Does God Exist? Jordan Peterson vs Matt Dillahunty

[@Pangburn]

NEW EVENT! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6nXk5aNeNObrrcsi=zbwVhOBBgwxLtB1e

[@HoichiTheEarless]

“Dr Peterson, what’s your favorite color?” “Well that depends on what you mean by favorite. And it also depends on what you mean by color. This is a very complex question... One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung's archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnitude of Neo-Marxist existential nihilism...”

[@funbigly]

I see these posts of yours on a lot of Jordan Peterson related videos. You're not a brainless leftist post-modernist blending in here, per chance? Theres a lot of you here on this page.

[@HoichiTheEarless]

Fun Bigly Well I do hope you're hitting the like button when you see them. JP impressions are not easy to do. FYI - postmodernist isn't a hyphenated word. I'll make you a deal. I'll get a life if you learn how to spell big words correctly and clean your room.

[@funbigly]

How's PoMo instead? And cut/paste cannot really be difficult, can it?

[@DrAmorphos]

God is a singularity, therefore the language used to describe "him" must in itself be specific (i.e unable to be misinterpreted/to a point/indivisible). Otherwise, you end up spending 2 thousand years arguing with idiots over a question that is not specific about a subject that has not been distinguished.

[@funbigly]

NeverFinished 3Digits You forgot hashtag triggered

[@Scoutscout1000]

Reminder to lower your volume when youre done

[@joeljohnson896]

Thanks babe

[@ChrisFineganTunes]

Should have read the comments first. Listened to this in my car and almost crashed when the first advert kicked in.

[@nickoncomputer9081]

Real heroes don’t wear capes

[@nayreel3529]

THANK YOU

[@polihayse]

Matt blew my ears out at the end lol.

[@aalejandro750]

I always hate it when i lose the metaphoric substrate of my ethos.

[@katies-9726]

A Darger don’t we all

[@mauriciosalas3415]

Depends what you mean by "lose"

[@gusgoodbun]

@@mauriciosalas3415 and, of course, that depends on what EXACTLY "depends"

[@joeydendron]

I've got it here, you left it on the bus

[@Scoutscout1000]

The long pause right before he said that was so perfect.

[@MrGhost-do1rw]

Depends on how you define 'define' which further depends on how you define 'how you define 'define'' and so on.

[@UnlimitlesslyFunnyDude]

we just need to measure it, of we are just socially rejecting basic definition than we are just fooling around.

[@chopinfanne8021]

Yea I hate that tedious bullshit

[@zenbane1876]

Yeah, having intelligent thought is stupid.

[@Tripserpentine]

zlavoj?

[@thehoper3439]

"Is the earth round or flat?" Jordan Peterson: Well, I walk as if the earth is flat. So metaphorically, the earth is flat. "Ok, so realistically is it round or flat?" Jordan Peterson: It depends on what you mean by round or flat. You see, a circle is just made of infinite straight lines, and a sphere is made of infinite flat surfaces. So flat earth is true. "Of course, any object is made of flat surfaces if you zoom in enough. But that doesn't mean the entire object itself is flat. Are balls flat by your logic?" Peterson fans: You are misquoting Jordan Peterson, you are straw-manning him, you just don't understand him.

[@Pedro-kq5tl]

In your mind everything is simple

[@thehoper3439]

Pedro Viteri Of course, because I'm misquoting you, right? I just don't understand you.

[@TinyShaman]

*The Hoper* That was kind of brilliant, man. You've truly tapped into dat Metaphorical Substrate!

[@NasKingston]

Dude that is the best way to sum up JP....

[@ShouVertica]

That perfectly describes how Peterson operates.

[@BrokeTheSeal]

“Do you like pineapple on pizza?” “Well, first and foremost, we must recognize that the question of whether pineapple on pizza is a good thing is not merely a matter of personal taste or preference. It goes deeper than that. It is a question of values and cultural norms, and the role that food plays in our society. Now, some may argue that pineapple on pizza is a delicious combination of sweet and savory flavors, while others may find it an abomination to traditional pizza toppings. But we must ask ourselves, why do we have such strong reactions to this topic? Is it simply a matter of individual taste, or is there something more profound at play here? I would argue that our attitudes towards pineapple on pizza are shaped by the cultural values and traditions that we hold dear. In some cultures, the idea of putting fruit on a savory dish is perfectly acceptable, even celebrated. In others, it is seen as a violation of culinary norms. So, to answer the question of whether pineapple on pizza is a good thing, we must first examine our cultural values and ask ourselves what role food plays in shaping those values. We must also recognize that what we consider to be "good" or "bad" in food is not necessarily a universal truth, but rather a reflection of our own cultural norms and biases. Ultimately, the decision of whether to put pineapple on pizza or not is a personal one, but it is also a reflection of our cultural identities and the values that we hold dear. We must approach this question with humility and an open mind, recognizing that there is no one right answer, but rather a diversity of perspectives and opinions.”

[@magnetiktrax]

Brilliant! 😆

[@Swatiii]

This is my favorite comment 😂😂😂

[@ankitnath7068]

😂😂😂😂😂😂 awesome comment 😂😂😂😂

[@samhhaincat2703]

*goes to fuck around with ChatGPT* This was amazing.

[@chuckh9168]

I’m gonna pull this out of the bag next time I’m at MOD or some other pizza place and they ask me about toppings.

[@krillin1195]

Guy: How are you doing today? Jordan Peterson: Well it depends on what you mean by "doing".

[@tariq_sharif]

Jordan, - Nothing is better than eternal happiness - A cheese sandwich is better than nothing - Therefore a cheese sandwich is better than eternal happiness His followers: a saviour you are profound. There is nothing profound about Jordan or his new book of the 12 rules. www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

[@krillin1195]

He's just a cult leader. Nothing more.

[@cabbage4254]

😂🤣😂

[@tariq_sharif]

Save the Children, thank you. Whilst we try to inject humour, the rubbish this man espouses does great harm. One of his assertions that absolutely infuriates is that if an atheist does a fellow human a good deed, it proves that somewhere deep down he is a Christian. Jordan's cunning plan (i seriously believe that he thinks he is like Aristotle) : 1 - i do not need to make any sense, then I will lead a cult 2 - i will not make any sense Therefore, 3 - i will lead a cult Jordan's cult members: yes master, we follow blindly.

[@krillin1195]

Peterson's arguments are nothing new. Everything he says is a total cliche decorated with big fancy words.

[@Iaotle]

Hands down one of Dillahunty's best debate performances. It helps that both him and Peterson stayed very respectful throughout. Whenever something was done that made the other party doubt the integrity of the debate, people made efforts to assuage and correct their behavior.

[@Boogieplex]

I think Matt Dillahunty is an extremely underrated debater.He’s up there with the absolute best of them.I love his “no-nonsense” aproach, and he doesn’t let his opponents take him for a ride.

[@jgrtrx]

I couldn't agree more. I wish William Lane Craig would stop being such a coward and debate Matt.

[@craigsmith1443]

'Underrated'= 'Everybody knows his true worth and listens to someone else. '

[@Boogieplex]

Craig Smith The definition of “underrated” is something that has not received the merit, recognition or praise it deserves.

[@craigsmith1443]

@@Boogieplex Matt isn't underrated at all. Your definition may be it's intended meaning, but its origin, the reason it exists, is because people largely don't bother with whatever is deemed by some to be so, which is because it isn't worth it. There's a reason that Matt is 'underrated': he gets the attention he deserves. More, actually.

[@Boogieplex]

Craig Smith Im sorry dude, i read your last reply like 8 times, and im just not understanding you.Its not that im in disagreement with you, its literally your words creating sentences that dont seem to make any sense to me.Sorry man.

[@robertw2930]

Thank you for not keeping this behind a paywall

[@matsjonsson1704]

Excellent comment, further more information and education, should never be paid for. Since it comes from us all, it should benefit us all.

[@FazeParticles]

It'd be robbery cause it's quite boring and a bunch of rambling lol 😂

[@aaronmiller5912]

Counter their Sabotage and Subterfuge bs its old and boring theistic arguments long refuted but to see media hyped peterson having to bullshit the audience is far from boring. I was laughing for an hour. There is no way to call that boring as long as you listen and are capable of understanding.

[@rustyblade9400]

Mats Jönsson education from other's is a service. If it should never be paid for, then that implies that it should always be done for free, which implies slavery. No thanks

[@audimaster5000]

It really doesn’t imply slavery or teachers not getting paid. At least I don’t see it that way in this context. Come on

[@winterhaydn5640]

This is the first time I've come across Matt Dillahunty. His relaxed, macro view is refreshing. He's a good representation of an atheist mindset. Not pretending to know things, but open to what is most reasonable and grounded …. not an ego of absolutes or wishy washy abstractions or philosophy or outdated stories. Just a normal person living the best they can.

[@ThermicLight]

Not really. People have prodded him far enough to discover he still maintains sacred cows. Namely found in his politics. Something that is more complicated than the childsplay of finding inconsistencies in texts like the bible. Matt really isn't that smart. Rather his just mostly earned his fame during the heyday of when atheism gained greater popularity in culture. Basically he popped his head up at the right time to grab that kind of attention. While greater atheist thinkers paved his way.

[@najex1]

Nobody is perfect. I do disagree with some of Mat's poletics, but that doesn't mean I can't admire his ability to debate and present his view on religion. It might be 'childsplay' as you call it, but considering the amount of people that still hold the bible as the ultimate moral authority, it is still necessary for someone to keep repeating the same old rebuttals. If you can point me at some specific video that shows Matt being irrational about politics I would love that. Even when I heard him talking about something I disagree with (namely abortion) he wasn't irrational. It was just that the counters (of what I consider to be counters) to his arguments never came up.

[@KuroNekoExMachina]

@Themic light Go watch some more alpha male motivational videos.

[@winterhaydn5640]

@ KuroNekoExMachina - haha!

[@ThermicLight]

@najex1 It's childs play because even children find these very same superficial inconsistencies themselves. But people like Matt don't go much further than these very same kids. Instead they go for the same low hanging fruit time and time again. Thus their arguments are dull. That they're too keen to approach any situation from a standoffish posture than actually actively seek to be proven wrong. To me they're lazy and reek of having insincere motives.

[@Doomsday-mj8ok]

Jordan Peterson’s debating style sounds like a ChatGPT response 😂😂

[@dancer11011964]

.....with vowels replaced by dingbats

[@shahriyarmhm3424]

wow, never thought of such accurate comparison. hehehe, now i see how JP frustrates me as chatgpt does with all of its babbling nonsense and not directly answering :D

[@craigsmith1443]

for example?

[@PaimonsQuill]

Don't disrespect ChatGPT like that.

[@worrylessactmorereadoftentimes]

Nono

[@MrMoman7]

Never heard a word from Mr Dillahunty before - what a competent debater, very clear and intelligible wording.

[@SpaceCattttt]

Do yourself a favor and watch The Atheist Experience. It's on every Sunday, and it allows Matt more freedom to fully express his positions. A civilized debate is all very well from time to time, but the very fact that it IS a civilized and polite event, often means that the participants aren't always able to "let it all out", lest they involuntarily surrender to the opposition by being perceived as being rude. Truth isn't concerned with political correctness, but debates are, and that's why it's rare to reach any sort of genuine sense of agreement from them. Hitchens was a notable exception to this, of course. He said what he wanted to say, regardless of how this would affect the audience. But then, he was also intelligent and witty enough to get away with it.

[@jeffnarum1373]

Sapere Audé, I second the first two comments.

[@SpaceCattttt]

+Jeff Narum But not my comment? Gee, thanks a lot...

[@jeffnarum1373]

teppo, I was referring to your's and Christopher's. I should have wrote, "the two previous relpys."

[@SpaceCattttt]

+Jeff Narum Oh great. Now, what am I going to do with this rope I just bought?

