your comment, or that you have said anything to explore and defend your territory
🤣
Y'all keep trying to discredit and joke on him out of ignorance and jealousy, but nobody's actually disagreeing with him. Cause he's not wrong. Our definition of what's true is dependent upon what our five senses can detect in this 3D reality. Religious people can't win the God debate on scientific grounds because they're trying to prove the physical existence of something that exists beyond our 3rd Dimension out of our ability to detect. The only way we can try to discover or prove God exists is through reasoning.
Stop overcomplicating things Jordan. "True" means "real".
Hopefully you don't need me to explain what "real" means!
Yeah he does that alot.
poor kid hurt too much
Many Religious people trying to distort the meaning of "truth" now. They kinda crazy
@@edwardtimothy3581 so a fart created the entire Existence including the laws of Physics
@@allisRevealed987 who said that?
"Depends on what you mean by true."
I love to listen to Jordan Peterson. I really do.
Because while I'm listening to him, I not just see the gaslighting, I can smell the petroleum.
It reminds me of a scene from a show:
"Is Super Hans my boss now?"
"Depends how you define boss"
"In the normal way"
"Then yes, he is"
LMFAO, JP is literally a Peep Show character
Peep show. So great
“Fairytales are true
Not because they say dragons exist
But because they say dragons can be defeated”
GK Chesterton
No. Fairy tales are FALSE. Non-fiction is true. Objective reality exists.
@@aguy559 things beyond objective reality exist too.
My mom loves me, but I have no objective proof.
Science is good, but science is not all.
@@PInk77W1 No. Nothing exists beyond objective reality. To say it does is a misuse of the term.
And your mother’s feelings of love are the result of a chemical process that would take place whether or not we were aware of it. With the proper technology, it is objectively observable.
Just like Peterson, you’re playing around with words. Fables might point to things that are true, but the fables themselves are not.
@@aguy559
So u believe the universe made itself ?
@@PInk77W1 So you believe god made himself?
I think the proper question for Jordan in regards to God, is "What do you think happens to your consciousness when your brain and heart stop functioning?"
Yes, per the KNOWLEDGE gained by the NDE (Near Death Experience) Experiencer videos...
@@bluewater3783 Stop. You can’t call that knowledge. It’s absurd.
@@UWfalcin Dr. Sam Parnia. "Researchers say there's evidence consciousness continues after clinical death." NYU's Langone Medical Center. Etc., Etc.
what did you experience before you were born? nothing. same answer
@@davidtarumian4648 I also have no memory of anything before the age of two or three, but I was still alive. I hope you're wrong about the nothingness.
If one were cynical, one might say that his caginess and coyness about answering the question is deliberately calculated to promote his mysterious public image so as to make people even more interested in him. If you were a public relations agent for Jordan Peterson, you would tell him don't you dare answer that question straightforwardly. By not answering it, by being coy, it increases the mystique of Jordan Peterson and makes him interesting. People talk about it. They debate whether he really believes it or not. It increases his public notoriety. Whereas if he were to simply come right out and say yes or no, the debate would be over. It wouldn't be nearly as interesting. People wouldn't talk about it. So if you were cynical, you might say that this is just really well-calculated public relations. (William Lane Craig on Jordan Peterson)
weasely is one of the best words to describe jp.
It depends what you mean by weasely
I cant do it
:p@@hehehehehahaha
@diezeljames7910 didn't ask brother
@diezeljames7910thank god i don’t waste my time with this religion crap
Anyone: "is this true?"
J.P.: "define true."
Proceeds to weasel, waffle and wander everywhere to not allow for any meaningful definition
Funny how he has no need to define words he's using. He just assumes we all know their meaning. And we do.
He's such a coward.
@@Icemann89He's not a coward just ignorant God is ultimately
Unfortunate how he is like this. I used to enjoy listening to his lectures:(
He says some people will call his assertion weasel words - a common marketing strategy where one discounts an objection by stating it, without addressing it.
Hehe
🧇
"I had a conversation with him at oxford"
I can't wait to see this.
Huge fans of both men.
They have kept this for the last episode. This is bad news that it’s coming so fast. Keep your eyes on Taiwan
@@thorstenmarquardt7274 ????
@@sorcyboi2848 Do some research, it’s coming.
@@thorstenmarquardt7274 Watching diligently
@@sorcyboi2848 Taiwan will be attacked
Amazing that he admits religion can only be true when you refine truth itself. By that logic anything can be true and there is no such thing as falsehood. What a hack.
Jordan Peterson manages to own himself in this argument
Peterson has shown that he is scientifically literate and logical. So his thing with religion is really strange. Its like he becomes a different person.
