Evolution and Atheism

Buy my book here! store.bookbaby...
Planet Peterson Store! planetpeterson...
DISCORD / discord
Check out my podcast rss.com/podcas... or open.spotify.c...
Support me on Patreon / planetpeterson
Support me on Venmo: account.venmo....
Be sure to follow me on social media!
Instagram: / planetpeterson
TikTok: @planet_peterson

[@planetpeterson2824]

FIRST! Also, check out the description for cool merchandise, my book Rational Answers to Stupid Questions, Patreon, and more. The book will teach you how to respond to people like... well... the guy in the video. Thanks!

[@freddan6fly]

You are not supposed to write _FIRST_ . BTW check out "First Comment Song - Animated Song Biscuits"

[@therafnquads1980]

I spend 20 hours a week watching ur videos 😂

[@chrispysaid]

Dude says he gets the difference between "I don't believe in blank" and "I believe there isn't blank" but he doesn't "I believe there is not" ≠ "I do not believe there is"

[@jonathanjrgensen6774]

He was so fucking close at 28:48 and then he just reverted back

[@Doom351]

I think that it would help him if Peterson led him to ask both questions about guilt. He wouldn’t have anything to revert on if he got “I don’t believe” in positive claim of being guilty and positive claim of not being guilty acknowledging that it’s exactly “I don’t know why should I believe anything without sufficient evidence”.

[@madara211000]

Theists don't understand that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. One is a knowledge claim and the other is a belief claim. Being an agnostic atheist, or a weak atheist as it's also known as, means you don't think humans can have knowledge about whether or not a supernatural entity exists (and that said entity created everything in existence) and that you lack a belief (meaning to have a good reason to accept something exists) in its existence due to the lack of evidence. Since something existing as far as we have continued to observe, within the universe, means it exists in three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, then something existing outside of this makes no coherent sense. Which is where the agnosticism part comes in.

[@theodorevibritannia7988]

The whole issue with those terms is two folds. 1. The term Atheist has been demonized to hell and strawmanned countless times by the religious folks (especially Christians and Muslims). It makes people, who despite not actually believing in gods that they used to, hesitate to use the terms. The reason alone is enough fro me to despise the religious. 2. Someone famous hated the term atheist (because of the first reason), so they invented the term agnostics in order to stay away from the term atheist, even though he is actually one. This muddled the water so much so that when people are technically atheists on all levels, they still prefer the term agnostic and assume that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive.

[@theoriginalKland]

He completely destroyed his own watchmaker argument. First he said "Mt Everest". Then he changed it to "Mt Rushmore". Then he says: We don't think Rushmore was created by water erosion.. we can see it was designed. So.. then why didn't you just use Mt Everest? You think everything is designed by god don't you? You didn't pick Everest, because it WAS formed by natural processes. Which was your contrast to show Rushmore was designed. You didn't pick Everest.. because Everest isn't designed. By your own argument, Nature is not designed.

[@hjalmarolethorchristensen9761]

It is funny how many people that think that there is a invisible man in the sky 😅 special nowadays...

[@cajohnson130]

It blows my mind that this is something we still debate today with all we know. They pick out the few things we don't know on the edge of human knowledge and go "See?!.. god!" It speaks to the power of indoctrination commonly from a young age and all the built in mechanisms religion has to keep people from leaving.

[@WhoThisMonkey]

The majority of people believe this stuff, and it's 2024. The main foundation of my misanthropy.

[@andrewkeith4332]

Loved the guest this time. Good conversations tbh but also super respectful of one another. Refreshing

[@davids11131113]

It was polite for sure but it just gets me once again there’s a theist with this script ‘Explain everything or else god’….its just so weird to me because positing god has never explained anything, science has dragged theism kicking and screaming along out of demons causing disease etc, discounting the few theist scientists along the way but damn its just weird.