[@Eriston289]

Friend to me: Hey, do you like Jordan Peterson Me: Depends on what you mean by "Jordan Peterson"

[@jajajinks1569]

Well, it's a complicated problem...

[@legiticles8507]

I feel like the two didn't really debate each other if that makes sense. Peterson didn't walk into the debate thinking that what was expected of him was to provide a concrete argument for the existence of god, and more so wanted to talk about the importance of god. Matt walked into the debate expecting to have an argument with the archetypal 7 day creationist religious thinker. Hence the: "what I've heard other people say" line that he repeats a lot in the debate. However towards the end Matt started to understand where Peterson was coming from a bit better, and even countered some of his points very well. I just hated watching the first 2/3 of the debate and seeing Matt ignoring Peterson's actual argument

[@expukpuk]

It is.

[@ryanfranks9441]

Legitcles Your special :) very VERY special. Jordan tried to claim that mystical experiences are supernatural, try again fool.

[@IndianaJaws]

It is Until the 45th minute. Then he says you can't be moral without god

[@StokesTrapOfficial]

Whoever did the audio for this video needs to be fired.

[@eddyf4426]

Here is a normalized audio version. we.tl/ekUtPkhnl9

[@chrisdaldy-rowe4978]

I turned the volume right down low & it was still too loud

[@mbmann3892]

What I can barely hear anything

[@StokesTrapOfficial]

Thank you! I was going to do that too lol. Beat me to it!

[@GiubileiFernando]

What?

[@Iceracer25]

Jordan Peterson has an amazing ability to talk for hours without saying anything.

[@roluss4297]

I don't have that problem, maybe you're just stupid, try watching the Kardashians or girls gone wild, maybe that's more your speed

[@firefly9838]

He did say 1 profound thing in here I though. As Matt was laying out what he thinks would be the good underlying fundamentals he instances on being "good" things. It's the "how do we know" if we are being completely skeptical about everything.

[@TheArmestori]

Is pretty sad that you can't understand nothing of what he says

[@katelynnehansen8115]

@@TheArmestorior we understand it enough to know that’s he’s nothing but hot air.

[@arrogant8295]

​@@katelynnehansen8115Yes Katelyn, you are for sure smarter than dr who worked at best institutes, published lots of books and research papers and participated at good amount of debates. No way that guy is smarter than black Katelyn from youtube comments sitting on her couch !

[@shawnsimmons1308]

Christian: "What's it like being an atheist?" Atheist: "Do you believe in, Lono, the Polynesian sky god?" Christian: "No." Atheist: "Like that."

[@Angelotube5000]

You describe the typical atheist who does not know what he is talking about. Tell the joke about the "sky daddy" stupid atheist. :D

[@petersparks7363]

Angel & Jarrid, both are incorrect. He was showing how its possible not to believe in something, this he did very well. The christian by his own label would not believe in Lono. He/She understands how its quite possible to not believe in something... thus on some level we are all athiest to some gods.

[@shawnsimmons1308]

David Jones To put more simply, I'm just not convinced that Lono, Marduk, Shiva, Odin, Yahweh, Zeus or any of the other thousands of gods and goddesses humans thought up actually exist. I have read and heard people making claims about their existences, but they have all failed to provide evidence that can be repeated, tested, and demonstrated by anyone, anywhere, at any time.

[@shawnsimmons1308]

@David Jones Which god? There's thousands to choose from? And making the claim that atheism is, somehow, a "religious" belief, just proves that you do not actually understand atheism. Atheism is religion like Off is a TV channel, like barefoot is a type of shoe, like bald is hair color. It is the lack of belief.

[@shawnsimmons1308]

@David Jones Sorry, David, but I can no longer see your question: "Do you know everything." To answer that question, I have no problem admitting that I do not know everything. Which is why I stand firmly on the statement: I do not know, therefore, I shall not claim that I do."

[@AJK666007]

This is the first time I have come across Matt and the man is an absolute boss. Will watch more of him going forward.

[@andralfoo]

hes the new hitchens

[@marionapoleoni4502]

@@andralfoomao. How dare you make such a comparison of Hitchens, with some crony from Texas. Get on your nees

[@marionapoleoni4502]

*L

[@marionapoleoni4502]

@@andralfooyou see what I did 😅

[@earthmansurfer2328]

2 points - What were you watching? And why comment on a talk about "Does God Exist" re the Atheist with "absolute boss"?

[@DJB1609]

The last comment - total agreement from Matt. "I'm very pleased that these sorts of discussions are taking place and that there's an avid public audience for them." This is what matters. We need to encourage more discussions. People talking about "demolishing" "destroying" "slaughtering" are part of the problem. This was a discussion, hardly a debate, between two important speakers that represent differing takes on life and meaning. We need more, and I'm sure we'll get them.

[@jaidev777]

David Barber - Did we not just watch the same video? Jordan schooled Matt, but then Matt demolished Jordan. Matt however went too far and challenged Jordan, instantly regretted it. Jordan then proceeded to slaughter Matt's arguments but then Matt destroyed Jordan Peterson.

[@VESSEL105]

The internet makes me sick sometimes. Never debate or conversation, only argument and "Wtf fucking idiot you're wrong didn't you watch the video". Apparently I can't appreciate both individuals and realize they may both have something to give to people wanting to learn

[@ramigilneas9274]

Blank Hmm, actually I never ever heard Harris say anything I disagree with. Peterson might be on second place, it’s discussions like these that ruin his otherwise flawless reputation as a critical thinker. ;)

[@imcustomized]

David Barber Completely agree. In fact, you saved me the trouble of writing a similar comment. Two intelligent, articulate public speakers having a spirited yet respectful conversation which challenged themselves and the audience -- and we get to hear it for free. Nothing to bitch about here.

[@irone93]

David Barber all that matters to you are your affections. That is what you live for

[@mattbd_69]

Hats off to Matt for not losing his temper because Jordan Peterson took pleasure in interrupting Matt's arguments in the middle. Fortunately, he did not do that for all of Matt's arguments.

[@patrickmurchison9145]

Matt did lose his temper once, and rightly so, when Jordan made the erroneous comment(s) about Russia and secular humanism!!! Peterson had no rebuttal!! He just sat there looking stupid!!! It was GLORIOUS!!!! 😆

[@ethanlewis1453]

That you say Peterson took pleasure in interruption only exposes your own pre-determined personal bias that he could only lose and never win the argument(s).

[@mattbd_69]

I never said any of that and I don't have any bias dude. 😅 Peterson is really intelligent on many fronts, but on the religion side, he's not. He doesn't make sense in his religious arguments dude and if you're honest and don't have bias, you would see it too.

[@ethanlewis1453]

@@mattbd_69 Your personal bias is exposed when you presume Peterson takes takes pleasure in interrupting Matt. If that isn't bias then what is it?

[@mattbd_69]

@@ethanlewis1453 lol, I'm not presuming... you can literally see how happy he is when he does that xD If you're defending that point, it means that you don't see things for what they are and would rather defend the guy when he doesn't make sense in his arguments... now who's biased? 😅

[@ohhgeez865]

Hand over the metaphorical substrate and nobody gets hurt

[@ihateexcessivelylongandpoi4490]

I always hate it when I lose the metaphysical substrate of my ethos.

[@menieber]

I have a metaphor and I'm not afraid to use it!

[@Tom-dw2fg]

It's even worse when you get poked in the axiom.

[@OscarMoreno-qo8km]

Give me the metaphysical substrate peacefully or there will be trouble.

[@ericwalker3588]

People make fun of what they don't understand.

[@mayseekify]

15:04 Matt: "You can stop smoking without any sort of supernatural intervention." Jordan: "No, not really." Matt: "You can't stop smoking without supernatural?" Jordan: "There aren't really any reliable chemical means for inducing smoking cessation." The question was not whether there are reliable drugs to help one quit smoking but whether it's possiblie to quit without a supernatural experience.

[@Uhlbelk]

Peterson uses so many dishonest fallacious arguments.

[@sebastjankrek1744]

Yes, it's a bad argument and clearly it's possible, but it's also not so simple; many people struggle with this to the extent that they feel completely powerless to stop, and so if a mystical experience can make most of them reliably stop for good and change them then you can see that there is some truth in his side as well that's certainly worth exploring

[@_cheezy_]

@@sebastjankrek1744 But there is nothing necessarily supernatural about a mystical experience. His argument is also contradictory because he claims there is no reliable drug treatment for smoking cessation, and then gives the best example of drug treatment for smoking cessation.

[@magnuserror9305]

Jordan's definition is not what you think it is. He has stated his position on the subject many times. "Supernatural" is in reference to ones conceptual subjective response to experiences, in relation to our predisposed beliefs in the world that are not entirely objective . The mind exists entirely within the world of subjectivity, and as such ones experiences though not always taken as such. Are in fact a result of a "supernatural" response. Ie a subjective point of view entirely existing within ones mind. Predicated on subjective beliefs of the world. When he pointed out the fact that shrooms have the ability to stop smoking through "supernatural" means, and NOT through a chemical compound. Hes pointing out the fact that the primary force behind the change was an internal subjective experience. Unless to a greater degree you are forced through chemical induction to stop smoking. It was your "supernatural" experience that made you stop.

[@magnuserror9305]

@@_cheezy_ Well 2 things, 1 the statement that theres nothing necessarily "supernatural" about a mystical experience is incorrect. Your talking about Petersons definition here, not yours. He has pointed out his position on his definition of supernatural. Just as Dillahunty gave his. They literally agreed on each others position being one of marit. 2 bupropion is not as you call it, a reliable drug treatment for inducing smoking cessation. If you look into the abstracts on bupropion, you'll find at best it has a 20% chance of inducing smoking cessation, and mind you this is on individuals actively trying to quit smoking. So under the best of conditions, bupropion only has a 20% chance of working. This is so far below what is considered reliable, it literally falls under unreliable. Reliable starts at 60% and up, not 50%, not 30%, and certainly not 20%.

[@GottfriedLeibnizYT]

Jokes aside, definitions really matter when two individuals debate.

[@ThisguySL]

@@Rhysibabe Then this comment should take shrooms and see the "kind of like" evidence of God while it's at it.

[@rld8258]

Exactly, what's so funny about that?

[@Edruezzi]

How do you get definitions out of a guy whom, when asked whether he believes in God, replied that it depends on what believe means and said somewhere else that he'd need forty hours to answer that question?

[@rld8258]

@@Edruezzi well yeah it's necessary, "belief" could mean different things

[@Edruezzi]

@@rld8258 So that's why he needs 40 hours to say whether he believes in God or not.

[@sddingman1]

Matt answers the questions, Jordan gives book reports.

[@bwana4711]

I feel Jordan Peterson’s biggest battle is with himself as opposed to the many debaters he spars with. The battle of trying to wedge religion into his arguments is his personal fight.

[@krzysztofmedyna3661]

You have most likely stated the most important reflection of this debate than anyone else in this thread. Thank you.

[@thedarkmaster4747]

He's obviously been indoctrinated from an early age, poor guy.

[@hsdjsdshdhsdnsmsd6247]

@@thedarkmaster4747 Atheists are indoctrinated, thats why they are bitter und unhappy. Studies prove this.

[@hsdjsdshdhsdnsmsd6247]

@Burns Things You feel this because you are a brainwashed atheist. religion and philosophy go hand in hand.

[@danzmind]

@@hsdjsdshdhsdnsmsd6247 I think you need to look up the word indoctrinated!

[@harishthethird]

Religious or not, we can all agree that Pangburn is in a dire need of a better sound system.

[@yourallbrainwashed]

For reals.. I need ear plugs.

[@ParadymShiftVegan]

They wound up just dying entirely

[@jefftheriault7260]

Yes!

[@LukeMcGuireoides]

Damn right. I have to hold my phone to my ear half the time

[@diggie9598]

The soundquality seems fine, just the soundvolume of the video is low. Would rather blame that on the recording or the poor post production than on the soundsystem.