Suspension of disbelief. Not even smart people are exempt.
Bc you have to suspend logic to believe it entirely.
Yeah have u seen him debate Matt dillahunty? I like jordan n I don’t like Matt. But Matt completely destroyed him. Jordan sounded like a raving lunatic
@@moneystrb22 Wich is a terrible idea 😂
It’s because Jordan Peterson is actually really terrible at philosophy. You should go back with a critical eye to stuff he’s said about other topics than religion, I think you’ll find this is not the only sphere where his takes are awful.
why is jordan peterson doing this to himself?
lol
what is "this"?
Because he sees religion as the only antidote to nihilism, and so he needs to convince himself that religious literature is sensible and valid in some way, shape or form.
In all fairness, when it comes to the Conservers, they couldn't care less about what he says, they care about conserving their reality at all costs, and this is what they think JP is doing.
Half of the time they don't understand what JP is saying, the other half their attention span reaches its limit.
Paycheck.
Well, it depends on what you mean by "this"? :P
A man who does not know what “real” and “true” mean, can be ignored, since he cannot even know if he himself is lying or not
Right. So, that would be everyone in this comments section who thinks that literal, objective fact is the only possible form of truth, and that there's no such thing as moral truth or literary truth whatsoever.
These comments are full of people where, if you read them an Aesop fable, their only reaction would be, "But did that _really_ happen?"
Word salad 🥗 Peterson.. you don't assume "True".. truth by definition should be valid and complete regardless of whatever side you are on.
Works with objects not with people.
Please don't confuse his incel fanboys with reality
There is objective truth and subjective truth.
@@darkwolf4434 And there are alternative facts 🤣🤣
@@bobmusil1458 No, just facts. Subjective truth are things like opinions on abortion. There are no facts if abortion is right or wrong there are just different ways of seeing it. So a conservative may say, a fetus is a baby even before it gains conciousness. That's not a fact. It's an opinion, it's a subjective truth.
And a liberal might say, a fetus is a baby after it gains conciousness. Which is also a subjective truth.
Look at them staring at him totally lost
Yeah...sometimes I think he goes out of his way to twist, turn and distort the conversation in order to confuse people. And that is his intention. Then he gives them his interpretation of what the solutions are, thereby making it look as though he has the answers.
@@janedoe1107 Yep, even when it's totally unnecessary. I'm kind of getting tired of it.
@@TopTierDoberman Finally...someone who agrees with me so thank you! And Im tired of it too.
@@janedoe1107 I disagree. I’ve heard plenty of him and he’s a very efficient and precise speaker
@@janedoe1107 Or you could possibly just not understand him, which isn’t a bad thing or a slight on your end. Just because you can’t follow doesn’t mean he’s distorting things or doing something for some nefarious purpose.
"It depends on what you mean by 'true.'" He pretends like he's not sidestepping the question when he says things like that, but that is precisely what he is doing, especially when no alternative definition of truth is proffered. Peterson really achieves nothing but obfuscation with his handling of truth. He sounds like a postmodernist.
Spot on. Peterson the "public intellectual" is so popular because people want someone to defend their ideology. What he does is make this stuff sound plausible. Thats all.
Yeah there's a weird irony in his statements here. It's something Foucault could have said.
Every video I have watched of JP in "discussion" with various interviewers is basically this, he throws out a question in answer to a question e.g. Interviewer " is it true......"
JP " well depends what you mean by true?".../ or "define true".
He rarely gets around to answering the original question and if pulled up on this he then resorts to personal attack and obfuscation with jargon e.g." that's Postmodern Marxist garbage"
Thought Richard Dawkins dealt with him beautifully..."Rubbish".
If you read a book of Aesop fables, and they have morals that are so wise they are useful to people even today, does it matter that the events in the story did not literally happen?
THAT'S the alternative definition of truth. *A useful moral.*
"You cant assume true and cram the Bible into that."
Actually, assuming "truth" is exactly what you have to do in order to seriously take any side of an argument. Even people who believe in the Bible must first assume the Bible is "true" to defend it.
"Depends on what your definition of is is" -Bill Clinton
When taking about friendship with Epstein and paedophilia
Indeed, Bill “always hard Clinton” knows how to mix words.
JP: depends what you mean by truth
JP fans: Truuuuuue!
Gold 😂
Everytime this guy begins to rattle on I find I just don't care anymore.
In fairness, these shorts libraries do tend to shove this content down our throats. I probably allign ideologically with JP or Joe Rogan or Ben Shapiro, but I find myself skipping a lot of theie content within these shorts.
More isn't always better.
