JORDAN PETERSON VS MATT DILLAHUNTY for the FIRST TIME EVER! Does God Exist?

#jordanpeterson #jordanpetersondaily #jordanpetersonquotes #jordanpetersondebate #jordanpetersonshorts #jordanpetersonmemes #mattdillahunty #atheism #atheist #atheistviews #pangburn #pangburnphilosophy #debate #god
Matt Dillahunty goes head to head with Jordan Peterson on God, Religion, Morality & more!
(No portion of this recording may be reproduced by any means without written permission.)
This event took place in 2018 in Toronto, Canada.

[@Pangburn]

JOIN US IN NYC ON JUNE 1st for ALEX O'CONNOR vs DINESH D'SOUZA on "IS THE BIBLE TRUE?" Tickets available here: www.pang-burn.com/tickets

[@True_Heretic]

Dinesh D'Souza is a professional liar and traitor. He's arguably the worst (Far Right) propagandist in the USA.

[@jakehurley197]

Question #1 made me spit my drink out. Best possible way to get him to actually start to answer the question we've all been asking him for years.

[@ryanhoffman5477]

Ask Matt what is a woman? There's a word salad that makes no comprehension! 😂

[@lifeofacraig9899]

This was 2018

[@iamborg3of9]

I stopped smoking without any drugs because I felt like it.

[@spicytoast6890]

Good for you. That doesn't prove him wrong

[@iamborg3of9]

@spicytoast6890 I didn't say it proved anyone wrong. I was patting myself on the back

[@spicytoast6890]

@@iamborg3of9 well, really, good for you. I needed drugs to help me quit lol.

[@spicytoast6890]

@@_Stargazer_. My best advice is that when you do quit, don't count how many days it's been since you last smoked - counting just means you expect to fail. When you quit, your identity shifts to "non smoker," not a "old smoker." You DO NOT SMOKE.

[@chrisbingham3289]

I am 66 years old and in my life I have had thousands of people say they gave up smoking, but virtual all said they still miss it.

[@arctictruck10]

Why can't people just say I don't know

[@tetashome]

ego/fear

[@blupandax7902]

If religious people say they do know certain things, atheists will say “you aren’t allowed to say you don’t know, if you believe in all-powerful God you should know all of the answers.” But apparently atheists are allowed to say they don’t know?

[@tetashome]

@@blupandax7902 If a religious person told me they don't know a certain thing, that is definitely something that i would not even conceive of asking. It seems like you've just made a strawman there.

[@blupandax7902]

@@tetashome It’s not a strawman, I have actually come across an atheist who asked me that same thing.

[@fenrirhere]

@@blupandax7902 the reasonable person aims for justified true belief. If you believe in a proposition for which you don't have valid evidence, that's irrational. If you don't have valid evidence to believe in the claim, then you should refer to the default position, non belief, until the burden of proof for the proposition is met. An atheist gets to say I don't know because they aren't making a truth claim.

[@huskypup3489]

I love Jordan Peterson, but it’s painful to listen to him dance around the issue of whether he believes in the supernatural. Biblical stories and hallucinogenic experiences aren’t evidence of the supernatural.

[@marcozegikniet9301]

Why would you love a corporate propaganda shill !

[@LeoWhalen1933]

Why do you love him?

[@huskypup3489]

@@LeoWhalen1933 Because he's one of the premier voices speaking up about the excesses of the radical Left.

[@ajeeh1027]

​@@huskypup3489 Here we go

[@happyrascal1009]

​@@huskypup3489nothing left on them. Radical woke?

[@Rancher512]

God is not a being. He is being.

[@miguelcervantes5569]

where he at tho

[@SkeptiCol_3M]

Kendrick Lamar is not a rapper. He is rapper. - I wish you knew how you sound 😅🤦

[@trip4923]

​@@SkeptiCol_3MChildren's music.

[@oscarsalas1]

that's a claim, we need the evidence.

[@Mustanaamio7]

God is dog written backwards.

[@thearch1tect249]

What amazes me about Peterson is that he says so much and yet says nothing all at the same time! Truly astounding!-- William Ockham says that if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one.--

[@DemePoole]

Yes! He is a time waster! Intellectual dishonesty at its finest!