[@Idr1zzzi]

@@davids11131113I don’t want to be offensive towards you, but why this is weird to you is for these reasons: You are brainwashed to the last brain cell and programmed to be like this An Atheist without purpose and meaning and to believe in everything they say even tho they make everything up that is full pseudoscience and than they produce some fake made up evidence to support that, i hate to say this word that now is used but u live in a matrix u dont live in reality, because everything that an atheist believes contradicts the real reality like everything. All reality is linked to flat earth, if u waked up to flat earth nothing would be weird anymore and believing in God would be very logical and eat and would not be just faith, and than atheists would be weird to believe in pseudoscience, evolution, bing bang and all other hoaxes and stupidity. At the end u believe what u want i dont care, u have free will u chose, don’t take it offensive and i hope u understand bcuz english is not my first language : )

[@ICSpin]

Peterson, I think driving home the point that believing for and believing against something are both positive claims. Not believing in something is not a positive claim. I think laying it out that way might help in situations where you're talking past one another.

[@still_functional]

thank you, this cleared it up in my head.

[@MrPalp]

Yeah, I would disagree that language is created. They are an emergent system that comes to be in complex ways.

[@takoja507]

Or they were. in modern days we can create new languages, klingon, elvish for LOTR etc.

[@ortology]

Yeh creation suggests there was an interesting t which there really wasn't

[@isaacbruner65]

In my bio class at university we're going to be using CRISPR/Cas9 to genetically modify E. coli to be resistant to a certain antibiotic. It turns out all it takes is a single point mutation that alters the shape of one of the ribosomal subunits and prevents the antibiotic from binding to it.

[@Michael-sb8jf]

Both fascinating and frightening at the same time

[@isaacbruner65]

@@Michael-sb8jf the antibiotic was streptomycin. I couldn't remember the name when I wrote the comment. Also, it worked.

[@takoja507]

Why do they bring up court so often? They don't even understand what "not guilty" means in court. It doesn't mean they are 100% innocent, it just means that with the evidence brought up there ain't strong enough to declare guilty. As they say in court, you need to not have any doubt of guilt, if you have doubt then you need to say not guilty.

[@ThadCastIe]

I thought it was a bit ironic that he brought it up because the whole concept is based off of doubting the accusation until sufficient evidence is provided to support the claim hence the idea of not believing in something because of a lack of proof. The whole “innocent (doubt) until proven guilty (evidence)” thing

[@scisher3294]

In line with answering the callers question: isopods are found in EVERY water ecosystem in the world. One lineage did manage to become terrestrial, adapting their gills to be suitable for life out of water, and now we have pill bugs/roly-poly’s roaming the world. They are the only crustacean that can live fully on land without needing to submerge.

[@jamesgalliher4640]

The way people misuse and misunderstand dictionaries is such a pet peeve of mine.

[@MrPalp]

"Do things get stuck in the evolutionary track?" No! Evolution does not work like that, it is not a ladder. His entire attempt to make it about increasing advancement indicates this type of thinking. That said this was a really nice and cordial discussion. More of those please, the are far more productive.

[@Detson404]

You’d expect a technocrat to say that! ;)

[@TheThinkingDead]

These people start from the end and work back. That's why they think where they are is the pinnacle and perfection.

[@guitarista67]

Nice of Peterson to talk to this straw man anyway.

[@Detson404]

@@guitarista67 most professional creationist arguments aren’t any better.

[@the11382]

There are evolutionary dead ends where organisms can no longer adapt, extinction can follow.

[@nicholasbanton]

A common reasoning flaw I often encounter with theists is their conflation of "not guilty" with "innocent." They mistakenly assume that because the non-existence of God cannot be conclusively proven ("not guilty"), it therefore implies that God's existence is proven ("innocent"). However, these two concepts are distinct. The inability to disprove something does not automatically affirm its existence. It is a logical fallacy to attempt to handle both prongs of this dilemma simultaneously. For a more thorough explanation of this issue, I recommend researching Matt Dillahunty's discussions, as he elucidates this problem far more clearly than I can.

[@Religious_Atheist-eu4ci]

A third round neon sign would look sick w the 🎸🎸🎸🤘🏼

[@AlexPBenton]

After you explained how stars form, he stated that you’re assuming stars existed forever. He stopped listening *before* you started talking. Also, loved the Arrested Development reference

[@planetpeterson2824]

What was the reference I don’t remember

[@AlexPBenton]

@@planetpeterson2824 “Baby, you got a stew going!”