[@PhysicsNerd01]

Everyone gangsta until they lose the metaphorical substrate of their ethos

[@Lazaven]

XD😂🤣😆

[@davelop5507]

Blwahhahahahaha!!

[@tonynewton5713]

So tired of Jordan at this point.

[@Jayhawk99]

Tony Newton the videos 2 years old buddy

[@tonynewton5713]

@@Jayhawk99 yeah aware. thx though.

[@jekporkins1]

"I'm not trying to be difficult!" He was, in fact, trying to be difficult.

[@Vandalle.]

No, he wasn't. Grow up.

[@xenormxdraws]

@@Vandalle. dude asked 10 questions before his opponent had the chance to answer the first, how's that not being difficult?

[@Vandalle.]

@@xenormxdraws Because the point he was making needed clarifying in order to be fully understood, it's a debate remember, if Jordan can't form a clear picture of Matt's stance, then how is he supposed to respond? It might sound nitpicky but I would argue that you need to be nitpicky in a philosophical debate.

[@xenormxdraws]

@@Vandalle. no, that's just being purposefully difficult to try and derail your opponets train of thought, JP even acknowledges that he was just being purposefully difficult a few minutes later. In an honest debate, you either clarify your opponent's position before asking a question (like Matt did multiple times) or you ask a question, shut up and let your opponent finish making his point (something JP couldn't do)

[@Vandalle.]

@@xenormxdraws I disagree, if you say something vague that can be taken to mean different things, whilst making a larger point, the other person has the right to have you clarify, because unless it's crystal clear what you mean, the rest of the words are completely irrelevant.

[@mhh0111]

A great philosopher will present their arguments in a way that is easy to understand, uses the common person's language, and convey deep points as succinctly as possible. A sophist will dress everything they say in 5 layers of pseudo-intellectualism and speak without saying anything. (like Peterson) This was a masterclass in that.

[@Culture-and]

Well, Peterson is not a philosopher. I’m a common person and I understood what he was saying

[@johnlocke9682]

​@@Culture-and That wasn't MH's point. They were saying that Peterson likes to dress things up in flowery language to impress his audience without actually adding anything of value to the discussion. It just comes off as pretentious sophistry. If he had anything insightful to say, he'd say it outright. Not opaquely and complicatedly, like in this debate. Or any time he speaks.

[@Culture-and]

@@johnlocke9682 You’re making a lot of claims about Peterson’s intentions as though you can read his mind. Maybe you just don’t like him? Or at best, don’t like his style of speech?

[@jonrhagen4469]

​@@Culture-and Well, taking into the account that JP see himself as a profhet, maybe he should be able to get into the factual case without talking 99% crap and 1% profit, or is it the other way around? 🤔 He is one of the biggest concervatice hypes that try and avoid the right wing stamp, just to earn more money. And to be honest, no, I don't like someone who want the world to go back to the 1950ies.

[@tristan8041]

Jordan Peterson: there is a physical reality and a metaphysical reality. So we have to think outside of the box when proving metaphysical realities and look for evidence that might not be objectively seen with the naked eye. Matt: Yea but why can’t I touch god with my fingers? Wow what a deep and open minded intellect Matt has.🙄🙄🙄🙄

[@JumpingMonkey]

If you listen very carefully you can actually hear them talking

[@LukeMcGuireoides]

Hahaha, my favorite comment

[@dannyberinger4634]

Clever bugger

[@Thornspyre81]

Yeah, it's almost enough to just shut it off, but I had to stay for the metaphorical substrate

[@YCTTAFU]

that's funny

[@andreaskarlsson5251]

I hear em just fine. Maybe you need a hearing aid 😂

[@jacklabloom635]

If Peterson was a ditch digger and the boss told him to dig a hole, Peterson would ask the boss what defines a hole. After the boss defined the dimensions of the hole, Peterson would argue, I’m not sure that accurately defines what a hole is. Then the boss ask Peterson what he thinks defines a hole, Peterson says it’s really complicated. I defined what a hole is in my book. But for purposes of discussion let us assume a hole is a void below the surface of the ground, but not deep enough to reach China.

[@zetandpeligaming]

Brilliant analogy. It's a clever way of fence sitting

[@rey5597]

And it’s a lot more complicated to define a hole than most people would think. There’s quite a bit of metaphorical substrate beneath what you and I might call the surface. And I know you’re not asking me to remove the metaphorical substrate!

[@Jeremy-ql1or]

And then when someone criticized him for asking what defines a hole he would get offended and insist he had never said that.

[@ThumbSipper]

And after hours of discussion, there would still be no hole. Only a very tired boss and a very smug PhD.

[@rubentala4762]

He's a con man.

[@hubadj]

I love Matt in this talk. I mean I always love him, but this was brilliant. Q&A - PERFECTO!

[@jamescarruthers1967]

Close your eyes and imagine Jeff Goldblum is having a deep philosophical conversation with Kermit the frog

[@1iqin]

Sir you are hilarious... XD

[@cdesha]

Holy shit

[@Jp-bv8yw]

So smug about the books he has read and how really really hard his own book is that I think maybe he is over compensating for the size of his__ _car. !

[@matheusmacedo9751]

Lmaoooooooooo 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@yourallbrainwashed]

DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO!😠

[@Wizerik299]

"Jordan, do you want to grab a bite to eat?" "That's a very complicated question. Jung once said..."

[@sablemae8853]

He can't answer without going into long winded explanations with big words that sound smart but is really empty in substance. It's really just arrogance that he has to use his big words to sound smart

[@Leon-yz1kp]

Eric McCaw Even after the first question he goes into a long, meaningless word salad

[@sablemae8853]

@@Leon-yz1kp he probably can't answer easy yes or no questions. Could you imagine if he was a witness to a crime and the cops talked to him and then he had to go on the stand? Did u see the man kill the guy? Depends on what u mean by kill. Death is a very complicated blah blah blah lol

[@reav3rtm]

@@sablemae8853 If Peterson was ever a witness to a crime and he was being himself (Mr Vague) in court, we would be jailed in no time.

[@haliax8149]

@@sablemae8853 You seriously don't understand anything he's saying. To claim the "explanations with big words" as means to avoid an argument is purely stupid. It proves that you aren't actually even listening to him.

[@Pranav-rp8wi]

*metaphorical substrate has left the chat*

[@bishshoy]

Zeus best comment ever

[@Pranav-rp8wi]

@@bishshoy khub bhaalo then

[@jesuscarrillo3705]

He never actually answered what IT WAS

[@davidbourne8267]

@@jesuscarrillo3705 Yes he did.

[@charleshylton1231]

Zeus the more important description is at the one hour mark makes sense out of the entire debate...... the idea that Matt holds is that God Is a being

[@rydersharp7554]

I love that this video is still getting surges of popularly, i hope more people get to see Peterson crumble under the pressure of someone not fumbling in the face of confusing word vomit among his goal post shifting

[@alanoliveira5340]

No one was crumbling because there was two polite people debating over an intriguing subject. The fact is that this was an weird debate because JB drunk from old literature that shaped the west morality and educated people way of thinking in order to know what's wrong or right when the other side was making a point without any literature or historical source. If you not educated enough about these things you can't understand JP and what morality is. You have to read a lot, I mean, a lot of old books that made people's mind up to understand what's going on and that's what atheist don't get. I'm an atheist because I can't believe. But of course it's easier to attack the person than what he wrote. The only one by now that did it was Alex and Alex is an honest atheist because he is intelligent, very different from these dickheads we see. Read the old literature and then you will understand.

[@rydersharp7554]

@alanoliveira5340 You have missed the point of the comment. Do I believe that these debates can display the knowledge each participant has at face value? Absolutely not and it would be foolish to do so; however, the point was that JP utilizes fallacies constantly, commonly blatant "strawmanning." Do I always believe the ways MD and similar atheists or debaters in general tackle arguments are healthy ways of handling things, commonly no. But what Jordon Peterson commonly spews on his platforms, not in a literary fashion mind you, can be harmful and has holes that MD clearly points out. This is more important to discuss because JP's content is much more widely consumed and regurgitated than his writing. So yes, the fallacious tactics JP uses, and has used, crumbled in this debate.

[@astrixx]

actual midwit

[@thienle743]

no matter what you say, a system that corrects itself if it is wrong is always better then a system that doesn't

[@davidmartin2631]

Peterson facilitates the improvement of Christianity's interpretation of the Bible in his Genesis series. Very interesting.

[@moragslothe6449]

@@davidmartin2631 a system based on fallacy "improving" itself is redundant.

[@davidmartin2631]

@@moragslothe6449 there's fallacy in it for sure, especially when interpretted too literally or without context, but it's not all fallacy

[@thienle743]

@@davidmartin2631 JP has no authority to say anything about religion, only churches have that power.

[@DrMonty-yr1kc]

@@davidmartin2631 if the bible is supposed to be “interpreted” why do we need to understand the interpretation of only ONE person??? Which in this case is JP I fking guess…you cant use your brain?

[@jacob8949]

Damn, those are some nice chairs.

[@paulthoresen8241]

No I've seen better chairs than this! You should see the chairs Sam Harris owns

[@masongalioth4110]

Jake Tudball I love nice chairs too. Something about them just lets you have nice conversation.

[@hunterpowers317]

I think this conversation would have gone better of they were using bean bags.

[@cheerrheur9894]

But not nearly as nice as the chair in the world of forms.

[@OikPoinFive]

Jacob Tudball those chairs are hell bound sadly.....

[@devamjani8041]

" Words can have no meaning if they are used in such a way that no sharp conclusions can be drawn " - Richard Feynman "If you can't explain it simply, you haven't understood it well enough" Albert Einstein

[@marcelojesustorresarroyo4176]

Peterson also remarks that if you can't explain it to a 8 - 10 year old, then you don't understand it very deeply, you might just be repeating what you heard. I thinks he understands that Matt here understands him perfectly, he isn't thinking on the KZbin public while the conversation

[@JackgarPrime]

And my personal favorite: "Brevity is the soul of wit."

[@johnnyreb280]

"Verbosity is the enemy of clarity." JohnnyReb

[@BMB57]

​@marcelojesustorresarroyo4176 So, this is actually something Feynman said as a part of his "Feynman" teaching method. He says if you can't teach it to a 5 year old, then you dont understand it well enough. Lets not credit JP with the legendary Physicist being quoted here.

[@coupofmentality3417]

That's definitely something someone who is intelligent would assume is indicative of a "well enough" conclusion to the active learning of complex subjects. Isn't trying to explain something part of getting to know something "well enough"'? When you learn something, don't you encounter more questions because you learned something new? IF learning is a process in which more complexity is revealed, how or even when is "well enough" even possible? Verbose for verbosity's sake is not useful. Trying to flesh out as many potentials as possible can be useful. Who gets to determine which is which? The person who's incapable of assessing complex language? The one who wants to dismiss challenging ideas because comprehension was restricted by bias? There's a "well enough" to learning? I'll state this simply because Socratic is apparently unfashionable. Come to a philosophical debate thinking simple language is on the menu. Right, right.

[@jasonnehceis3267]

Jordan is really good at remembering a lot of very long words he read somewhere and then pulling them back out into very long, pointless sentences to hear himself speak. I've never heard anyone use such vast numbers of words in run-on sentences but say so so little. For that he gets the gold medal.

[@LNVACVAC]

Now people know some whys about gnosticism emergence. I find very funny People are attacking Peterson and still these same act as if morality and ethics are cognitive. I am not from an abrahamic religion, quite the oposite. The substratum of this discussion is not about the reality of the bible, but about the reality and veracity of any ethical or moral prescription and judgement. There is absolute no evidence for the morality or imorality of any proposition or action. And the idea of eternal punishment of humans is misplaced in this discussion. The Second death is not unanimously eternal punishment. Eternal punishment is reserved to fallen angels. People are confounding what "the bible" says and what catholic theology and islamic doctrine affirm.

[@sixofsix]

He’s an extremely skilled conman.