[@glenalguire6960]

I don’t think you have the ability to understand what he’s saying

[@glenalguire6960]

@@DemePooledon’t listen to him then , he’s one of the most popular speakers there has ever been , why would so many people attend his lectures ? I guess his fans are just idiots

[@thearch1tect249]

@@glenalguire6960 Oh I understand alright. But I'll let you insult regardless!

[@DemePoole]

@@glenalguire6960 The man is dishonest and a time waster. Also, it's a debate. How can I not listen to the guy? And just because someone is popular doesn't mean anything they have to say is worth something. Hell, Hitler was popular. And, yes. His fans are morons. Have a good day, kid.

[@CreativeMaxer]

Peterson want's to be the teacher, the moderator and superior intellectual, want's to have the final say on the matter. He is more immature than he realizes. If at all.

[@LeoWhalen1933]

As a dignified Jordan Peterson sycophant, I must say the narrative form of the situational construct implies a metaphorical substrate, which inevitably informs the pathos of the question. So therefore, you agree with the specified Jordan Peterson verbal discharge whether or not your thoughts gravitate towards a conditional agreement of the other mentioned arguments.

[@Ayrton22432]

I think maybe Matt is forgetting to add “evil” to his equation. He starts from the perspective that everyone is 100% lucid and wants the best for others as much as they want for themselves. One can corrupt anything for one's own purpose. We cannot assume that everyone will follow the rules that are in everyone's best interest.

[@vrz2000]

His position on morality is if we can agree that we care about something, you can create objective standards based on what we subjectively agree upon ie. wellbeing etc. Sure you can argue that the fact that morality starts as subjective is an issue; the problem you addressed that one can corrupt anything for one’s own purpose doesn’t get solved with appealing to a god.

[@Ayrton22432]

​@@vrz2000 I did not say that God - or religion - would resolve this issue. In fact, religion is one of the best examples that everything can be corrupted. I'm talking about Matt saying with such certainty that everyone would naturally seek out everyone's best interest, and that probably won't happen. The issue is even deeper because we need a structural hierarchy, and let's say the people at the top could pursue very different interests, because - perhaps - they don't care about whats best for everyone. I was just trying to address the fact that the problem is much deeper than Matt was suggesting.

[@vrz2000]

@@Ayrton22432 I see, thank you for the clarification and the thought provoking comments

[@Ayrton22432]

@@vrz2000I thank you for being polite in bringing up a good point for my argument🤝

[@joe.ps5]

It looks like Jordan hates that when people are applauding matt 😮😅

[@garymanz3403]

Dillahunty is correct: We’re more afraid of being exposed as being wrong, than actually of being wrong. Thats why he rage quit after Andrew Wilson eviscerated his humanist position after only the opening statement.

[@elijahochoa6517]

But we’re all wrong 😂

[@elijahochoa6517]

Every statement ever said by man was a quite literal shot into the labyrinth of open space. Considering we have not been able to establish a unity nor a means to understand even our very selves everything thus far is just as wrong as every statement ever made. For if not, we’d all be on the same page

[@ryanhoffman5477]

Matt likes a hotdog in his chocolate pocket!

[@Tropdop]

The left hemisphere of a brain telling the right hemisphere he doesn’t need him.

[@jalawto]

Jordan won’t let a productive conversation happen

[@gehtkeinenwasan8087]

yeah he is a "blinder"

[@jameshenderson7607]

When you’re having a discussion on the the metaphysical it requires unpacking a plethora of meta conversations

[@Harm1488]

I think he forgot his fedora 😂😂😂

[@Zion66666]

MD: is there a god? JP: Metaphorical substrate, hierarchies, post modern, blah blah blah

[@johnmoonitz2968]

How to say "I don't understand what he said." without actually saying "I don't understand what he said." Jordan Peterson is clear in his language. I don't agree with everything he says, but this is also a rather brief conversation, and I have no doubt that, given the time, both of these men would be able to better explain what it is they are saying . . . even to the satisfaction of those who have a tough time grasping such concepts. If, however, all you are doing is playing the part of a mindless contrarian, then there will be no convincing you of anything other than what you want to believe to be true.

[@Zion66666]

@@johnmoonitz2968 since you ask,I’ve a PhD in medicine. I’ve no problem understanding that JP uses sesquipedalian speech to obfuscate. Unlike JP I find it easier to simply call it a bunch of nonsense. The reason he is popular is that people like you are distracted by his big words and miss the core of what he is saying, which to be fair is not very much.