[@planetpeterson2824]

Oh lmao that's right @@AlexPBenton

[@830toAwesome]

He already blew up his point by his flub. You're right, we look at Mount Everest and we see a natural thing made by natural processes. You look out at Mount Rushmore and see design. Clearly one is created and one isn't and you have the tools to tell. He's not applying those mechanisms properly. Which isn't a surprise.

[@ChickenHunter08]

This guy is taking the definition of belief to the level of: having a system. Instead of just the simple definition and understanding of “believe “. He tells you to not take it so literally, but refuses to do the same.

[@Disturbed0neGaming]

This kid doesn't actually want to learn anything, he just wants to impose his ignorance on others because it makes him feel good inside.

[@Diviance]

...did this guy say he was "neutral" in a situation that is a true dichotomy? (A) or Not (A). You (Do Believe) or you (Do Not Believe). True dichotomy. One of them must be the case because it is an exhaustive list of positions on the matter.

[@isaacbruner65]

There is a difference between not believing something and believing something is not true.

[@Diviance]

@@isaacbruner65 Yes, but both fall under "Do Not Believe".

[@BatManokov]

Non-belief is the default position until someone proves it exists.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

We know at least one universe exists through direct observation, so it's more likely a few more universes exist. We have no examples of transcendent creator-minds that don't need a beginning.

[@robertcarlyle6102]

21:22 If we observed life on another planet... Would that make God more or less likely to exist? I honestly don't know. WTF does that have to do with anything? - This is the only planet on which life exists - therefore God designed it that way! - There are myriad planets teeming with life - therefore God designed it that way! Talk about grasping for straws... It's just pointing at anything and everything and saying, "See? Goddidit!"

[@jr-pn1dt]

i wonder if they ever get the runs, stand up, and point at the ruined toilet and say “god did!”

[@Neat636]

It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

[@slim22rb]

We have barely scratched the surface searching for life in our own solar system and there are likely sextillions of solar systems.

[@jim7831]

I get the impression this guy called for an argument but was taken aback when it turned into an honest conversation. You could actually hear his tone change part way in

[@Doom351]

After the question of guilt I would asked him to provide opposite claim. Think it would help him understand that you don’t believe any positive claim without providing evidence and that’s why the answer is I don’t know. It would also reveal pretty fast if he is being genuine about it since there is not much space to run from the conclusion.

[@strezko]

This must be one of the funniest endings I ever witnessed, or at least I believe it is.

[@chrispysaid]

The scientific term for flying animals is *volant* just so you don't tell people there isn't one anymore

[@drg8687]

"Evolution isn't true because not all the fish became birds!" Me: Oh, this is going to be good. 🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿

[@TitenSxull]

This is so frustrating to watch. How is 'I have no belief' not the same to him as 'I don't believe'. It's so painful.

[@thedrizzle21]

This was a surprisingly pleasant conversation Peterson thank you

[@vorpalshortsword4504]

Guest didn't realize you can be 2 things at once

[@HowiTheOneAndOnly]

Ngl, this guy was pretty chill, and seemed way more open minded compared to the rest that he debated. Cool guy 👍

[@noconsequence4486]

Painfully low bar unfortunately

[@GrimAngel01100]

Damn Peterson, you missed a chance to make a great point. Dude had a brain slip and said Mt. Everest instead of Mt Rushmore. You should've focused on that. We can look at Mt Rushmore and say it was designed,but we can't look at Mt Everest and say it was designed, which is why his analogy falls apart.

[@anlacombe]

sounds like someone has watched Arrested Development lately

[@blargeane6260]

Everyone falls within one of three categories when it comes to their evaluation of any proposition. 1. I believe the green alien exists. 2. I don't believe the green alien exists. 3. I believe the green alien doesn't exist. There is no fourth option.

[@drg8687]

"I can look at Mount Everest and know.... wait I meant Mount Rushmore didn't emerge from water trickling down....." So, why can't you look at Mount Everest and not make the same conclusion as you do with Mount Rushmore? Isn't everything designed in your worldview? Disproved his own worldview.

[@phel21]

Evolution is change over time. Some changes complicate things, while others may simplify. The changes are random, but some changes are beneficial to survival while others are not or even detrimental. The environment influence what survives. What makes this to hard to comprehend? New species are created when individuals in a genetic branch have changed so much genetically that they no longer can breed with individuals of the specie they branched off from.