[@terrymaloney3445]

Yeah that's what I got out of it too, he just throws out a whole bumble of concept words as if he just said something. Matt was clearly, obvious and versus Jordan Peterson just says a whole bunch of nice words and phrases that produce imagery that have nothing to do with each other. He's just kind of pointlessly babbling so you can't really argue with what he saying cuz nobody understands what the f*** he is saying

[@Mark-pv7qn]

sesquipedalia verba

[@auralangst6177]

Spot on.

[@ashton1860]

This is such a profoundly important thing. Regardless of your alignments, here are two incredibly articulate thinkers coming together to discuss and reconcile their two very different points of view in the pursuit of truth. The only thing that corrupts this is all the commenters looking to label it as 'Peterson DESTROYS Dillahunty!' or 'Dillahunty WRECKS Peterson (embarrassing!)' or trying to reduce this conversation to a single soundbite. Debate and discussion are not about making people you don't agree with look stupid.

[@mykotron]

But... Dillahunty destroyed Peterson, right?

[@jcav764]

Apparently, they are both morons.

[@brionyburton5145]

In the context of this debate alone, Matt was much more succinct and actually did a lot more to explain his position. I like Peterson, but his whole schtick this time around was to strawman or just plainly say “no that’s not true” without giving much of an opposing answer. A lot of people are saying “well if you watched his lectures you’d understand what he’s saying”, but that shouldn’t be necessary. His arguments stand or fall on their own, and he should present them with clarity without some unspoken prerequisite of listening to his earlier works in order to decode what he means.

[@markii5269]

Clap

[@OdysseusAres5500]

Ashton Hell yes. If you read through the comments no one take on it is the same. Isn't that the very definition of the West and why it's the greatest model? Here we are, selecting the best thoughts in the free market place of IDEAS. I love both Matt and Jordan and I really had to grind my brain gears with every turn of this one. I don't there was a clear winner, just a clear conclusion: that there is no conclusion. Consciousness. The afterlife. We just don't know.

[@X-rayAnon]

_"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."_ - Albert Einstein

[@X-rayAnon]

_"He didn't say that but yes"_ - The Therapist Productions

[@techsysengineer5135]

Actually - you're paraphrasing a famous lecture of Richard Feynman - but you are 100% correct.

[@Juniversal]

I find the metaphysical substrate of this written contribution to be invalid in it's perceptions and conceptions despite the nature of the responses being complimentary and congratulatory of the apparent validity of the claims held within.

[@techsysengineer5135]

@@Juniversal Beautifully verbose, not to mention the quote is incorrect ... but you're correct - the responses have no bearing on its validity.

[@CosmicEpiphany]

Many many things cannot be explained simply because they are very complicated in nature. For instance I'm a mechanical engineer and every damn class I had ( 40+ classes and each 4 months long) was rediculously complicated. And not unnecessarily complicated.

[@munirali6606]

Matt style of debating isn’t debating at all; it’s a master stroke. He’s having a calm conversation, he looks so much at peace, like someone who has given serious thought to the complexities of being. And has accepted that you need more engagement with reality to reach conclusions about our being.

[@craigsmith1443]

_Matt style of debating isn’t debating at all; it’s a master stroke_ It's not debating, it's stumbling, for he had a logical stroke long before this. _he looks so much at peace_ Well, no. He interrupted, he misquoted Jordan, he wouldn't listen, he strawmanned Jordan, he would not have been judged highly at a high-school debate. You were right about one thing: _Matt style of debating isn’t debating at all_

[@danielsmithiv1279]

​​@@craigsmith1443 ​​​​​​​​​​ Matt is a contradiction. In his discussion, Matt specifically said: "....because we're only focused on scientific skepticism perspective of are there valid and sound arguements that would lead one to conclude that a God exists." Michael Egnor, a renowned neurosurgeon, gave Matt 10 sound SCIENCTIFIC arguments to conclude that a God exists. Matt completely shot them down because 1) he was too ignorant to understand real science and understand anything that Egnor was saying 2) Egnor was WAAAAY too smart for Egnor even though Egnor was "dumbing" himself down for Matt to understand and 3) even with the scientific proof of God's existence, Matt didnt give a sh*t because he already chosen not to believe anyway. Matt is no different than the religious people with narrow minds. Matt is smoke and mirrors and is a sham. A person would got to be a fool to follow a guy like Matt. You want a better Atheist? Try R. Scott Bakker.

[@ronthorn3]

@@craigsmith1443 really great vague critique, you gave little to no examples.

[@craigsmith1443]

@@ronthorn3 _really great vague critique, you gave little to no examples._ Because I answered a really great vague praising. If the OP had wanted to pursue the subject, he would have done so and that would have been the time for specifics. Matt begins as he continues, imprecisely: _I don't believe there is one, and I have no idea what your thoughts are on it._ Jordan: _you mean on the fact that you don't believe there is one?_ Jordan, of course, was taking advantage of Matt's phrasing to have a small joke at the beginning, but in it he points out that Matt leaves questions open when he thinks. Here he uses a pronoun, apparently for ease of speech, instead of a noun for clarity. He continues this throughout the conversation, not having learned to listen even to himself, let alone others, which is the reason that at the end, in the Q & A he accuses Jordan (again) of saying 'atheists would be murderers,' which Jordan did not say. Matt simply couldn't be bothered to follow Jordan's real thought because it was a refutation of Matt's argument. He does this in the conversation on psilocybin and smoking cessation. Jordan references a published scientific study: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27441452/ another analysis of this: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342293/ But of course, since it involves something called 'mystical,' Matt rejects it without understanding it. This is unscientific, illogical, and irrational. He reacts to a term and its possible ramifications and not to the science. He should be more scientific and logical, but he isn't. He remains that way throughout the entire conversation. He's not worth listening to. My guess is that this is the reason that Jordan didn't speak to him again, whereas he's had at least five discussions with Sam Harris, a much more worthy conversationalist. Matt's part of this conversation was largely a waste of Jordan's and the audience's time.

[@moshpitmi]

@@craigsmith1443 lame

[@randombub6727]

Who need spiritual experiences when you have that amazing feeling when Matt delivers the best argument.

[@LNVACVAC]

Now people know some whys about gnosticism emergence. I find very funny People are attacking Peterson and still these same act as if morality and ethics are cognitive. I am not from an abrahamic religion, quite the oposite. The substratum of this discussion is not about the reality of the bible, but about the reality and veracity of any ethical or moral prescription and judgement. There is absolute no evidence for the morality or imorality of any proposition or action. And the idea of eternal punishment of humans is misplaced in this discussion. The Second death is not unanimously eternal punishment. Eternal punishment is reserved to fallen angels. People are confounding what "the bible" says and what catholic theology and islamic doctrine affirm.

[@marionapoleoni4502]

Lmao ok

[@Seldz1]

@@marionapoleoni4502 To suggest Matt is not a competent debater and speaker is utter stupidity, even if you do not agree with his viewpoints

[@marionapoleoni4502]

@@Seldz1 I was being a troll. Point taken.

[@tristanmisja]

@modchannel8387 Are you not allowed to look up to people or something? I look up to Matt because of how level-minded and reasonable he is, and because of his great speaking skills. It's not a soviet or religious mindset, I don't take his word for gospel or want him to rule over everything, he's just an admirable dude.

[@karlschmied6218]

In my opinion, Dillahunty hits the nail on the head when he says that religious people cannot bear the state of not knowing about the issues they consider important. So the biological purpose of the idea of gods is stress relief.

[@eddiehernandez7806]

That is an assumption.how could he know he's doesn't even believe in God.He has no bionic mind.He would have to know the heart and soul of an individual

[@shahriyarmhm3424]

@sterlingwinston9629 but considering that all of us have been taught about religion from the beginning of our lives in some way, can't that justify the familiarity of such knowledge in mind for such claim? like as i was religious and was around many even more religious people for a considerable time in my life, can't i say that i understand what they are afraid of? and what they can't let go? and what is stopping them from being critical thinkers?

[@SKRATCH1988]

Christians define God as unknowable and ineffable. The reality is that Christians do acknowledge the mystery at the bottom of reality, while atheists cannot contend with not knowing... they have faith that with enough time, and technology, and science, that they will know absolute Truth at some point in the future.

[@karlschmied6218]

@@SKRATCH1988 I think you can't speak for all Christians. Some Christian denominations are dogmatic and ultimately fixated on the Bible. There is no development because the Bible is considered the "Word of God", which I find completely absurd. There are certainly scientists that trust that with enough time, technology and science they will know "the truth" at some point in the future. But most good scientists don't think so crudely and they certainly don't speak of absolute truth. They know that many times some scientists have thought that "everything" has now been "discovered" and then new discoveries are made that have exposed the foundation of what has been discovered so far as not being fundamental. I have seen that throughout my life several times. I think discovery will always continue and it is a human endeavor with many risks but I wouldn't want to live in a thoroughly Christian or Muslim society. If you look at history these religions tend to coerce and persecute apostates. Regarding the term absolute: God is seen as an absolute power. In my view that's not acknowledge the mystery at the bottom of reality. I think the terms "bottom" and "reality" are, in my opinion, vague, as are all linguistic terms.

[@karlschmied6218]

@@SKRATCH1988 Christians might say that "God" is a mystery, but it's inconsistent to speak of a mystery while simultaneously making very clear and specific claims about it-claims that, moreover, have no evidence whatsoever.

[@bingbongthegong]

Sit up straight with your shoulders back, Dr Peterson.

[@oldlogin3383]

It all depends on what you mean by "shoulders".

[@davidmarzolino7159]

Bryan Mahoney Ask any investigator , his posture indicates deception.

[@davidmarzolino7159]

Beau He's not being intellectually honest.

[@mikejonesnoreally]

No. Not with himself, and he knows it.

[@trep6199]

And make your fucking bed

[@remembertedcruz7213]

This will literally go down in history as a conversation that happened

[@mortypilgrim6319]

Once

[@chiefhardy6312]

in a room

[@siftubes]

HAHAHAHAH

[@Station9.75]

This will go down in history as a comment that was posted too.

[@wagnerjunior6524]

You clearly don't know how to use the word "literally"

[@jonasdowner]

"let's save the applause so we can talk" vs. "who doesn't like raucous applause?!" ties a bow on this whole thing

[@Gamerallday2012]

Objective focused vs subjective focused. I do find JP as a growth model on psychology, but i do not incorporate his morality, or his smug attitude of what he thinks other people thinks. If he didnt ask, and they didnt ask, where is his idea of their ideas coming from? His a$$

[@jonaskromwell4464]

This is ultimately Peterson retreating into concensus seeking praise and Dillahunty investigating concepts.

[@Samson484]

Half wit summarization

[@jonaskromwell4464]

@@Samson484 You a Jordan Peterson fan, are you?

[@Samson484]

@@jonaskromwell4464 oh yes and a Sam Harris fan.

[@JadesFitnessBucketList]

The harder people work to figure out what JP is saying, the more accomplished they feel when they figure it out and the more sophisticated JP will appear, but tbh his arguments can be interpreted in so many ways that everytime MD attempts to ask him to clarify what he means, JP can insist he means something else. Whereas MD, I find articulates his points far more coherently and clearly

[@FML_85]

Exactly. JP just wants to be difficult and it almost seems like it would hurt him to agree or affirm what MD is saying in response.

[@JMT1985MO]

Sophisticated? His arguments are hogwash. He doesn't even respond to many of the questions. Peterson is the young, immaturely minded person's idea of a tremendous intellect.

[@educatedperson1243]

@@JMT1985MO Facts

[@magnuserror9305]

@@JMT1985MO God and religion are a bit more complicated than what you might think.

[@JMT1985MO]

@@magnuserror9305 i think it's too complicated for you.

[@Cody-se7ee]

Every time Jordan speaks it comes off as a filibuster, word salad meanwhile Matt is direct and straight to the point. Easier to defend something you actually believe rather than have to make it up on the spot.