[@davidevans1723]

⁠those big werdz and PhD do not mean you understand jp's points conceptually...however I definitely agree with you on the sentiment that he tends to be verbose and exaggerate intensity

[@brockwhite8699]

​@@davidevans1723 You're stuck in the metaphorical substrate my brother.

[@sassyrobin420]

@@Zion66666 From your name, I’d guess you graduated from Lucifer High, and he is the Father of Lies…

[@SkeptiCol_3M]

"Well, if you think about the celestial beings of dogmatic and pragmatic conjunctions, it all boils down to metagenetics surrounding the acquisitions of the supercalifragilisticexpialidocious nature of existence." Uh okay.... Thanks, Mr. Peterson....

[@BlueTruthSpeaker]

"Uhh I I'm just not convinced. and I'm so enlightened for not ever taking a position on anything or adding any value to any discussion ever" -Matt in every discussion ever.

[@theQuestion626]

@@BlueTruthSpeaker it’s not what I think happened here. Because guess what? Peterson didn’t prove his arguments. But he made more of an effort to not prove his arguments then the opposite.

[@user-qj8pq2im7f]

More of this please

[@Jacob-yb3hz]

Literally all of their videos are clips of like 3 events that happened in 2018. Just go watch the whole events and you've watched the whole channel.

[@jrgenbentzen9181]

Atheistic people and religious people have the exact same moral views. They actually believe Theres differences between them

[@kentnumber126]

Agreed

[@MaryvalePress]

The secular morality sounds exactly like natural law.

[@davidevans1723]

"I took a gram of mushrooms in college and I can tell you for a fact that getting high isn't God"

[@davidevans1723]

Foolishness

[@kungfupanda8334]

Try taking an ounce.

[@w8m4n]

How can an act be a being?

[@davidevans1723]

@@w8m4nan experience of all being

[@w8m4n]

@@davidevans1723 meaning what!? What's THAT got to do with a god?

[@TavianMusic]

I thought the video froze

[@whyfuckinchannel]

Matt really doesn’t get enough credit for the decades he’s spent advancing skepticism and rational thinking.

[@tonythomas1010]

Rational thinking will always lead you to god.

[@whyfuckinchannel]

@@tonythomas1010 no.

[@ThaBigMan69]

Absofuckinglutely not 😂​@@tonythomas1010

[@kylewadejohnson]

​@@tonythomas1010that makes zero sense

[@tonythomas1010]

@@kylewadejohnson scientists say the universe came from nothing and regions say the universe came from some omnipotent entity. Which hypothesis is more rational and why?

[@residential360kelvinsarver3]

Jordan’s ego is clearly fragile

[@harkema8090]

Do not put mr. Peterson in court. ( explanation of the color of a car: well, you see. that depends..)😊

[@glenalguire6960]

My god is the best you can do to criticize jp

[@userlamezz]

@@glenalguire6960what

[@riohenry6382]

He only asks for clarifications when we're getting into an area where peoples' understanding of a word can differ wildly

[@highju]

Well, it does depend...if you want the truth...how many people have unjustly gone to jail on a little detail such as what color shirt was he wearing when the crime was committed?

[@NeonSlime-uu5kt]

He's the King of Word Salad but I like him.

[@mirapilates]

Matt said that JP's agent told him not to debate Matt again after this. Its pretty obvious this exposed Petersons nonsense. As Sam Harris said, Peterson attaches meaning where there is none. Hes like that kid that took his first philosophy class and rambles trying to sound deep.

[@lukedegraaf1186]

Was that like a minute before the metaphorical substrate was mentioned? What is it? He mentions it a lot.

[@singwithpowerinfo5815]

It’s all about the metaphysical substrate. 👍

[@lukedegraaf1186]

@@singwithpowerinfo5815 as helpful as Jordan. Thanks?

[@turntablesrockmyworld9315]

Kind of like the cultural narrative that underpins cultures. He feels many narratives have metaphors important for human existence.

[@sartori69]

@thedude-kl5zh "Repuslively verbose" is an absolutely PERFECT phrase to describe Jordan Peterson's metaphorical and simultaneously metaphysical manifestation of the verbal feces that is excreted directly from the powerfully ejective and evocative sphincters of North American male cattle.