[@CharlesPayet]

Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a given population over time.

[@KhordLizardMage]

I wouldn't say there is zero evidence for any god. I say there is insufficient evidence for any god that I am aware of.

[@dalepalm1138]

I don't believe that person hasn't seen that particular saouthhh part episode !!!!

[@thefub101]

Language wasnt designed

[@Floormat212]

UNEXPECTED ARRESTED! C: Throw it in a pot with a potato, you got a stew going! T: I think I'd like my money back...

[@arno_grnfld455]

Asking if we found life on other planets is a pretty pointless argument, either its yes or no a god can be forced into it and you'd claim victory, if there's life on other planets, then god is just powerful like that, if there isnt, then earth life is created by god, what difference does it make, still an argument from ignorance

[@steveg1961]

As pointed out in chat, fish DID evolve into birds - but in a long convoluted way. First, some fish evolved into amphibians. Then, some amphibians evolved into reptiles. Then, some reptiles evolve into pterosaurs (which are still reptiles, and not dinosaurs). Some other reptiles evolved into dinosaurs. Then, some dinosaurs evolved into birds. Also, going back to reptiles, some other reptiles evolved into mammals. Then, some mammals evolved into bats (which are mammals). So fish evolved into three very different types of flying creatures ((including birds), through convoluted evolutionary histories, at least three different times.

[@AXKfUN9m]

Wrong. A branch of ancient lobe finned fishes developed into the tetrapodomorpha, of which today only tetrapoda survives. At this point most tetrapods were likely amphibians (in the sense that they lived partly in water partly on land, not that they were part of amphibia class). Modern amphibians then separated from reptiliomorpha. Reptilipmorpha lead to amniota which separated into sauropoda and sinapsida (mammals and extinct relatives). Of sauropoda the only extant clade now is sauria, composed of lizards, snakes, turtles, crocodilians and birds.

[@steveg1961]

@@AXKfUN9m Well it was kind of silly for you to say "wrong" - since you pointed out exactly the same thing I pointed out, with just a bit more details. Did you not understand what the word "some" means in what I wrote? But I do appreciate you adding more specific terms.

[@AXKfUN9m]

@@steveg1961 No, I said wrong because you wrote "reptiles", when in fact those weren't reptiles but reptile-like (we think) or scientifically reptiliomorpha.

[@steveg1961]

@AXKfUN9m Thank you for the update. I read that they were considered reptiles until recently, but now "Reptiliomorpha," so thank for the update. I hadn't heard about that yet.

[@AXKfUN9m]

@steveg1961 No problem. Being wrong isn't bad, staying ignorant and denying reality is.

[@chrispysaid]

"evidences" isn't a word. The plural of evidence is evidence, like the plural of data is data. (Though technically we use 'data' wrong too because data is already plural, 'datum' is the singular, but usually we say "points of data" so it's whatever)

[@ROFT]

It's not a word in that sense, but you can use it as a verb e.g. the hair clippings on the floor evidences the fact that someone had their hair cut

[@chrispysaid]

@@ROFT correct, it can be used as a verb in that sense

[@TheThinkingDead]

The dude spent 27 mins asking questions and pretending to be curious just to find the right moment to push Peterson across the gigantic gap between "I'm unsure of origins" to "this one specific god did it and nothing else." They always seem to want people to cross this unfathomably massive gap with no critical thinking. Basically "Why not just believe my god did it." And they are oblivious, or pretend to be, to this tactic.

[@Floormat212]

Did YT say which community guidelines were violated?

[@EricBurns1]

28:55 inflation in the Big Bang, while still kind of disputed, could mean the multiverse exists

[@spin.chicken]

I do believe Peterson on agnosticism. However, if someone asked me "Do you believe there is 3000 marbles in this jar" I would say "I believe there could be, but there also could not be." So the guy is correct about HIS example, but his example is a false equivalence to what Peterson was discussing in the first place.

[@Kenny-ll4yw]

Not believing a claim =/= believing a claim is false

[@justterrible_9988]

Not believing something is true mean you do not believe it is true. This does not mean you believe it is false, you just have doubts or are not convinced

[@user-xe5qo3sn4z]

Is this not an older video? Seems very familiar

[@ClayManIon]

Guacamole is made from avocado.