“People say that’s weasely”
Yeah, cos defining ‘truth’ in your own unique way is a brilliant method of showing everyone that you aren’t really that interested in what’s true.
You see this is where Peterson starts to loose me. There are so many things that I agree with him on when it comes to social issues but the minute he starts getting into religion, he starts talking in circles and is never able to say anything definitive on the subject. "It depends on what you mean by the truth." Come on man lol give me a break.
Well what do you mean when you’re talking about truth? Things that have been proven?
He’s talking about narrative truth vs scientific truth.
He’s branding. He’s essentially creating a larger audience for monetary gain. With his current rhetoric and stance on religion, he is seen as a “gem” to Christians in the west. He is luring the Christian community into book sales.
@@Secularexpansion9 Bingo. He’s a grifter, a charlatan. His fans see him mix all these words: “look, let’s get all cognitive neuroscience on this shall we” (from his debate with Sam Harris). And they go gaga! They proclaim him to be a genius, because he uses such words. What they don’t grasp is he’s using those words to evade real exchange of ideas, and/or to attempt to dazzle.
Do you think that a story can have a message that is applicable to your own life? Yes? Then that's a truth that's not literal, objective fact.
If a metaphor conveys a complex idea simply and accurately, then it is true. It doesn't matter that it's not literally true. If I use the phrase "blind watchmaker" when explaining evolution, then your response shouldn't be, "Obviously evolution is not true, because that's crazy to think that a blind watchmaker is directing the growth of all these animal species."
"It's weasley" yes, Jordan. It is weasley.
I doubt JP saw the debate Dawkins had with John Lennox. And I'm not even religious.
Lennox just repeated all the bullshit Dawkins heard 5000 times in his life, such as "the evidence is all around us" etc...He just said it in a more elegant way.
For all those scoffing at the idea that truth could have ambiguity, it could be the joke's on you after all. While you're living life in your heads, the meaningful and otherwise special experiences of your life which can't be described in terms subjectable to the vaunted scientific method pass you by, or at least your stuck viewing these moments as a clinical observer in your own life.
The truth is the truth. It's not on a spectrum. Either it is true or it isn't.
JP didnt say otherwise. But you still have to define what you are talking about. Something can be true but irrelevant if its off topic.
Is the Bible true? True about what? Human character or nuclear physics?
Is it untrue because it doesnt address Marxist economic theory or Plate tectonics?
@@jeremymead8546 someone who has ears and can infer deeper meaning thank you sir!
@@jeremymead8546 Not addressing something and being wrong are two completely different things.
@james1098778910 except of course when being wrong about something means that you effectively fail to address that something.
@@jeremymead8546 you cannot be wrong about something you did not address.
Word salad is this guy's one and only talent
Cuz Dawkins came armed with the truth, the best of what we’ve learned to date. The truth from 2000+ years ago was not as clear as it is today.
Why does a scientist care so much about whether what religious people believe is true or not based on scientific assessment?
@@TV-um6ub cuz it’s the root of the worlds problems. Everybody warring and truly believe that gods on their side.
Religion is poison, every aspect of it
@@jeremycleary2002 Human beings are the ones who create all the problems in the world, not religion, science, or anything else. People use religion, science or something else to hurt others while some people use them to benefit others.
@@TV-um6ub human beings created religion.
I completely agree with you all human beings are capable of doing bad, but it takes religion to make good ppl do evil things that they wouldn’t otherwise do.
Religion had ppl offering their children as sacrifice. Religion is why we are in perpetual war. Religion makes Muslims kill homosexuals and women for the dumbest reasons.
@@jeremycleary2002 it takes anything including religion to make good people do evil thing that they wouldn't otherwise do. Innocent people have always been brainwashed to do evil things by an evil person or a group of evil people.
The examples you've listed are exceptions to prevalent benevolent characteristics of religion. For example, according to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 121, or 6.87%, had religion as their primary cause.
He knows EXACTLY what people mean by true 😂
How can some one be so knowledgeable and not wise.
Learning is always different than acting on what is learned.
Education does not equal common sense or wisdom or experience, it sets most up for failure because the instant they accept what is told they've limited their thoughts. They're constrained.
@Ch4rLz tHa PrInCe The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I was eluding to him not believing in God.
@Ch4rLz tHa PrInCe Look up his answer to the question.
@@christopherbriggs9526 Peterson is wiser than you’ll ever be. You’re, in Peterson’s words, clearly ideologically possessed
How ironic your statement is.
I knew the debate between Peterson and Dawkins will be in the last episode of the internet.
WW3 is coming and they release the Peterson VS Dawkins finale.
😐
Does anyone know when it'll be released?