[@orangemanbad]

Look within yourself and you may find answers rather than seeking on social media.

[@constructivecritique5191]

6:28 being wrong doesn't feel the same as being right. One builds confidence, and the other weakness.

[@davidbentley4731]

Surely the explanation for people perceiving these experiences as supernatural is that the visual and conceptual experience does not comport with anything in their experience of the natural world plus it evokes an emotion which is beyond the emotion they feel on a daily basis. It makes sense to then try to understand how such experiences could possibly be generated by the same world as the one they experience every day. It’s not that mysterious.

[@javierbenez7438]

Alberta is not, in fact, bigger than Texas

[@vincewithslapchop3940]

Texas is about 10k more sqaure miles than Alberta, according to google.

[@robertlemon6583]

God can't be doubted or had faith in.. God is so fundamental and so obvious that "it" almost always goes unnoticed.

[@miguelcervantes5569]

where he at tho? i never seen him

[@robertlemon6583]

@@miguelcervantes5569 god can't be objectified as an "other" but is something fundamental to your being. Existence itself, reality itself, something you have never questioned or denied. The IS-NESS of the universe.

[@rabid_si]

@@robertlemon6583 Cool, that's just the universe bro.

[@charlesgoad6695]

I love the idea of this debate should be really interesting

[@burgesj7]

This was actually enjoyable for the most part. I hesitated to watch this expecting major frustration and yet it was actually a pleasant back and forth. Even though I align with Matt, I still love Jordan

[@zimpoooooo]

I like Jordan, but as soon as someone mentions God he goes all in nonsense. Totally conflating what he wants with that actually is.

[@rabid_si]

@@zimpoooooo I don't understand. That's JP all the time.

[@CarlFredrik-uo1cu]

I wanna see Noam Chomsky, Jon Stewart, Bill Burr, and Jesse Ventura debate Jordan Peterson.

[@jalawto]

My fantasy is Jordan Peterson goes on Opie and Anthony back when they had a show and Louis Ck, Jim Norton, and Patrice O’Neil are also guests and they make fun of JP the entire episode

[@theQuestion626]

Jordan Peterson was pretty much decimated during this discussion. Matt Dillahunty was handling him very patiently. John Stewart would absolutely decimate him even more than he already was here. I especially loved at the beginning of this discussion Peterson with his smug arrogance when he says “ready to go?“ And then you see him do this little theatrical way of sitting with his legs crossed his hands folded and he leans back into his chair as if he’s some kind of hypnotist. Peterson is a crank masquerading as an intellectual. And so far his star has burned out.

[@rabid_si]

I wanna see Noam Chomsky, Jon Stewart, Bill Burr and Jesse Ventura fight Jordan Peterson in a Hell in a Cell cage match.

[@jameshenderson7607]

Matt is purposely being obtuse because the moment you start getting into the metaphysical substrate you have to acknowledge metaphysical governance at a higher order and rule than those subjected to it.

[@WillieBloom]

I’m an apostate and an atheist my entire adult life so over 30 years and counting. That said, I note an inability or maybe disinterest in understanding what Dr Peterson is trying to say. I can’t figure out which it is. I do not by any means agree with Dr Peterson about everything all the time but I do believe that I could steel man him quite well. No wonder Matt, Sam, Richard and Jordan speak past one another at every engagement.

[@Momokyun]

50:22 I would argue that the chess analogy was bad because the Christian view would be that a supernatural power outside of the game gave us the answers to every chess move so that we could always win in that game of chess. And when you compare life to chess, well as an atheist you don't actually know if you win or lose with your set of moves, obviously you are choosing what "you" think is best. This is easily destroyed by the "objective morality" argument that Christian's would present. I'm not going to lie. I've been an atheist my whole life, but I do believe in God after many of these debates and reading both narratives. The atheist point of view always comes down to "have faith in not having faith" or something along those lines.... I don't think any atheist ever applies that logic fully to their entire life. Secular morality introduces the ability for a society to grow into something that we know is morally wrong if the bad actors out numbered the good. For example, slavery, rape, etc could all become legal in a future where people who secularly view it wrong are killed off/died off/etc and then the ones who think it's morally okay (lol..) out numbered them. "Society" determining morality doesn't really make sense. Obviously we have to look for objective morality which is just something that we know is good or evil without it being a secular opinion.