[@uair9]

That is because Peterson is a sophist. I do not know if he has ever come up with something of substance.

[@usa-empireis-dead227]

This comment is disinformation! Null and void for being deceptive and evil!

[@designatedpiledriver8216]

Word salad maybe to people that lack comprehension skills. Matt just sounds like an angry man baby

[@Mnnwer]

Its because you don't understand him, in a very fundamental way.

[@uair9]

@@Mnnwer Perhaps you do. Can you name one contribution he made that advanced our knowledge on any subject? Please, be very specific.

[@ryanspringer3311]

Matt: “you can stop smoking without supernatural intervention” Jordan:”no, not really.” Wow, coming from a clinical psychologist I’d really expect a better answer.

[@0Magicmush0]

Jung said the same. 12 steps programs are based on that.

[@carnifexprincipium5586]

@@0Magicmush0 12 step programs are processes that are designed to address psychological addictions not physiological addictions. Smoking is generally a physiological addiction. The way to deal with physiological addictions is to suck it up until the withdrawals pass. Such a method is not usually effective for psychological addictions. Either way; no need for the supernatural.

[@0Magicmush0]

@@carnifexprincipium5586 smoking is not physiological at all the bodily addiction is laughable. I have quit smoking myself.

[@carnifexprincipium5586]

@@0Magicmush0 sure, there certainly are psychological components to all addictions and the degree of psychological factors varies from person to person but to assert that chemical dependancy is not real? Really?

[@0Magicmush0]

@@carnifexprincipium5586 I said it's laughable, I meant that it is a laughably small factor for cigarettes not that it isn't real. But well our thoughts and psychology is also generated by chemicals and patterns of neurons in our head so in a sense it's all physiological. psychological state is but an emergent property of our physiological state so. I don't really know where your line between what you call physiological dependency and psychological dependency is. In my experience the (what I call psychological) main factor of what makes quitting smoking so hard is that because you have been 'trained' by the constant coming and going of nicotine to see smoking as an essential part of feeling happy and satisfied. You see it as a genuine crutch. It's a bit like the concept of learned helplesness. The bodily sensations of quitting nicotine are relatively mild and hardly noticable.

[@nefaristo]

7:50 "it's not easy to tell what's useful and what's real..." this is the perfect way of saying "my intellectual honesty needs a rigorous checking ". I'm not even saying Peterson is dishonest, I'm saying _he_ said that here. As soon as he talks religion, Peterson becomes the postmodernist he says he despise.

[@TeaIngyer]

I thought it was illegal to upload videos of people getting murdered to KZbin

[@sevdeawesome7861]

ok wow u rly showed him

[@TeaIngyer]

@@sevdeawesome7861 GR8 B8 M8. I R8 8/8.

[@dylanacious]

Matt didn't murder anybody.If that's what you mean.Not that Peterson was a champ by any means.But Dillihunty's repetitive arguments saying the same things,are very weak.

[@TeaIngyer]

@@dylanacious I find the viscous cultural and metaphysical substrates of your photosynthesis to be a literary and contrary cultural zeitgeist to the inexorable positive feedback of indomitable human intermingling. Yeah Peterson is the one with repetitive answers here, Matt repeats himself because he has to pin Jordan "Word Salad" Peterson down, so he can't constantly change the subject away from his silly conclusions.

[@vilosfull]

Hahahahahahaha real funny but so true!

[@yyguuyg]

Choose your comment format: 1. Depends on what you mean by _______ 2. No one: _____ Jordan Peterson: ______ 3. _______ metaphoric substrate of my ethos 4. [inane question] Jordan Peterson: [verbose answer]

[@ayushdeshmukh284]

Honestly I don' understand all the commotion... I perfectly understood why Jordan said what he said, and it was justified why he used those words. Matt was trying to oversimplify things just to assess whether religion can be proven correct. Jordan started with the point that it cannot be proven correct. What he says is more about how to use such beliefs as tools even if they may not be empirically provable. These things work. We don't know why they work, but they work, so they're worth studying.

[@andrewprahst2529]

I love meta comments like this

[@edwardofhydeiii666]

@@ayushdeshmukh284 well, he needed to let Matt know. We all know that Matt argues the existence of god not the practicality of religious beliefs. You're wrong though, because Matt explicitly told Jordan that the practicality of religion doesn't have any bearing on whether it is true or not. If you were right Jordan would have stopped him right there to reiterate that he wasn't argue for the existence of god

[@allistairkumaran3582]

Ayush deshmukh Nice work bud. Matt is trying to nail down Peterson’s views and he won’t outright say what he believes. It’s typical religious tap dancing. If you can’t explain something simply you don’t understand the topic, Peterson clearly can’t.

[@aries5534]

Jordan Peterson: That depends on what you mean by a comment and what you mean by format. Me: If you are unable explain your position in simple terms, you yourself don't understand it.

[@avjake]

Dr. Peterson is correct. I took psilocybin once and quit smoking 25 years later.

[@applejuice5635]

eJacob Cornelius How does he make the leap from that to "must mean there is a god"? That's what I would like to know.

[@applejuice5635]

Quentin Camilleri Oops, I think I replied to the wrong comment!

[@Ror0009]

Get born again and then, you will see better things than shroom visuals

[@naomi-nada]

@@Ror0009 Lol you think the only thing you can get from shrooms are some interesting visuals. Omg are you in for a surprise if you ever actually get the balls to try some.

[@Ror0009]

maciverandy1 what?

[@angrychu]

Matt completely exposed him 😂 Peterson got the skill of saying very simple things using big long strings of sentences.

[@percubit10]

He is not real. He makes simple things very complicated.

[@rvkdgm]

@@percubit10 Lol why can't it be, it is complicated but you only understand simple things ?

[@Time_flies_fast]

​​​​@@rvkdgmif you actually understand what JP says you would see how hard and complicated he tries to explain even simple things and not awnsering the questions, but dance's around them. thus sounding smart for dumb people.

[@rvkdgm]

@@Time_flies_fast please tell me what simple thing he is trying to explain in complicated way ? (there is nothing like that, things are not that simple and ppl seem to understands only if they are simplified and dumbed-down , if not they reject anything that could be there which they are not able to comprehend yet)

[@rvkdgm]

these two are theorists, at-least in this convos. any theory which explains things at the extremes is the successful one, so far JBP's theory can somehow include quantum phenomenon, matt's one can't . Einstein with much comprehension of world and universe said, GOD doesn't play dice with the universe. there is a incomprehensible intelligence behind the design , you call it god or whatever. I do not think Matt has better comprehension than Einstein .

[@jayceepooze]

Pangburn - please take the time to learn about and use audio compression and normalization to ensure the volume level on your videos is adequate. The volume on this video is quite low, and it makes the content inaudible on some devices.

[@czarseth99]

JayCeePooze pangburn went bankrupt a while back

[@Motofiend]

Frying Nemo because they didn’t learn how to use audio compression.

[@thesolarengineer]

More ads as well, please!

[@fantasick8880]

Travis Pangburn does't give a fuck about any of you. He did this for the prestige and the money. He was warned repeatedly about the audio quality and he didn't give a fuck. The guys a pice of shit psychopath.

[@kwisclubta7175]

Fuck bad audio. It's not difficult at all to get it right.

[@LuisRodriguez-bl7un]

Anyone: [silence] Peterson: Well it depends on what you mean by "[silence]"

[@tonywallens217]

Luis Rodríguez this is a good comment

[@martincooper8559]

Hahahaha lmao!!!

[@Jaryism]

yayy… same joke posted 1,000 times from JP haters...

[@LuisRodriguez-bl7un]

@@Jaryism i support the majority of Peterson ideas, is just a joke, not the best one but funny enough to me and some 200 others autists

[@izatafactnow]

i really love listening to Peterson he's challenging intelligent well spoken... but he's a bit of a quasi bad stage actor/ sometime nano soap operish/ blowhard ... sometimes... yet this does not discredit his intelligence and distinctive insightin my view it's just that Jordan really digs Jordan cheers

[@kevinwheesysouthward9295]

It’s great how JP needs people to define the word “truth” and “reality” but his fine with using “Mystical experience” and “transcendent experience” without ever explaining what those experiences entail.

[@MelodiesForTheSoul]

Well, did anyone ask him?

[@b.e.z6831]

I don't get your point? Mystical and transcendent are umbrella terms. Reality and truth aren't or at least shouldn't be. You need to define reality and truth as a collective. You both have to agree on what "reality" and "truth are.

[@chrisprendez2276]

They aren't umbrellas terms if you understand them or know what they mean. He didn't ask him because he didn't need clarification.

[@ahopelessWIMP]

​@Optikal Winter Exactly. I was very happy when Matt asked JBP what he meant by "metaphorical substrate" (of the ethos)

[@b.e.z6831]

@@chrisprendez2276 truth and reality are nouns as mystical and transcendent are both adjectives. So yes, I'm right. They are completely different types of words. Adjectives don't need to be defined but nouns do. Nouns are objective, adjectives are quite vague descriptive or attribute words for nouns.

[@andrewfreeman9437]

Prepare yourselves for Peterson's word salad.

[@jesterc.6763]

Ikr. When it comes to life advice JP sounds profound. But when it comes to religion he tends to trip up and make no sense.

[@Secularexpansion9]

@@jesterc.6763I think part of this is the “grift”…..Typical theologians are horrible debaters and generally get ripped apart when going up against atheist intellectuals. Peterson is simply seeking to tap into the religious market. He is attractive to the religious market because he’s not your typical defender of theology, who are usually bumbling credulous numbskulls whose argument for the existence of God leads to the all encompassing non answer of “faith”. He is definitely an intelligent individual and that accompanied by his move to defend theology = book, lecture $$$

[@mathematicaleconomist4943]

​@@jesterc.6763There are times he is good. There are other times he is all word salad. I guess it depends what he is talking about at the time?

[@1Dubbelman]

He's alright when he talks about psychology (sometimes)... He's VERY OFTEN wrong when be goes outside of his literal expertise: He doesn't understand gender He doesn't understand climate science He doesn't understand (most) philosphy He doesn't understand history.

[@zenbane1876]

Much like how Astrophysics is word salad to a flat earther

[@Fanofjambi]

Man Jordan didn't make sense he should've let Matt talk more

[@drrydog]

It's easy when you are on the correct side of an argument! right? Never be the theist lol... lesson learned

[@thegreatdivinie]

He makes sense

[@monkeyman193]

To me the difference between Matt and JP..... what Matt says still makes sense after you think about it.

[@jaquandrejones]

Matt also isn't a walking hypocrite telling a world of incels how to live whilst not even following his own rules. He (matt) isn't great, but he also isn't that.

[@MatchwoodX]

@@jaquandrejones it's not inherently hypocritical. Whilst that could be a pretty agreeable summation to a lot of folk, I see a man preaching to a choir that is a benefit if they follow his word.

[@jaquandrejones]

@@MatchwoodX JP says don't do drugs, yet is addicted to popping pills. If you make a living giving incels advice, at least follow your own advice. That my friend, is a 100% concrete example of him being a hypocrite. Not to mention he's definitely friends with nazis, but that's an entirely different issue I have with him lmap

[@MatchwoodX]

@@jaquandrejones one doesn't stop making sense, and stop being overall good for others in speech, just because they suffer from addiction. You also cannot assume he's an active addict. Nor you the right to judge him for it. Who are you to JP? Have you ever done something illegal? Is your family imperfect, and so on. Don't hate on someone for the sake of hating on them. JP clearly is a good person and speaks well thought intelligent topics.