Lol this aged like fine wine
@@mikehawk8526 “so you believe humans drew snakes because they could see their own DNA in their heads?”
Peterson: “well I took a lot of heavy drugs”
@@thorstenmarquardt7274 was refering to "last episode of the internet" and "WW3 is coming", just pointing out the end of the world hasn't happened or isn't anytime soon, as for the conversation itself I totally agree Jordan totally embarrassed himself lol, kinda felt bad for the man honestly.
It's so weird how Jordan goes from being totally science oriented and rational when discussing Male/Female or racial differences in brain structure and psychology, then starts talking like this when it comes to weird superstitious beliefs and ancient myths.
Aye
Consider he may know something
Because he needs to keep his listeners happy, it earns him a lot of money. I think he’s an agnostic in reality, but doesn’t like to say it because most of his followers are highly religious who love him for his evidence and data-driven points that can be shoehorned into their regressive beliefs.
Because he wants it to be true. Anyone who has been hijacked and hypnotised by religion wants it to be true
Dawkins made Peterson look foolish in that conversation….Dawkins is a beast
John Lennox makes dawkins a fool.
"Truth" is what's factual, and a fact is a point of data that is objectively verifiable. The stories on the Bible are mostly myth, not fact, and so, they're not true. It's as simple as this: Genesis for example, never actually happened.
Dawkins absolutely neuters Jorbie Peterson in every way imaginable and I’m more than certain that Dawkins views Peterson with disdain and contempt. Peterson is, after all, a complete charlatan at this point.
Well said. I get sick and tired of hyper intellectuals like Peterson who apply Amazing reason to any argument but do not apply the same reasoning to religion. His IQ drops a 1000 points when religion comes into it
@@roquefortfilesit's not religion you are perceiving it wrong and category placing christianity. Its a relationship
???? !!!@@pantsdown6567
Most people who claim to believe in god have never read the boring bible.
Tbh most people I have met who similarly say they are atheists can not tell the difference between micro and macro evolution. Humans are just lazy.
It is weak to say “it depends what you mean by true.”
"It depends on what you mean by true"
My brain cells commited suicide the moment I heard that.
Yeah but what do you mean by brain? And what do you mean by cells? And what do you mean by committed? These are very complex questions.
@@hardyhardyha5767 lol, my day was great. Didn't expect this to make it even better.
He says "no it's not" like a toddler being scolded 😂
This man literally says nothing. It's actual mental gymnastics. Richard Dawkins is much more logical. Also the way he said "no it's not" sounds like a 3 year old
John Lennox wipes the floor with Dawkins to the point that Ric D has requested not to debate him anymore.
The Bible isn’t an abstract book. In fact, it is a closed book to the skeptic, the cynical and the “I know better” person. God says He resists the proud person, but gives grace to the humble. The one who goes low to meet the Most High.
So before I even begin to read and study the Bible, I have to believe it is true. There are demonstrable errors and contradictions in the Bible making one skeptical about at least some aspects of the Bible.
Dr. Peterson has been with William Lane Craig. Dawkins gets the living hell kicked out of him.
I love Dr. Peterson. But he's partially wrong here.
Jordan Peterson is the prime example of a pretentious pseudo-intellectual.
He’s mostly a philosopher now. I find it funny how many people in the comments don’t understand the concept of truth or rather they believe they have a sold definition of what truth is. Why don’t you read a book on this subject before commenting on it like you know anything. Start with Alan Watts and then move into some Manly P. Hall. Maybe then you’ll actually be able to think for yourself.
@elijiahburgess5506 Metaphysical substrate. That should clear up for you what original poster is talking about.
Clearly you are a JP fan...and that's cool.
He is spot on when it comes to free speech, woke culture, and youth need for self-discipline.
But being his fan doesn't mean you can successfully defend him on 'everything'. Because he (like everyone else) is not right about 'everything'.
JP, for all his strengths - is an absolutely blabbermouthed idiot when it comes to religion.
As for 'truth'. Yes, there are philosophical approaches to truth, meaning, and interpretation.
But religion is not 'true' when it comes to comparing how science is 'true'.
Here I will make it simpler...evolution is TRUE. Intelligent Design (so called) is false and has zero evidence for it and a mountain of evidence in the other direction.
@@renewed6250 Love your response here. Great work! I wholeheartedly agree with every single point you made.
@leebode4643 thank you! Rereading it, I hope I don't come off as a jerk. Didn't mean to.
JP is one of those people in that category where, people who like him struggle to find any fault in him.
I for instance, am a huge fan of Jocko Willlink, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Dan Gilbert (the psychologist...not the Cavs owner).