[@lazaruscomeforth7646]

Well said.

[@vrz2000]

It seems you are misunderstanding his chess analogy. Matt’s point is that once you subjectively agree on a moral standard, ie. wellbeing of humans etc, you can create objective standards that are either better or worse for that goal. So the “moves” we make are not just what we “think” are correct, it’s objective standards we are creating that strive towards the goal. If the goal in chess is to win, you can analyze a position and find out whether it’s a bad or good one based on the rules and goal of the game. Your god does not provide an objective morality, it is still your gods morality, subjugating it to that god. Your argument that secular people could move towards allowing slavery, rape etc gets destroyed by the fact that CHRISTIANS used the BIBLE to justify all the slavery that was done in america. Your argument for gods morality does not solve the issues and critiques you’re sending towards a secular morality. People will always read the bible with their own “discernment” which is why there is 1000+++++ denominations where they conflict at every corner of doctrine and all have conflicting moral values. So your argument bears absolutely no weight. The fact that you think atheists argue that you need faith in not having faith or whatever just proves that you are absolutely unequipped for this conversation.

[@ElChristew]

Answering the first question: Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Words will never pass away. Jesus is the Word of God, the answer is: God is the always was and is and is to come. I Am that I Am.

[@benedictdonald4338]

Word salad.

[@akaKRANNI]

🤣🤣🤣 I LOOOVVE when people start saying word salad. There is nothing better to show how one can't defend what's being said... it shows that they just don't like it.

[@aukemebel4263]

@@akaKRANNI It refers to that the person is speaking absolute nonsense that has either: nothing to do with the topic, using a lot of words to hide that they in fact said nothing, or gish galloping as they made a lot of unsubstantiated claims without backing any of them up with evidence. To "defend what's being said", he quotes three quotes from the bible. it's merely three claims in a set of books that claim they are divine. "my holy book says this man is divine so it must be true" Neither of the claims prove anything about jesus' supernatural claims being true. The books have been changed over time, which is why there are so many interpretations and sects of christianity, so that is wrong. "Jesus is the Word of God, the answer is: God is the always was and is and is to come." So god is everything, great! that has no explanatory power. who caused this? God. Who did that? God. This explains nothing, only shifting the explanation to something you can also not explain. "I am that I am" woo, a deepity. I am also who I am. This basically refers to everything with the law of identity. A = A If you want to interpret it as some statement about his godhood. great, then it becomes, my book says it is true. There, addressed all the bible quotes and I still think it is word salad as it still says nothing about the original topic.

[@PickledRick87]

Circular argument

[@ElChristew]

No argument, truth us truth

[@MissGreenFingers]

True freedom is if your not enslaved to any form of enforced rules by strangers in your life. Just following the rules is not bad if you find meaning in them. The biggest misunderstanding is that ethics and morality vanishes when you do not bow down to religious belifes. But in my opionon, then true ethics and morality stops when your headless follow rules - fx. through religion. People 2000 years ago knew this. Law, democraci, human rights etc. were build from ideas where religion (another hierachy) were put out of the picture. Read Socrates, Aristotle, Nietzsche and Dewey, Lippmand and most importantly John Locke. It's brilliant thinkers who forged the future of the west, as it is today and their work helped people navigate and challenge the world towards freedom for the common folk. A people that diden't know true democraci, freedom, pay for their labor, freedom of speech, property rights - everything the west values so deeply today. Some of these people where hated and hunted for their ideas of true liberty and self-thinking, especially John Locke. If someone hints that something good come out of you thinking less and follow rules blindless. There is something wrong. Except if it's a parent telling a kid not to touch the hot stew, becuase they "says so".

[@davidplantillas261]

I stopped smoking 11 years ago after smoking for 16 years. Mainly because it was an expensive habit.

[@timrounse5186]

One man’s mysticism is another man’s surreal. Before chemistry was understood it was “mystical” now that we understand it, it’s not.