[@jaquandrejones]

@@MatchwoodX I love how JP defenders literally go "dog whistling nazis and building an incel army is objectively good"

[@2DReanimation]

Timestamps! as I couldn't find anything after 3 years! 14:00: Mystical experiences from psychedelic substances. 14:40: Jordan saying "it's kinda like evidence", from wanting to have everything defined to such fuzzy reasoning... 19:50: Matt's definition of "supernatural", followed by his experience with "Holy Spirit" as a Southern Baptist. 23:00: Jordan putting forth two different groups of hypotheses for the usefulness of religion. 26:00: Matt's explanation of the tendency of attributing psychedelic experiences to the supernatural. 29:00: But Matt quickly gets sidetracked into a discussion about the problem of explaining consciousness. 30:50: Jordan asking Matt about consciousness, and here we go: getting further away from the initial discussion... 32:25: Now getting into determinism. 35:25: Matt getting back on track: "Is there a good reason to believe in God or believe in the belief in God?". 36:00: "What is it that you fear we would lose if people stopped believing that there is a God?" 38:15: Jordan explaining what he means by the "metaphorical substrate". 39:52: Matt trying to get some clarity in Jordan's explanation. 40:50: Propositional reasoning, and Jordan just dismissing it. Oh, and here we get into Jordan-land logic. And the smugness behind it is appalling. 44:15: Matt trying to get back to a rational foundation. But alas Jordan is far too flustered to let Matt keep things grounded. 49:20: Jordan finally let's Matt speak fully on the issue of well-being. Well, sort of letting him. 53:43: Matt starting the chess analogy of a moral life. 55:00: The update to the bible. 55:55: Jordan addressing the chess analogy (which is an astoundingly superficial misinterpretation of what the AI scientist meant). 1:00:00: Alphazero and how it still works with fundamental rules. Omg, and Jordan's smug gesticulating reiteration of his faulty argument... 1:03:25: Questions! 1:04:50: Actual start of the Q&A session. "If humanity seized to exist, does God still exist?" (for Jordan). 1:06:30: Jordan saying he does not believe that the material world exists as it is without consciousness. Seems like he gets more and more flustered by the fact that he has so little foundation to base anything on. 1:08:00: Q2: Questioning the idea of people turning to religion out of lassitude. 1:11:40: Same guy following it up with "In this world we already have this foundation." (from religion). 1:12:30: Jordan interjecting with complete babble. 1:14:30: Matt attempting a response to the babble. And Jordan insisting in ill-informed idiocy. 1:16:10: Q3: Does the questioner want to redefine God as something like that or is he commenting on Jordan's vague definition that's like that? Anyways... Jordan reconfirms that he does define God as something vague like that. 1:18:40: Matt pointing out the flaw with a vague definition like that. 1:19:55: Q4: The pros-and-cons of the language of Secular Humanism over religious thinking. 1:25:40: "The instinct for meaning", to hear the culmination of his nonsense, where he says that there's NOTHING but religion that can set someone in a foxhole straight, essentially. But what about his 12 rules book? isn't that secular? Man, the mind on religion! 1:27:48: Q5: Wanting a clarification on Jordan's point that there are no real atheists. And I'm laughing my ass off at his instantaneous answer! I like his explination for why he'd say something as outrageous as that -- as that seems to be his modus operandi -- where "oh, it's all too complex, let's just go for the simplest and dumbest answers instead!". 1:32:25: Matt's thought on it. 1:37:00: Last question. Evolved morality explanation vs "transcendent morality". Haha! Jordan spazzing out and saying his catch-phrase "it's more complicated than that.", twice! 1:41:36: Superstrawberry! I'll start from the very beginning later.

[@glenngibson9201]

May you never lose the metaphorical substrate of your ethos!

[@singalexsong]

Quite a lot of biased language used for those timestamps bud. Still, I appreciate the effort.

[@2DReanimation]

@@singalexsong Haha, yeah, I was mixing in my thoughts a bit heavily. But I justified it as "people are free to remove the subjective comments from it and post their own timestamps".

[@jcnot9712]

Thank you very much, this is a useful tool for JP-drones who say “JP never said that” and imply others are too stupid to understand him, counting on you not having a timestamp.

[@littlechickenman]

"Spazzing" and other words using the root "spazz" are words used to ridicule and degrade people who have seizures, so I would heavily recommend you avoid using those words. Just pointing that out. Thanks for the time stamps.

[@emreunal2044]

Matt mind blasted Peterson to oblivion. Amazing.

[@williampankhurst9417]

What reality are you viewing from? Matt seems uninspired & disconnected, like an intelectual rock.

[@theleague383]

really though! Everyone hating on JP is just because they don't like him @@williampankhurst9417

[@argfasdfgadfgasdfgsdfgsdfg6351]

@@williampankhurst9417 He is viewing from THE reality, bro.

[@eldenfindley186]

@@williampankhurst9417seek help

[@Greg-xi8yx]

@@williampankhurst9417Everyone knows Peterson lost, and badly, the kind of loss where your career is never the same again. Every single comment articulates exactly that, not just this one. Being a loyal Peterson fan boy only makes you seem more ridiculous not Peterson any less.

[@jensdanbolt6953]

Such patience in Dillahunty to sit through that and not intervene. "Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake." - Napoleon

[@charleshylton1231]

Jens Danbolt Matt’s concept of God is flawed .. it’s at the 1 hour mark... “ sits on high” ... framed from this setting, it’s easy to take God as fictitious.. God is reality: more than that according to the Bible.. it’s clearly hard to define or measure that size of a thing... I’d make it comparable to a neutrino trying to conceive the size of the Galaxy. Jordan also doesn’t have the greatest concept of God either.. but because he is open to realities that exist past 3 dimensions, I believe he is closer. To answer Matt’s demand for a supernatural event ; flying in an airplane... naturally we were never Meant to travel at that height or that speed...by conceptualizing something in the mind of man that allowed us to defy nature through nature, caused the supernatural phenomenon of flight.

[@charleshylton1231]

vrolie 2020 it’s not my concept.. it’s the Bible’s concept. Objectively taken from it’s contents... I mean there are a few key traits that are really hard to actually visualize: omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, infinite. Like those are just a few of the traits given in the Bible, some others being truth, judgement, and love... not having them.. just is them. The title given to Moses was “I am” as if to say all that is, I AM. as humanity has portrayed that through visual art ( despite that being part of the things NOT to do in scripture) we have mainstreamed the concept of the ‘magic floaty guy with a beard in the sky with the nekkid babies” as most peoples point of reference for what Christians believe in... still nowhere in the Bible, still nonsense. I’m not going to eeeven pretend I have a full grasp on God. Seeing as I (and I believe most of us) don’t really have a full grasp on the measure of the sun, or the distance of a light year really in comparison to the size of a person: like sure we can get figures and show diagrams I’m not saying it’s not figurable; I’m saying to truly appreciate it is rather difficult.. example being our understanding of what the earth looks like In pictures is the same as an astronaut’s that has been on an Apollo mission... but I’m sure that individual has a much deeper appreciation of it.. or even smaller , our idea of the size of a blue whale versus one who has swam next to one. ijs if Matt here wants to see God: it’s akin to one atom on a piece of paper asking another to draw on the paper, the State and city where the street with the house’s floor holds up the table where that paper is setting. The evidence is that the paper is being sustained on the plane of the table; but for the atom that will never suffice🤷🏽‍♂️. The only sort of “evidence” that even begins to show some sort of satisfactory substance OTHER then all of reality ( for the believer) is a clip I saw conducted by a doctor or something I saw on tongue talking... look it up .. it just shows that while individuals experiencing the phenomena were hooked up To some sort of device: the parts of the brain that govern speech weren’t active... as if to say, they weren’t causing it to happen.. and while you might be like “so what?” Wellllll that DOES match up with what is stated in the word about it.

[@charleshylton1231]

Ranga Jesus awfully bold to assume that most of what humanity does ISNT supernatural: and no there is no “reworking” if scripture for it to fit my subjective view: the Bible says to put “precept upon precept and line upon line” or subject matter with subject matter... there is no fuzzing of the eyes to make me see what I want... and throughout scripture it speaks of a God that transcends time, space and matter.. using the term “being” still ends up putting God in a finite status so that doesn’t even define. So this is where Peterson’s “what do you mean” thing bears weight. If there is already a limited view on what God is before asking for the proof of evidence of God.. how can there even be given a satisfactory answer?

[@charleshylton1231]

vrolie 2020 example? Please... also: please don’t conflate Roman Catholic dogma with biblical doctrine... we can get into it IF you want (I don’t like to Catholic bash but it’s honestly based on their own records of what they did versus what the Bible says) but the two are NOT the same ... Catholicism is not biblical starting at th concept of their god(s).

[@charleshylton1231]

vrolie 2020 secondly: the Bible wasn’t written for morality’s sake, although morality is a byproduct of belief it is not the point

[@JktuUekmw]

"Good Morning!" said Bilbo, and he meant it. The sun was shining, and the grass was very green. But Gandalf looked at him from under long bushy eyebrows that stuck out further than the brim of his shady hat. "What do you mean?" he said. "Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?" "All of them at once," said Bilbo. J. R. R. Tolkien, "The Hobbit".

[@JktuUekmw]

You can replace "good morning" with "well-being" xD

[@escapementalprison]

🤤TALK NORMAL/DUMB TO ME🤤

[@hamzatabaichount7873]

You got me emotional there

[@ceciliaxx]

given the context, this comment is no less than absolutely perfect

[@mattbell6413]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gKWkeqmrpZuEhbc

[@ParisianParanoidAndroid]

Matt's answers, arguments and opinions are rational, factual and well explained, loving this

[@craigsmith1443]

Then I'm afraid that you're not listening to him not listen, change the subject, and repeat misstatements. Matt was emotional, not rational; overgeneral, not well explained; and without examples or evidence, not factual.

[@ParisianParanoidAndroid]

@@craigsmith1443 It seems like we didn't watch the same debate. Even though I agree with JP on many subjects, read some of his books and saw him in other debates where he was excellent, I think you're actually describing him in your comment and not Matt. JP could've done a better job. Maybe the fact that I'm atheist makes me biased but I try to be as objective as possible watching this, I hope you do too.

[@craigsmith1443]

@@ParisianParanoidAndroid _but I try to be as objective as possible watching this_ I would think that that is as we all should be, and I hope that I am as well. Where do you think that Jordan 'could have done a better job'?

[@redmed10]

@@craigsmith1443 Can you give a single example of Matt not listening or changing the subject or repeat misstatements as you claim and time stamp that goes with it. Can I ask, have you seen much of Matt's stuff outside of this debate? You might want to start with Matt's own review of this debate. kzbin.info/www/bejne/an3NiqKsidRnq8U

[@michaelogrady1641]

Well, you are a magical thinker, you don't deal in logic. A woman who never got laid, gave birth to a baby that could walk on water? Hmm.

[@raxino774]

This is where many start to stop believing not only in God but also in Peterson.

[@MichaelBeck_profile]

Thats true for me for sure … i just never believed in any mystical being

[@JC__]

God exists, repent.

[@pmaitrasm]

​@@JC__, There is a difference between “repent” and “do penance.” Stop reading bad translation.

[@JC__]

@@pmaitrasm who taught you that

[@pmaitrasm]

@@JC__, You have not read the New Testament.

[@LuisLauranzon]

I prefer conversations like this rather than “debate”.

[@zevyzevness3800]

I want to see blood

[@EmperorHerpes]

@@zevyzevness3800 because you're an ideologically driven weirdo

[@zevyzevness3800]

Javier Hernandez perhaps 😂

[@brianmi40]

This wasn't a conversation, it was a complete ass kicking for JP, and well deserved with his word salad Woo Woo.

[@kennyomega1876]

I would prefer to see them have a sumo match

[@MrYelly]

I absolute love the debate setting that Mr Dillahunty has set up, easy to step into, courteous and humble in the sense of not having a need to overscreech each other, while making each other comfortable enough to open up. Absolutely splendid.

[@numbo655]

Then Peterson comes along and ruins it...

[@jakesmith5278]

Haha haha...so true.

[@hanshananigan1233]

This was one of the best dialogues I've heard between any dyad such as Harris Dawkins, Peterson, etc. The first 30 min or so being the best.