They all definitely have their points where I don't just disagree, they are systemically incorrect. That is just humans for you. I likely have a mountain of thoughts I am systemically incorrect about. So I hope it was received well.
@@renewed6250 let’s be reasonable here. I never said or even hinted that I find no fault in him. The original poster is also not exactly in line with you either. I don’t think they wrote enough to even be able to steel-man anything.
Yes you are correct that there is a difference between truth in regards to different subjects and their respective axioms. But by my estimation Dr. Peterson is more in line with philosophical religious “truths” rather than scientific truths which he is also completely aware of. I believe he is struggling with the problem of perception ultimately and he does indeed come off as sort of beating around the bush but I don’t think it’s because he can’t answer any specific question in line with a mainstream answer but rather he wants to answer it on his terms through his own perspective. But no I don’t and won’t defend him in all he does. I dislike his hyper vocal tendencies, his lack of self control in a conversation, his need to repeat everything to new people. Best example would be the Richard Dawkins interview. It’s was unbearable. I stopped listening to him for the most part after that. But overall no I don’t think you were being a jerk or anything. However this wasn’t your conversation in the first place and your comment to me seemed like a well placed barb to attract a vicious response. Could be wrong.
Deepak Chopra and Jordan Peterson. Knights of Woo.
I believe he Jordan later says that it's because The Bible is a precedent to truth, which I think is a *facinating* idea in every way.
"Well NO IT'S NOT" always gets me 😂. That means: it is weasely, but I can un-weasel it for you, to the point where you no longer need to think of it as weasely, even though it totally is.
“How’s about this for an answer, almost certainly not.”
John Lennox has entered the chat.
He lost tho
@@andrewwong2399 no he did not.
A master of saying nothing and making it sound really good. Wins 10 debates out of 10, as long as you agree with him before he starts.
@@andrewwong2399 nope
@@andrewwong2399 Not at all.
Peterson is right here. To many it sounds confusing, but he's talking about a book that contains a tremendous amount of information, life lessons, metaphores and stories. Lots of it does not conflict scientific facts and especially on human nature and how to deal with life itself.. its unbelievable how ignorant people are to simply discard books like the Bible and take the world as a simple black and white answer.
Dawkins problem is that he sets the wrong context and then slams religion based on what he thinks religion is all about.
The Prince of gobbledygook, that's JP. Gawd, he drives me crazy😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
What I really don't understand is, people crap on the bible because they say it was written by man....but what I don't understand is, science is created by man. Measure is created by man. So what is the difference? It takes just as much energy to beleive there is no higher power as it does to walk the road of faith believing there is an almighty God.
Yes but science is based on evidence. If you perform a experiment you will receive the same result as someone did 200 years ago. It's an absolute rule. God on the other hand has no guarantees. Also believing in God does not mean that you don't believe in science.
science is repeatable and testable continuously by lots of "man"...and women. the other is unverifiable faith.
science=every modern luxury you know
faith=hope these ancient guys where right
@@samknowles3189 I'm pretty sure God has guarantees. Prophecies are screaming louder than ever before. For me, science is valuable. But for man kind to have a creation called science, someone (personal beleif) my God almighty created everything in existence. It's free will. To beleive in something else that has pretty convincing information or to stand strong on his word and follow him no matter what is out. For me the argument is already won. God has set so much out and if we walk the path we have peace. Life might still be very hard but we have peace. I really love reading these comments. The power of personal thought and belief.
@@samknowles3189
"Science is based on evidence.."
This statement can certainly be subjective. The real issue here is comparison of two subjects that are totally unrelated.
The big difference is science is repeatable, testable, and most importantly falsifiable.
Religion does not allow for that last part.
“They are up against the mighty science” 😂🔥
Most delusional cringy sentence in existence
@@khanusmagnus577🚨I doubt it, the most cringy sentence in history is “god told me to do it”
Yes, Weasely is exactly what it is.
Religion is by far Peterson's weakest link.
The irony is that modern “science” is nothing short of organised religion
Well Dawkins keeps ducking William Lane Craig.
Well Jordan you should have met Christopher Hitchens and he would have shown you in the true sense what it means to be eloquent and also have factual integrity when talking about the sheer stupidity of religions. It’s just sad that he passed away so soon.
There is enough light in faith for those who want to believe and enough Shadows for those who don't
shadows?
Have you heard of the enlightenment?
@@gobbled123 sounds subjective
@@matc87 America society was founded in the enlightenment period. A separation of church and state. Democracy. Scientific reformation was the foundation of the United States. It was a rejection of religious fundamentalism and the rights of religious organisations of heredity. The USA is fundamentally a non religious organisation.