[@miguelcervantes5569]

but we proved the chemistry and its reliability but not god being real :( soooooooo try again

[@miguelcervantes5569]

god was before chemistry , but we cant prove hes real. is crazy to think

[@CoachMak]

I don’t understand the comment section The discussion was fine, both people made points There is NO WAY to discuss these issues in 60 minutes

[@klaytonthorpe3050]

It’s a bunch of godless liberals crying because they hate Peterson. 😉☺️

[@timothyglassbrook4886]

Most people don't understand what their "opponent" is saying and decry it as nonsense rather than admitting they don't understand. That's my take on the comment sections of these types of debates anyway

[@mitslev4043]

Both sides did really good. Jordan isn't really a debater like Matt. Jordan is hard to understand and many people hate him anyway so people just side with Matt. Jordan held his own very well. If he was a better debater I think he could have really pushed Matt. Jordan is in his own world at times and Matt uses weird definitions that make him difficult in a debate. But Matt can definitely lose if you know his style.

[@kevinmyousfi2809]

So , peterson believe a being called god exists or not ?

[@timothyglassbrook4886]

@@kevinmyousfi2809 it depends on the definition you use. By his definition I would say yes

[@deanmaynard8256]

Peterson is sophism personified. Strangely but not surprisingly, he lacks the self-awareness to realise this,

[@RoddyFuhr]

He's being deceptive without realizing that he's being deceptive?

[@frapin22]

Jordan: “I think it’s hard to make the distinction between what’s useful and what’s real.” 1st question in…How tf does anyone take this guy seriously…

[@Blockhead140]

PRAISE GOD!

[@arcceejay3500]

F ur God!😂

[@chrisellis4400]

I'm 2 minutes in and I can't fucking do it. JP is talking gibberish.

[@derekrockafella9350]

God is the Universe and Jesus is his Sun 🌞 the light of the world..our savior.

[@donnagodfrey1924]

Jordan begins by spewing a string of long words, presumably to sound intellectual, but it really doesn't mean much. Word salad comes to mind. This was 6 years ago and he has actually become more lost and confused over the years, but I think he is ok these days - hope so.

[@chatpilot]

Listening to JP talk is torture at the highest level! I thought this was Deepak Chopra's forte. He can't seem to answer a question directly without going on a tangent about things that in the end don't answer the question at all. To hell with William L. Craig! This guy makes him look like an amateur theologian. At least they kept it respectful and cordial.

[@murraylove]

JP's vocalising is more tolerable if you lift the speed to 1.25 or even 1.5

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

All are amateurs. Anything on two legs

[@mmelimahlobo7656]

Dr Peterson said it a long time ago that what a person believes to be true is what they act out,I think Matt cannot act out his claim or if he can he is not

[@seaofnihilism4637]

You dont understand Matt’s claim

[@Flibberty-Giblets]

⁠@@seaofnihilism4637I’m not sure they understand Peterson’s claim, because it’s gibberish as usual and not really understandable.

[@Adler_GGG]

He basically says, "Show me current proof of supernatural things or say idk, GO!" That aint hard. In the end when you have nothing left, you will revert to the spiritual.

[@paulgemme6056]

If a man says he has never done wrong/sinned he is a liar, and the truth is not in him. Fear controls the atheists; they are afraid to admit they are sinners in need of God's Grace and Mercy (that's called pride - God resists the proud but gives Grace to the humble). We are born sinners; we do not have to teach a child how to do wrong/sin/lie. We have to teach them that lying is not a good thing, it is wrong/sinful. Children lie/sin to cover up their wrongdoing. Born with the capability to do so. Jesus Christ is our only hope. Our Living hope. Atheists, the world and the devil (Satan) offer no hope. Only trust, faith in Christ Jesus gives hope, peace, joy. To know him is eternal life. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.

[@BjornAndreasBull-Hansen]

I had no idea that Peterson had gone so far into Lala land.

[@user-ym7ss6xb3j]

You should watch the many videos of him crying while talking about Jesus 😂😂

[@Cander617]

Just cuz ur an idiot didn't mean every one is

[@LukeMcGuireoides]

Or him crying while talking about men

[@In_Paradiso58]

@@user-ym7ss6xb3j Ta for the info...

[@bykurt_is]

Give some examples

[@darrenbrown7037]

People are so quick to write Jordan off.. I think Matt is amazing and his views hold strong, but Jordan makes a lot of strong points here, all of which people quickly reduce to nonsensical mumbo jumbo because it’s easy for them to push it away without thinking about it. Jordan is fighting for the side of the subjective, which is pushed away by science, but is an important and undeniable aspect of the human experience. It’s a massive part of who we are. We all experience this world in our own way, and our dreams, hallucinations, mystical or spiritual leanings, all fall under the umbrella of existing within the realm of our collective experience. It shouldn’t be denied and it is important. Both sides are important. Of course no one can prove or disprove God. But Jordan is saying a lot of good stuff here.