[@kcarter2958]

The theists always want to play this game of infinite regression. Where did the earth come from? When told that it coalesced from a primordial cloud of dust and matter they then ask where that came from and on and on until they chase you back to the big bang singularity. When you cannot answer where the singularity came from or if there was anything before it they pounce and say therefore God! OK, fine. Then where did God come from? Was there anything before God? Who made God? You see, I prefer to stop at the scientifically understood singularity and they prefer to go one step further to God because it comforts them but in essence it is the very same - as of right now - unanswerable question.

[@thefub101]

Everyone is either a theist or not a theist eg an Atheist.

[@JuhoPurola]

There are three choices: I believe there is, I don't believe there is/is not, I believe there is not. The dude keeps equating the last two, while using "I don't know", which is the knowledge equivalent of the middle option. So frustrating.

[@jordanmoran916]

It irritates me when people refer to evolution as making things "better". Better is subjective. It makes things different and more suited towards their environment. They love to claim humans as superior animals. We are no better or worse than any other animal, just different.

[@davids11131113]

‘As far as we know life only exists on earth nowhere else’ …. I don’t think he understands how vast the universe is, from what we know about life on earth it would to me be wildly unlikely that life ONLY exists here on earth and not trillions of other similar planets in some way. It COULD be that life only exists on earth, as the Bible says, but then the Bible said this is the only planet which is just wrong. And once again this guy is now on to demands you must explain the entirety of cosmology and if you can’t then it’s ‘AHA got you, you don’t know so see god did it!’ 🙄

[@Neat636]

@planetpeterson2824 the example should be I have a belief that it's true I have a belief that it's false or I don't have any and the claim that I don't have any belief is what atheism is

[@PickleRickGSF]

you should have given the examples of shelled sea creatures that all look like crabs but are not crabs....just have similar armored plating lol

[@davids11131113]

I don’t know why people think there’s ‘evolution’ or ‘god’ and if you don’t believe in god whichever god then now you have the burden of proof to explain evolution to them. First of all they could just claim evolution is what god does, most Christian’s actually do today, and also I know enough about evolution to explain it at maybe a high school science level but it m not a PhD biologist so you’d have to go question them about evolution.

[@ZRBx4]

Ah so now a streamer has to do the captcha. Trying to combat robot channels I see

[@planetpeterson2824]

what?

[@ZRBx4]

@@planetpeterson2824 towards the end of the video you paused and said your phone made you do that verify you are human thing. I figured it’s to battle against AI streamers and such.

[@ZRBx4]

@@planetpeterson2824 ordered your rational answers book last night. I find joy in your channel. Thanks for that. Looking forward to having that sucka on my poop throne.

[@Ktmfan450]

I would loved to see PP on The Line as a guest host along side Forest Valkai or Aron Ra or Matt

[@WetDoggo]

👉 "So n so is guilty!" I don't believe your claim, since I don't know about evidence pro or contra

[@foolishlyludicrous]

Dude appears to be confused about the difference between "not believing in x" and "believing x to not be true. "

[@guitarista67]

I've decided theists don't matter because they don't live in the same world I do.

[@raymondregis6219]

Third World repairman - makes do with what's available - sandals from worn tire treads.

[@BatManokov]

Language is just sounds humans make.

[@AXKfUN9m]

It doesn't need to be sounds or made by humans. And it needs to have other qualities too, like being able to convey messages, having structured systems with rules and terms that define objects and ideas.

[@guitarista67]

Nothing is miraculous, because miracles don't exist or occur.

[@Qzopr1]

I only say I don't believe in god because someone is asking. Otherwise, god is a non subject in my life. It's not a "step" I'm taking. It's just the answer to their question. "Does a god exist?" I don't know. "Do you believe a god exists?" I don't. It's so simple a child could understand. This why I know the theists are being intentionally obtuse.

[@billyjackthestrong1604]

I know that Thor exists. Have you ever seen ice giants? I'm gonna say not Thor said he would destroy. All ice giants, since you've never seen one. There's the evidence that the thor exists.