@@gobbled123 wow with all that enlightenment going around I'm surprised anyone owned or used slaves to build their family property state and country. yes freedom of religion thank fuck because we can see what not having freedom of religion produces. I'm not American so I cannot say but I try stay up to date with religious legal affairs over there. it deffinetly seems like alot of politics leans into the religious pandering
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Peterson is a meme.
One day the truth will be revealed.
And let me guess, it will be in your favour? 🙄
@@phatheffer3439 Cry about it
@@khanusmagnus577 Cry about what? Someone believing they have been chosen by God because they are super special?! 🤣🤣🤣
*"Depends on what you mean by 'true'."*
Pure pigeon chess.
What like science saying humans evolved and came from apes or a pool of bubbling mud
Yeah, why is it that humans have differences around the world? Why is it that geographical differences completely change what a human looks like? Doesn't that prove evolution to an extent? Or nevermind, a book made by some dudes in the desert that has been mistranslated a thousand times and also given a second edition for some reason is what we should believe. The dudes who wrote the book ate dumber than you and you still believe them.
@@luv83 go educate yourself. Those who lived in the days actually were alive at the same time in most cases. And for it all frustrated handed.. stupid is as a stupid does..
Seek the truth for yourself. And not by what someone who hates religion writes... the fact of the matter is scientist are now say the Bible is accurate.. but as always anti religion people an the media won't report on it. Anyone with commonsense would know that evolution fake and false
@@chocolatechip337 Tell me why people look different around the world then? Tell me why people from different races have different affinities? Humans are the same species but different subsets just grew out of some God's ass I guess. Nothing to do with adaptation aka evolution.
@@chocolatechip337
Lol. Point me to a published Scientific paper about the bible that has gone under peer review and agreed upon as fact. I love how you tell this person to educate themselves while being ignorant.
Please show me where I can find a so called Scientist that believes in:
Virgin births
Taking snakes
Forever burning bushes
Zombies
Water to wine
Walking on water and much more claimes that are outside the laws of physics. Let me know what lab this person works in.. I would feel compelled to contact the appropriate people so they're aware of a crack pot working for them.
@@luv83 The differences could be less from evolution and more to due with the fact they have unique subspecies DNA from mating. sub-Saharan African's have DNA from a human group no other modern humans do and the same with the Europeans and Asians.
How can you say so much and absolutely nothing at the same time.
The Selfish Gene was/is amazing.
I thought I knew the meaning of true until I heard Peterson’s definition of true. He defines the word in a long paragraph and you end up not knowing what true means even more.
When you are on your dying bed.. hope I'm there to hear your last thoughts.
Thats what religion is. Wishful thinking about paradise after death
ahhh scientific definition of true...like there is any other
Fauci is science
@Clockwork Man
I'll say. Fauci changes his mind, like every month. You can see him state masks don't work to stop viral infection in the past, and that covid will be like a bad flu season; and then he comes out touting masks and saying covid is not like the flu; Then he says wear two or three masks; then it's back to masks don't work. Yep, science changes. Just wish it weren't arbitrary, as it has become in the last two years...
@Clockwork Man
Oh, one more thing - no. They said sunlight helps immunity and kills viruses 100 years ago, and that is still true today. Go look it up - they put flu patients in the sun 100 years ago...
There are more definitions of truth. Look at Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson’s last podcast together from a week ago. Truths aren’t just derived from facts (science truths). In order for something to be true, it has to come from a set of values or else that truth cannot be true (the is/ought conundrum). There are also deeper levels of truth that extend themselves further than factual truths…. Such as telling a fictional story with deep truths within it that don’t come from facts themselves.
How does one determine myth vs reality, if truth is not fact based?
The master of word salad.
"Religious texts were written when we knew very little about nature "
Peterson recognizes the difference between scientifically correct and a “true path” . Most never make this distinction.
I totally disagree with his assessment. Dawkins gets demolished regularly. Has for years. He's awful at debating. When you're losing to Protestants who are ideologically all over the map, that's embarrassing. Furthermore, when he does mop up, it is only due to the abject ignorance of his opponent, and their dogmatic refusal of fact. What's that tell you? You don't see him doing this to Catholics.
Dawkins gets demolished, regularly? Now I'm curious as to your understanding of the word demolished.