[@anthonyberard3507]

You can disprove God. Einstein's equation is E=.mc^2*gamma. P=E/t. It follows then that P=mc^2*gamma/t. Claim: God is immaterial (mass is zero). Plug in zero for m. P=0*stuff =0 Thus, God's power is zero. This is equivalent to saying God does not exist.

[@SeanSk1lz]

@@anthonyberard3507 The mistake you make is you compare God to the material realm like an artefact on a table? Like his power is depended on his material mass. The reason God is a receding Horizon on which we will never reach is because as the “Absolute” God has nothing to compare itself to. Representing the highest ideal that could animate us through life. Whereas we are constantly comparing ourselves to our past choices, insecurities and other people etc. How do we transcend the things we need to shed? After all we are an animated spirit that can be made manifest in the world, effecting the fabric of the world around us based on the consequential decisions / choices & life experiences over time within the self. So how do we tackle these without descending further into hell like a non believer might… making those who tap in to his “power” become more like the manifested spirit of God than he / she was the previous day. The angels in heaven for all eternity are crying out Holy Holy Holy! As they discover a new facet of God that they didn’t know existed. This is represented in us as humans as we discover parts of ourself being made manifest that we didn’t know was possible. Then this opens the landscapes of how these parts of ourselves could manifest themselves into the eternal landscape of all the possibilities of experiences of life yet to be experienced in the future. All of this being possible through Gods spirit that we have allowed to work through us. How can this spirit work though us though? Well we know God has nothing to compare himself to. Where we do compare ourselves. Therefore God is the highest ideal on which we would like to be. How do we get closer to that…? It works by us confronting our sin? The Hebrew for sin means “To miss the mark” That mark will be different for each individual. But we all repeat patterns of behaviour that we are in denial about, or are not brave enough to confront. So how do we get passed it? The Cross is the answer. Bear your cross and crucify what is holding you back, and use the weight of that suffering, confronting it voluntarily, REMEMBER it and use it to propel you forward to project yourself and those around you in to a better future. To allow Gods manifestation to take place, to reach the Father, you need to do two things simultaneously. That is the contrast of your past suffering, feel the weight of it, but recognise it’s in the past, that you have voluntarily crucified this through the cross of Jesus, whilst simultaneously envisioning the potential future that could now be made manifest in PLACE OF THAT SIN that you has been removed. This is where the power of Gods manifestion fills your spirit and you release what you have been saved from!! When parts of your soul start to come alive again, that you thought were gone forever…?? Then tell me that God doesn’t exist… The power of God is real! The Power of the cross is real!! Everyone has a spirit that animates them, and causes them to repeat patterns of behaviour, see life through certain lenses.. The question I have for you sir is… are your numbers and equations going to give your soul and spirit the life it so desperately is crying out for when life gets tough and you need it to change?

[@anthonyberard3507]

@@SeanSk1lz When life gets tough, and I need it to change, then I have to take action to remedy it. You didn't address what the equation is saying. It's saying mass is required to do things in our universe. It requires power to do things. God with no mass has no power.

[@darrenbrown7037]

@@anthonyberard3507 there’s a much simpler rebuttal to your equation… anything that people can imagine can’t technically be disproved because there is always a chance that it’s possible. It’s entirely possible for a waterfall to flow backwards, or for cream in coffee to be removed once it’s stirred in, or for a shattered vase to randomly put itself back together. A). Things have a tendency to continue the pattern as we have come to know it, although within the pattern there are many things we don’t understand, but all the physics is there for the pattern to change, it’s possible, just highly improbable. B). Our instruments and minds have immense limitation and can only measure within the framework and bias of which they are invented. So actually, disproving God, or Santa, or the Easter bunny is impossible because all of them are technically possible, they can’t be entirely ruled out. Any physicist or scientist will tell you that.