[@MrBugPop]

I don’t think this was actually a debate as much it was a discussion. At least for the 30 minutes that I saw.

[@tinylittlevampire]

"Consciousness isn't just mysterious, it's like....REALLY mysterious...it's not like ordinary mysterious." - Dr. Jordan Peterson

[@brk932]

Jordan pulls the-valley-girl-speak right next the overly-convoluted-pseudo-technical-speak. Go figure. The guy must ponder for hours before wiping his own ass.

[@davidvenegas6401]

Tell me more Jimmy.

[@EasierSaidwithDito]

Krasimir Ivanov don't be a mark, and listen to someones ideas before you think you know everything about them

[@jhibbitt1]

I thought we had a good understanding or neuroscience

[@TheMongrelCat522]

He's not wrong though. Consciousness IS really mysterious. We still know next to nothing about it.

[@altair91100]

It's my first time listening to Matt Dillahunty and he genuinely seems like a fun and easy going guy who happens to be extremely intelligent.

[@patrickrrmiller]

What I would give to have seen Hitchens vs Peterson.

[@brianmi40]

There could never have been enough Hitchslaps...

[@mashable8759]

oh mannn.

[@keithhunt5328]

Hitchens is a rhetorician. Not a rational thinker.

[@SammyxSweetheart.02]

Peterson would’ve been hitch slapped into space. I do want to see him debate Richard Dawkins though

[@mashable8759]

@@SammyxSweetheart.02 Peterson doesn't believe in any religion but he holds the opinion that the myths have underlying truth

[@henka4166]

the sound guy clearly has no metaphysical substrate

[@awestuvid]

Haha came here to see if anyone else noticed. Silence is so distracting

[@DawnHub666]

There are an infinite number of ways to turn up the audio in a video before u upload it

[@psychogat3]

@@danilopompey754 in that case most of us might be dead if not for religion as well. Who knows how much of an impact religion had on wars fought between tribes. maybe religion provided our ancestors that little bit of extra motivation or sense of duty or confidence of being backed by god to win a war. Without religion they might have lost and we never would have existed either. Theres no good choice there either one would be equally devastating.

[@psychogat3]

@@danilopompey754 in that case since religion came first its logical that eliminating people from history longer ago would have a bigger affect. Like cutting a branch from a tree. The lower the branch the more leaves will be removed. Also without religion theres no guarantee we would have even got to science.

[@psychogat3]

@@danilopompey754 if religion was science how can you ask to make a choice between them? And I hope you realize saying things like stop, and cut the bamboozle, at the beginning of every reply makes it hard to take you seriously. You are right about science being a new religion though its becoming just as cult like these days, it's kind of scary.

[@jessicastrat9376]

Sound guy: well that depends on what you mean by audible

[@loganw.9919]

This. This is what I am reading comments for, and actually made me LOL, in my quiet office.... But thank you still!

[@Jackson-pu7gd]

Well what do you mean by "mean"?

[@kennethalbert4653]

@@loganw.9919 : I was trying to think of a witty comment, then I read yours...Well done sir !

[@ericselectrons]

Best comment under this video.

[@BlGGESTBROTHER]

I've got my headphones cranked to 100% and am living in fear of the random commercial I know is going to come and blow my eardrums out :(

[@sixofsix]

The question Matt should’ve posed was, if there was a creator who deeply loved us and wanted us to know him, why would taking a hallucinogenic substance be a part of discovering more about who he is? In making an honest attempt at discovering whether or not a God exists or whether or not there is in fact a supernatural realm why is it that I need to get high?

[@eugenecoleman8525]

I used to be a believer until I took an arrow to the metaphorical substrate of my ethos

[@Dabeast1911Que]

Now this is good comedy! 😆😂😂😂

[@justinsossa2957]

I used to be a believer that we came from primordial soup.

[@Alic4444]

@@justinsossa2957 Well no, he thinks soup turned into cells, and cells turned into simple life, and simple life turned into vertebrates, and vertebrates moved onto the land, became mammals, and after an amount of time difficult to fathom mammals became men. Whereas you think sky god did some amateur sculpting on some dirt one day and then never felt like sculpting again after that, even after thousands of years of recorded history.

[@justinsossa2957]

@@Alic4444 No there was no magical soup that brewed dirt into living cells. No humans do not have a shrew for a grandfather.

[@SkyRiver1]

One may subsume the substrate by sublimation the result is subtle but sublime.

[@neilghosh3821]

"Those who are deep will strive for clarity, while those who wish to appear deep strive for obscurity and seek to muddy their waters, for everything seems deep to ‘the many’ if only they can’t see the bottom - and they hate going into the water themselves.” -- Friedrich Nietzsche Perfect way to describe Jordan Peterson and his fanbase.

[@Imnothere59]

Well said

[@mattcorregan4760]

You might want to consider that you don't possess the mental acuity to understand the force of his arguments.

[@sopliplily2204]

I mean, if you've read Nietzsche's works, he's not really known for his clarity either.

[@chriswalker9478]

Great quote for how Matt conducted himself. I fully agree with you.

[@catastrophucked]

Your feet are a little too dry. I recommend some mud therapy treatment to help with rehydrating them.

[@Azidoazideazide.]

"Consciousness isn't just mysterious IT'S LIKE REALLY mysterious" wow great clarification Jordan.

[@jalucaru]

Well, it is, like really mysterious. Whats wrong?

[@xlaythe]

lolol

[@xlaythe]

Hey again fynes.... I'm really thinking I should start a knee pad business for you and your friends. Whats up with your fucking space bar? Do you have like a triple spacebar or something? In english there is generally only one space between each word. You're welcome. also.... my knee pad company will hand out brochures on logical fallacy to help you guys out. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[@johngrey1074]

I liked how Jordan Peterson got all excited about consciousness and described it as “really mysterious,” and then he gave a definition of it that had more to do with human agency/choice than consciousness as it’s generally described.

[@JordanTobyBird]

Special pleading much?

[@Danni611]

I like both these guys for very different reasons, but at several points I did find myself thinking, " No, Jordan, what are you saying?!". I have to side with Matt in regards to this particular topic. It was a pleasure to watch, thanks!😁

[@joefranco6047]

Against God I'm guessing Okay 😅

[@RinDiu]

Matt absolutely blew my mind again. Thrilled to have stumbled upon this discussion by accident.

[@RinDiu]

@@MrRainone99 nope wrong! Not Matt neither Peterson can prove gods existence. Not even you or the computer chess. Computer chess is not proof of a god mate.

[@RinDiu]

@@MrRainone99 yes his words as you rightly quoted, he is not saying therefore god exist.

[@chaaron496]

@@MrRainone99 I think you missed the part where he said the computer experiments to win. In this specific example experimenting would be analogous to evolution. Over time we have adapted in response to the rules and gotten better and better at “winning the game.”Although we don’t exactly know how the rules were put into place evolution points in the opposite direction of god.

[@chaaron496]

@@MrRainone99 Just because no one knows how the computer came into existence doesn’t mean there is a god. You were claiming Matt argued that there is a god inadvertently. I was just pointing out you were misinterpreting his argument. Of course I can’t answer how everything came into existence but what I can say is that the computer didn’t start out a computer but a little circuit board that through experimentation and sexual selection evolved into a computer over an enormous length of time. According to god we started human and have always been human.

[@kingwillie206]

@@MrRainone99 - Ok, well what’s the make and model of God? We also know humans create computers, however, who or what created God since you seem to believe everything must have a cause? And don’t claim God was never created because that would completely negate your computer with instructions argument.

[@1ucasvb]

For someone who criticizes "post-modernism" for un-defining common, necessary narratives for society to function, Peterson sure is fond of un-defining common, necessary narratives for a reasonable and comprehensible discussion.

[@ILIE3D]

love your channel dude, cool thing to see you in this part of youtube!

[@kveldulfpride]

Methinks that's because the matter of the narratives invokes ultimate meaning, which Jordan maybe was gently prying at (being not so exclusively religious). What I would say more directly about a post modern or secular human society is simply: why? Why should you bother to live more effectively than not? Is the goal really material? If so, why shouldn't I prescribe to be more selfish than selfless? In essence, why should you really care - if there is no eternal weight? Posterity is laughable here. I believe the straw-man for the post modernist is left with a subjective sense of reasoning, painting an objective end with crayons How can any person operate sanely when the prospect of their own demise is the end of their own 'divinity'? If man is to exist, then to assume it is without purpose other than what we make of it, isn't just a philosophical blunder alone, but a declaration of how far their mind has convinced themselves that they are their own god. Thus, by their own logic, they call themselves liars - for how can they ultimately condemn it with any satisfactory referent? Are they really a god?

[@1ucasvb]

Why do you believe any practical notion of "divinity" is necessarily metaphysical/supernatural? And why can't things be finite and still be worth doing? It is the idea that a god exists and he created the universe just for us that is the ultimate anthropocentric and egocentric point of view. The universe revolves around you because it was created for you. You are divine, that's why you are objectively important. You're just pretending god is something else, but in reality, it's all about you.

[@rossstevenson2757]

As soon as peterson is proven wrong he just refuses to accept the definition of words as well all know and understand them in langusge ... he does it over and over and its hilarious

[@kveldulfpride]

Ross Stevenson - Care to give an example? I cant say that I noticed that. I think Jordan just likes being exact.

[@amitverma4203]

Take a shot every time JP says "metaphysical". You will definitely have some version of mystical experience.

[@TheMattyboi90]

Whether it’s rum or just water you’re bound to see god. Lol

[@wightclaudia]

Ok I did it and now I’m dead. They have KZbin in the afterlife. Now what?

[@foppishdilletaunt9911]

Of Heroin or a paralytic ?

[@jonahellis]

That’s genuinely hilarious 😂

[@CatherineInRock]

Proclivity is another one

[@Arlondev]

Honestly watching Matt mop the floor with this grifter is music to my ears. Gotta love Matt

[@Minecraftnl100]

Lol

[@brianprinty112]

I like this conversational mode so much more than structured debates

[@დონკიხოტი]

Matt: "he is right, he is right... I will correct that " That kind of attitude is what makes this guy so charismatic

[@FM-dm8xj]

Didnt he also say, you no nothing about secularist regimes?

[@patchwurk6652]

@@FM-dm8xj Pretty easy accusation to level at Peterson, dude understands about as much about human society as the Borg.

[@FM-dm8xj]

@@patchwurk6652 Nice deflection, but communism is the embodiment of atheist humanist regime-its quite litterally the epitome of it. Thats why karl marx said religion is the "opiate of the masses" and that one should themselves from the schackeles of traditional religion to establish a new man (humabn) and new humanist utopia.

[@patchwurk6652]

@@FM-dm8xj "Nice deflection" Wasn't a deflection, I'm insulting Peterson and directly stating that accusing Peterson of not understanding basic reality is usually pretty fucking accurate. "but communism is the embodiment of atheist humanist regime-its quite litterally the epitome of it." Fucking how? "Thats why karl marx said religion is the "opiate of the masses" and that one should themselves from the schackeles of traditional religion to establish a new man (humabn) and new humanist utopia." No, he said that because religion is a coping mechanism for easily-led and exploited dupes and Marx believed society would be better without everyone's favorite imaginary friend/scapegoat for their bullshit. Also, Marx is not some fucking Atheist Guru, we are under zero obligation to give two shits what Marx thought. All being an Atheist means is "You don't believe in deities." Period, end of story, full fucking stop. All being a humanist means is you place value on human well-being over that of tradition or doctrine. Where the fuck are you getting Communism? Because no one said that word until You here, and you've already demonstrated you don't know the first damn thing about atheism.

[@FM-dm8xj]

@@patchwurk6652 Exactly, thats why all comunist regimes always got rid of all the churches and purged religion first. You just made my point lol. "All being a humanist means is you place value on human well-being over that of tradition or doctrine" Thats exactly right, and Marx said religioun is a drug in which people are being duped and therefore unable to deal with real life problems such as poverty and politics-that exactly his point. Its a strict atheist regime and thats 100 millions of lives have been taken in the name of it. I mean lets just get a juniour leauge atheist, Pol pot, 2 million in the span of 2 years only and thats a small guy..... Why?because as Matt pointed out by dostovesky "if god is not, everything is permissible". Atheism is basically a tool to escape any form of moral accountability and cosmic justice.