@@cyruslad5462 As I am curious of your understanding of anything. He's come off rather poorly on the whole even against people like William Lane Craig, who obstinately assert things thoroughly debunked by science such as the so-called 'irreducible complexity' of the eye. A lot of it has to do with Dawkin's really bad habits of ad hominem attacks, hot temper, asserting moral outrage at God and religious morality... while maintaining an ideological position on morality that is decidedly subjective at best, and amoral at worst. You can't say morals are subjective, and then fly off the handle in a fit of moral outrage as if your morals carry weight and authority and are objective. You probably also shouldn't do it if you've publicly stated that there is nothing wrong with fondling the genitals of little children... and yes he said that. This is why he tries to pull well respected fundamentalistic leaders of the Evangelical establishment who deny science on multiple serious points, into arguments. He can, in theory, "beat them up with facts." But the moment any discussion about "truth" and morals comes up, he's immediately out of his depth, and can only point out tensions in the moral sphere. Another favorite of his, is to pretend that the God of Calvinists is the definitive God of Christianity... because it is morally insane, and obviously so to even the most unpracticed person. Therefore, he begins regularly with a strawman. Or he'll do the same, and try to hold his opponent to a fundamentalist, one dimensional reading of scripture... and if he can't he knows not what to do. He has nothing to say and no possibility to win against a person like Dr. Peter Kreeft, for instance. And so, it's a bit like Bertrand's vendetta against St. Thomas Aquinas; he took the greatest personal exception, even to the point of hatred of St. Thomas... but Bertrand was never able to refute him, and he knew it. And so did the rest of the atheist intelligentsia, which is why they abandoned metaphysics and took another tactic... discrediting it, slandering it, and smearing it. Which is why W.E.I.R.D. societies (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Developed) societies are living in the decay of objective working moral systems, and we're all in a living hell of moral subjectivism. Dawkins is a biologist, and that is all he is... anytime he goes outside of that he doesn't do very well. And only very pedestrian intellects that want him to be right, hate Christians and Christianity, or have some bigotry they want sated... think highly of his work. He's very popular amongst young people, iconoclasts, and avante garde types... and it's precisely because of their colossal, intransigent, visceral contempt for the type of people he's debating. They like to see them jammed up, because they feel their lives have been jammed up by religious morality and authority in common society. But that speaks nothing of the merit of Dawkin's methods or substance. In fine, there is nothing remarkable about him, at all.
@@Monaghan3000 by all means provide a link where Richard is destroyed in a debate, by destroyed I assume you mean proved wrong and left speechless or feel free to elaborate on your definition of "destroyed".
As you say, he's a biologist and on that subject I've not seen any evidence of ignorance or error from him.
Please provide the link to the Protestants he "looses" to, I've not seen that, be interesting to see how they out maneuver him on biology.
As far as the rest goes well I only judge Richard on his knowledge of biology, so he may have evidence or ideas as to why things like morals exist but as that's a question with no definitive answer it's meaningless in terms of winning a debate. I consider it disingenuous to judge him on subjects for which he is not an expert.
If you're looking for general expertise and otherwise impeccable and unmatched knowledge I'd go with Hitchens.
Additionally it must be noted that no thiest has ever made a compelling argument for the existence of a God let alone their God and the intelligence required to beat a creationist in a debate is not high.
Dogmatic refusal of fact is a prerequisite to being Catholic.
@@MrCmon113 Explain.
No argument here. Peterson posits that the question, "is the Bible true " is invalid unless definition of true has to be ascertained first. Asking a question like, " I heard you are leaving the country tomorrow, is that true? " this question can be answered without pondering over "fundamental concept of true "
It's a stupid argument to claim, "asking a question, is Bible true?" is profound. No. Bible is one of the many "sacred" books in the world.
But now we must ponder over the fundamental concept of "sacred"...
Well the problem is the bible has stories in it which are wild and bold, but there is no supportive evidence to back them up. The story of Noah's ark for example a man and his small family build an ark that is over 500 ft long over 3 stories high and he lived 950 years! Yet there is no evidence in the soil that says flooding happened world wide, a boat of this magnitude has never bin found either. Also 950, when the life expectancy was like what 30.....
@Ch4rLz tHa PrInCe Yes, science is sure that within the time frame, no such flood gas left its mark keep in mind this isnt the most ancient of times the story took place about 2300BC this man in the bible lived 950 years..... now I'd you wanna say the bible isn't meant to be taken as literal and only interpreted, well it also has rules such as how disobedient children should be stoned.... how would one interpret that?
The bible is so said to be directed by the word of god, who I would remind you is meant to be a flawless being that is and sees all..... nut he wrote an old testament 😆 if he knew all and the results as such, why would he inspire an old testament that would go outdated? If he knew and had such foresight one would think he would only write the news testament and never inspire the old....