[@David34981]

"We 're gonna go in circles about that"... Because he is just wrong, and doesn't want to admit it. Of course you're gonna go in circles if you keep asserting something that is so obviously wrong.

[@nicholasbutner3039]

This guy gets so close with the gumball analogy and the not guilty verdict analogy, but somehow he is completely missing the mark. At least he's not an a-hole and is genuinely interested in having a conversation, but it is frustrating to hear him circling a correct view of lacking a belief without actually landing on it. There's hope for him, though, because he's 95% of the way there. Dumpster fire conversations are fun in their own way, but I do enjoy listening to discussions Peterson has with interlocutors who aren't arrogantly ignorant. I'll take a conversation like this one over another brain-deadening exercise in futility with Angel or Flat Earth Aussie Jesus Ross any day of the week.

[@Mxxx-ii9bu]

Hear, hear. (Or is it "here, here?")

[@nicholasbutner3039]

I suppose it's neither here nor there. Sorry! I just couldn't resist the pun.

[@Mxxx-ii9bu]

😁

[@smallduck1001001]

Dude has such a personal lens with which he views belief that he doesn't even understand what the word means. Hilarious.

[@kristopherfisher2517]

is this the ''i am not an ape, you are'' guy?

[@planetpeterson2824]

Yeah he’s been on a few times

[@madara211000]

@@planetpeterson2824 No wonder his condescending attitude felt familiar

[@displacegamer1379]

6:54 Peterson there's no need to try to obfuscate this point. Just bite the bullet and say language is created. If we use a very loose form of the word created then we can obviously say that language was created. You understand what he's saying. By you obfuscating this point and drawing it out you're not allowing the conversation to continue. Just bite the bullet and say language was created and see where this goes.

[@ROFT]

About 25 seconds after your timestamp he allowed for the use of the word despite it not being used correctly. This guy talks in riddles and not understanding words so it would seem quite important to not allow him to smuggle in BS because of sloppy use of words.

[@nio804]

Creation to me implies something intentional. The vast majority of languages have not been created by anyone, but emerged organically from people communicating. The vocabulary and accepted grammar of any living language changes constantly and that change never stops. It's not like people have a get together and decide what the grammar of their language is; some people have *tried* for sure, but it's ultimately futile. Really, the concept of "a language" as something that's actually clearly definable doesn't really make sense. Languages blend together and interact in weird ways that make it impossible to actually say where one language ends and another begins.

[@displacegamer1379]

@@nio804 I also agree that creation implies intention. People intend to communicate their intent or desires to others. And through this intention they create a system of communication that when refined generates a language. So the creation of language is intentional.

[@nio804]

@@displacegamer1379 I don't think that kind of intent counts in this case; that feels like a loose justification because the word happens to be the same in two different contexts. People will make up words and other features as necessary, but they have very little intentional control over what happens to the language as a whole.

[@displacegamer1379]

@@nio804 My use of "intent," whether in the context of creation in general or the creation of language as a system of communication, remains consistent. Language is a deliberate and controlled process. Just because its creation occurs in a more natural manner, compared to, for example, the creation of a car, does not diminish its status as a creation. The concept of creation and intent is not contingent on complete control over the entirety of the creation. Most individuals have limited intentional control over the outcomes of their creations as a whole, yet this does not diminish their status as creators or the creation. Karl Benz, for instance, created the car, yet he had limited intentional control over its subsequent use and outcomes. This lack of complete control does not diminish the car's status as a creation.

[@Nipponing]

16:10 Hahahaha! 17:00 Why would you even consider that it could be evidence? 29:00 We knew he was stupid by being religious but right here he's showing to be extra stupid. How is he speaking English normally otherwise?

[@Th3MrJ3st3r]

So we eventually get to the main crux of the matter, this dude doesn't know what atheist and agnostic mean. When people don't know what a word means and aren't willing to accept the definition of that word, it kind of breaks down discussion a bit. Not necessarily his own fault, maybe he's been brought up with a twisted definition of the words.

[@thanksalotAndy]

This guy misses logic about not believing. This seems to be because it goes against his arguments against non believers of his dog.

[@GojoStiglitz]

There’s no evidence for a parallel universe?? Kid, you need to watch some Marvel movies😂