[@bealotcoolerifyoudid7217]

'Rule based systems don't seem to work in real life..' but yes please buy my book called 12 rules for life... This man is just...

[@grantjohnston7148]

Nuts

[@doriandundee9906]

...nested in a metaphorical substrate

[@chriswalker9478]

A book that you've never read.

[@ozarks2345]

@@chriswalker9478 read and he even says you cannot live without rules and responsibillities and yet comes out to say rules dont work

[@hamnchee]

To say nothing of the 10 commandments

[@Zictomorph]

I have considered explaining complicated things so anyone can understand as a form of intelligence. Peterson can make complicated things even more complicated.

[@anypish2]

All I want in life is a hierarchical axiomatic metaphorical substrate

[@Lucas20520]

LMAO

[@k.m.1380]

Also to be able to clean my room and slay my chaos dragons😂

[@atothetop3779]

Ha! Then You must be a rationalist atheist evolutionary type trying to blow your ethos apart

[@craigsmith1443]

You have one. if you haven't noticed, then you need Peterson's advice more than you believe you do.

[@Lucas20520]

@@craigsmith1443 SMH, STFU. Just enjoy the joke. Nobody cares about how smart you want people to think you are. Loser. 🖕🤫🤐

[@kidglort9396]

Those black chairs are really cool.

[@comdrive3865]

The only comment I can wholeheartedly agree with on this video!

[@bisratamare3265]

Repent and be be born again believing on Messiah Lord Jesus, nothing more important, today is the day of salvation and Jesus can show you the truth, its not blind faith you can see it for yourself if you truly seek like promised. John 3:3 unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God / Luke 13:3 unless you repent, you will all likewise perish ⚠️❤️⚠️❤️

[@seionne85]

@florian negar and "cool"

[@bradwilson5552]

@Kid Well , u know what they say ........ “Black chairs matter”

[@scubasteve7666]

@@bisratamare3265 Where is Jesus?

[@stoneybologna1982]

When someone who is used to always winning, is losing, their true colors show.

[@550xxx23]

Interesting how someone could view either side of this discussion as “winning”

[@samuelc.7212]

@@550xxx23 Both rhetorically and through argumentation matt was winning hands down

[@drrickmarshall1191]

@@550xxx23 I agree, it's hard to say you won against someone when they wouldn't even stay on topic.

[@550xxx23]

@@drrickmarshall1191 It seems like most viewers had trouble drawing the connections peterson was making. Most of his points can only be understood if you've had direct experiences with the "Mystical"/"God". Whether it be via Pyschadelics, meditation, music, etc. I've had these experiences so I can understand the direct connections he is making. Also why I never saw anything he said as being off topic. Nor did I see him as "losing".

[@drrickmarshall1191]

@@550xxx23 Yes we've all done drugs, mate. The concept that you'd have to take a natural substance to activate supernatural effects is an absurd non sequitur. You obviously didn't get past the first 5 minutes of the discussion if you think Peterson didn't stray off topic. Peterson begins discussing the emotional and psychological benefits of a religious outlook, Dillahunty rightly shoots him down, because that's not the topic. As I said, it's hard to claim you've won against someone, when they're not even on the same racetrack.

[@jakeholmes9296]

It’s so satisfying to see Jordan Peterson exposed so brutally.

[@arandomguy83yearsago46]

Imagine Ben Shapiro and Matt Dillahunty debating each other. Ben shapiro opening statement will an unreleased Eminem Ablum

[@CosmicNous]

When was Peterson exposed? When Peterson asked Dillahunty to justify his claim that he has value and he couldn't do it? Or when Peterson asked Dillahunty to define "well-being", "best civilization", "better life" etc. and he couldn't do it? Or maybe when Peterson asked Dillahunty to justify why it is better to be alive than dead and he failed to do that as well? At no point in the debate did Dillahunty justify any one of his claims. He posited one presupposition after another with no basis for them and just acted like they're all self-evident, obvious. If you think otherwise, I'd be happy if you point me to the timestamps where Dillahunty answers Peterson's questions with an actual argument and not just appeal to his belief that all his presuppositions are self-evident.

[@Dralchemy]

exposed? dillahunty couldn't get out of the "it's good for me to not get my head chopped off because I'm descended from people who also did not want to get their heads chopped off" bit. It was pathetic and I'm not even a peterson fan.

[@ethanlewis1453]

Given he wasn't exposed brutally if at all, all I can see is your own pre-determined conclusion.

[@jakeholmes9296]

@@ethanlewis1453 are you for real he barely actually answered any questions that Matt asked. He talked around so much of what Matt was actually asking

[@nunchakudude]

Hey Jordan...you want a beer? JP: Well my desires are based in cultural and social constraints. For instance, this is a party, and i'm expected to act a certain way regardless of my personal desires, so I can't really say no, in the context of this party.

[@audimaster5000]

Regardless

[@sublimesense7761]

he wouldnt say irregardless because it’s s not a word

[@cnacma]

I get the distinct feeling he only talks like this when there is a camera present and money to be made

[@sublimesense7761]

Happy Homesteader you’re right it is a word but a redundant negation of a suffix and a prefix is a bad word

[@masonskaggs1711]

I hate when a person is thorough and digs beneath the layer of cynical, surface, physical dismissive arguments.

[@nurbsenvi]

Matt: gimme the evidence of god's existence Jordan: mystical experience through mushroom

[@zitchfukker4864]

N that dosent prove god at all, is actually amazingly stupid.

[@theobjectivebeliever]

Just experience. Which is really all that reality boils down to. The issue the atheist has is they have a limited experience, and are on the outside, looking in, so to speak on the believer. They can’t know for certain what the believer (or anyone else, for that matter) experiences. All they can do is guess, and pretend to be sure even though they can’t be.

[@nurbsenvi]

@@theobjectivebeliever So if you took mushroom and saw a unicorn does that prove the existence of unicorn?

[@zitchfukker4864]

@@theobjectivebeliever 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 so naive

[@TheMitchmills]

@@theobjectivebeliever Bullshit. The vast majority of atheists used to be theists. Why don't you try speaking for yourself? Maybe then you might get something right. But I won't be holding my breath.

[@pintsofwatermelon5665]

Jordan "it depends on what you mean by" Peterson

[@Uhlbelk]

I think you mean, Jordan "this is really complex" Peterson.

[@JohnSmith-hy9ly]

you're right, it doesn't depend on what anyone means by anything, especially when you're talking about something so simple as God or the meaning of life. Everything is simple. Go back to sleep, little atheist. You have a Call of Duty clan war scheduled at noon. Did you forget?

[@jairogers5876]

pints of watermelon 😂😂

[@Odrade100]

it depends on what you mean by complex :v

[@OmegaF77]

It depends on what you mean by Jordan Peterson.

[@lrvogt1257]

JP is the Rube Goldberg of pop psychology. Everything must be as complicated and convoluted as possible to accomplish very little.

[@JannisSicker]

well it's part of his strategy, that does infact accomplish way too much... making people trust his lies about trans people, climate etc. and strengthen the conservative status quo with some fascist elements

[@lrvogt1257]

@@JannisSicker : His demeanor and verbosity are meant to make him appear that he's being more profound than he actually is... which is very little.

[@youbigtubership]

There's alot of variety in how people communicate the concepts in pop psychology.

[@zebraimage]

To accomplish very little if at all.

[@HoneyBadgerKait]

Matt: Show me something that is true, that could not be stated as a proposition. Jordan: Oh that's easy, are you sure you wanna go there? We're still waiting Jordan... He literally hand waves it away. 41:04 Somehow I get the feeling Jordan entered this discussion not expecting the level of sophistication and thoughtfulness Dillahunty has in his critical thinking and philosophy.

[@mariobaratti2985]

Beauty, Love, Truth.. they can't be stated, they just are true

[@HoneyBadgerKait]

@@mariobaratti2985 That's a proposition. Each of those can be stated as propositions, eg, "Truth is that which corresponds with reality". He's asking for something that could not be stated as a proposition, yet is true. As soon as you try to demonstrate that something is true, you will likely use a proposition. Unless you use telepathy or hand signals or something.

[@mariobaratti2985]

@@HoneyBadgerKait that's not the premise. The premise was "Show me something that is true, that could not be stated as a proposition.". Truth itself cannot stated like that because "Truth is true" is a tautology which doesn't make any sense. You can't define truth with truth - which is exactly the point; you can't give substance to a metaphysical statement without an absolute deep foundation to the meaning of what you are saying - the use of the word "true" in any propisition implies you know what "truth" is but you can't define it as true with a proposition unless running in circular meaningless propositions

[@HoneyBadgerKait]

@@mariobaratti2985 "Show me something that is true, that could not be stated as a proposition.". Show me: 1. Something that is true. 2. AND cannot be stated as a proposition. He's asking for something that fulfils both of these requirements. "Truth can be defined as, that which corresponds with reality" - This is a proposition. "Beauty can be defined as, a combination of qualities, such as shape, colour, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight" - This is a proposition. "Love can be defined as, an intense feeling of deep affection." - This is a proposition. These 3 terms you suggested can be stated as propositions. Whether you can show they are "true" or not is therefore irrelevant, since they fail requirement (2) anyway. A Tautology is a proposition that is always true. Just because you don't like tautologies doesn't mean they aren't propositions. Therefore, "Truth is true" is a proposition.

[@FringeSpectre]

​​@@mariobaratti2985truth is that which can be demonstrated. You dont have to say "truth is true". Maybe I'm not smart enough to grasp what level of philosophical babble you guys are on though. I've only briefly looked into this tautology stuff.

[@gellercoaguila]

I think JP feels more comfortable when he can trap less knowledgeable journalists. I think he knew it was harder to impress someone who wasn't trying to defend a point of view but rather understanding the points that were made

[@muddywitch9016]

I disagree. Mat very much has a point of view and that is that religion is rubbish. He has previously stated that he would like to see an end to all religions, rather than tolerating them.

[@muddywitch9016]

I disagree. Mat very much has a point of view and that is that religion is rubbish. He has previously stated that he would like to see an end to all religions, rather than tolerating them.

[@gellercoaguila]

@@muddywitch9016 but Matt dint brought his personal views on the debate. If we follow your logic we could say the same thing on Peterson, and think that he was only trying to defend his Christian faith... Although both are highly influenced by their beliefs I think the did a pretty good job at separating those views from the points they were trying to bring

[@elisamastromarino7123]

I got the same feeling.

[@muddywitch9016]

Except that Peterson doesn’t operate that way.

[@RustedBerg]

Imagine what Matt would have done to him if Jordan had called in to his show with these tactics...

[@RecTec77]

We are still waiting for some theist even close to JP's intellect to call in for the show. It seems most of the callers are tramendously inconsistent in their thoughts and arguments and have a hard time to answer simple questions, that potentially would lead to them changing their perspective. Instead they turn out to be dishonest and suffer from a great lack of listening to and considering what was said.

[@CaSteGra]

Yes good point. He's giving him plenty of slack and time that his phone show hasn't time for.

[@craigsmith1443]

Since Matt ' did' nothing 'to him' here, he wouldn't have 'done' anything 'to him' on the phone, either. Matt couldn't hear a thing Jordan said because he wouldn't listen to a thing Jordan said.

[@kraidenb.8211]

@@craigsmith1443 the hell? Jordan got destroyed by Matt.

[@craigsmith1443]

@@kraidenb.8211 _Jordan got destroyed by Matt_ Well, that was most certainly convincing. I'm impressed b all the examples, detail, and reasoning you put into your conclusion. That was a drive-by belch, and nothing else. Now, can you do better?