Also a lack of evidence is evidence itself, and there is a massive lack of evidence supporting god. All that said I dont think religion is so bad it should be gone, in fact it's quite useful in many ways and I'm glad it helps people. But I can also say for myself that god doesnt exist.
@Ch4rLz tHa PrInCe But I was taught in Sunday school that the bible was written by man and both inspired/advised by gods word. Maybe you were taught different 🤷♂️
@Ch4rLz tHa PrInCe the consequences of sinning are pretty dire and yet the rule book was
written by man? God is either insane or simply malicious.
"Here you go humanity, generations of Chinese whispers and gobledygook that if not obeyed gets you a ticket to hell!"
People here in the comments are making fun of Jordan Peterson because they don't realize that he actually has a point, even though his articulation might not be clear. Jordan is bringing up a philosophical question about which of the different epistemological paths lead to truth. He is saying that people generally assume empiricism to be true, e. g. only directly observable phenomena can be said to be true. This is an unfounded assumption, as there are possibly other paths that lead to truth, and empiricism itself cannot even justify itself as being the only valid path to truth. Therefore, he is raising a valid challenge to what people generally define as "truth" in the theist/atheist debates, as many atheists simply presuppose a kind of naive empiricism.
All of his videos, where there are monumental amounts of negative comments towards him, are littered with this type of rhetoric:
“All of you just don’t understand what he is saying”
We do. We understand that he is trying to derive “truth” from the narratives.
Almost all of the Christian community views the Bible as objective, in its entirety. They are not reading the biblical texts and looking for “narrative truths”.
They really believe that God became angry when angels came down from heaven who started procreating with humans-causing the birth of 100 foot giants, they believe in the virgin birth, they believe in the resurrection, and they believe that heaven and hell are real places outside of time and space.
He’s taking this stance on religion for monetary gain. He is far more well spoken than most Christian Apologists therefore he can be depicted as a “gem” by Christians. Christians are a great market to tap into when looking to make more money.
Lobster guy literally doing post modernism.
Richard Dawkins won't debate Kent Hovind though. Not a chance
He don't want to waste his time with someone who thinks the world is 6000 years old. You can't argue with a mind like that
.“It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.” - Bill Murray Cinespia.
Hovind couldn't debate a fishing rod.
@@kevinc4325a genuine question, without arguing or name calling, right now on the spot why would you think the earth is over 100k years just to start.
@@CoryW-h3q I'll pass. The reason is in my statement above from 2 years ago. Thanks
@@CoryW-h3q I'll pass thanks. The reason is stated above.
I'd personally love to see a conversation with that guy and a Jehovah Witness. Just saying.
Just curious, what exactly would you expect to see?
@@jif8802
Well typically, a Jehovah Witness, is well rounded, as they need to be, so that they have a means of understanding the people that they talk to about religion, and are able to withstand scrutiny as well.
This means that they would more than likely be able to verbal joust efficiently enough or there abouts.
At least I think so.
Who is "that guy"?
@@lorde0147 JW are useful parrots. The big majority of them are uneducated.
A JW will never debate because they are only allowed to go in pairs. They can never stand alone.
Give em hell, says the scientist
Yes idioms exists. Scientists may also say "oh my god". What is your point
Dawkins got dismantled by Lennox on more than one occasion! 😂
Who did Richard Dawkins “kick the hell out of” in a debate? Please don’t say John Lennox. Lmao
Everyone, and yes including Lennox. Peterson lays this out perfectly, these apologists don't have a clear conception of what they think truth means. Richard did. It's that simple.
That's why you have the gospels of Jesus read them
Yes it is. I mean his answer is weasley. Is it true? No, it’s not.
The Bible has a lot of interesting information within it
The discovery and translation of the NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY IN Egypt, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls cast a much different light on the Bible
Then, when you look into the other "authentic" religions you find a string of agreement that goes through all of them. The obvious conclusion is that this is mankind's attempt to explain the unfathomable.
The strings of agreement you can find are incredibly spooky. A fundamental rewriting of what we understand as history, and even reality, kind of spooky. I just wonder what happened that led us to be so out of touch with it all. There've been a couple knocks on the door of drugs, which would bring some theories of human evolution more consideration, but it's a mostly untapped and dismissed well of information.
Or, that it is actually evidence of universal Truths. Your biases will decide which way you frame it.
The Bible has historical archaeological fact and universal moral truth.
It could also indicate that there was one true region from God and as man made others they retained core truths. A central origin is also a good way to have universal concepts.
There is no spoon tho
I stand on every word in the KJB. It’s God’s word.
No. It isn't
English is gods language?
@@jonathangarmuth8975to him in his English tongue yes
“What is true”
Galileo: “Hold my beer”