[@MatthewVecchio-tx9nq]

@@anthonyberard3507 kzbin.info/www/bejne/f4S4qqGPr55msLssi=UJ-qXH37Uoba2is3

[@warren-cga]

If there is a god, he doesn't care about our day-to-day activities, nor does he care if we perform some repetitive ritual to praise this entity. The most profound thing that shaped my perspective was just the scale of the universe. To put it in scale, if our galaxy, the Milky Way, was the size of the United States, our sun and all the planets would fit on the tip of our finger, with Earth being the size of a red blood cell. Knowing this is just mind-blowing, and you can't ignore the fact that there are billions of other galaxies out there, larger than ours. Now, tell me-as a Christian, a Muslim, or any other religion-do the other civilizations out there believe in the same god you're telling me to worship? If you say yes, you're just being narcissistic and refuse to understand my perspective

[@zachwilliams9454]

It’s very clear, that Peterson signed up for the scientifically unprovable side of the debate. God, that is. So that bearded fella up there is playing with a clear advantage. Being interested in the battle of intellect is why most people wanted to hear this. Unless you came in with a favorite

[@danpez1]

I understand what Matt said about supernatural phenomena not grounded in reality, but plenty of scientific phenomena would be considered supernatural if not experimentally explained, quantum mechanics for example makes claims that would be absolutely thought of as supernatural. Relativity as well. Time dilation length contraction gravitational lenseing, these things would sound ridiculous before we discovered them to exist . I don’t believe in god, but the fact is we can say all we want about the physics that govern our reality, but we still don’t know how to combine quantum mechanics with relativity, it’s not a secret, they do not work together and the search to unify them with a unified theory has been fruitless for a hundred years. We don’t dismiss either because of this, and even if we did have a theory of everything , what established the laws of physics as they are? it is a silly question that a physicist would reply with “well we are just describing reality as we observe it’ we can’t say why a particular particle has the mass it does, or why the speed of light is the specific speed it has “ This brings physics to the same place as the whole god argument, it asks for evidence of what cannot have evidence. Same with what was before the big bang, what exists at the singularity of a black whole? Science says clearly it’s beyond the possibility to know because physics doesn’t apply anymore. Yet we have no problem believing black holes exist or the big bang was the beginning of the universe as we know it. These things would sound ridiculous not so long ago by the way,. Dismissing things we don’t have evidence for just based on intuition is not aligned with the way science works and I see the god debate as just that. If you call whatever caused the Big Bang to occur god, is it really that ridiculous to think of it to have been? I’m not talking about a dogmatic entity but I mean something happened 13.8 billion years ago to set everything in motion, and it’s impossible to know what caused it and what was before, yet we have no problem with understanding that reality exists and don’t dismiss everything without proof of the cause of it all.

[@chrisbingham3289]

From what you just said I don't know how the universe was created or wether God exists is proof that something existed. The question I keep asking is if we proved God exists what deference would it make to us.

[@danpez1]

@@chrisbingham3289 this is how I feel about it too. I think Peterson was trying to make the point that it was the deep seated religious underpinnings that gave humanity the reason to strive for more than just self preservation, but the desire to worship something across time that led us to be as successful of a species as we are. If you aren’t just trying to survive and be comfortable day to day but have a belief system saying humans are a blessed “creation” that ought to adhere to principles beyond self, big things happen. At this time it is easy to think it makes no difference, but if might have changed the way people lived long ago.

[@kristopherjon6496]

@@danpez1I don’t think a reasonable skeptic would disagree with this. I also don’t think a reasonable skeptic or scientist would insist a god does not exist. A god capable of creating this universe would by its nature be outside of our capacity to observe unless it chose otherwise. I think we can appreciate the positive impact of religion as major organizing principles for human advancement throughout history, while also being honest about their actual veracity given what we now know. If we aren’t honest about it, we destabilize any good they have done. Also, just a small aside in response to some of your statements: quantum mechanics and black holes sound magical, but are observed and can and have been modeled with reasonable accuracy such that those models have predictive power. Religious claims are just that - claims. There is no observation or experimentation we can use to justify them.

[@danpez1]

@@kristopherjon6496 I was saying that it wasn’t long ago that these things, black holes in particular, were completely theoretical and it was thought that they were too absurd to exist outside the mathematics of Einsteins field equations. But low and behold we did end up seeing that which cannot be seen, a black hole. The way you even describe such phenomena like its obviously a fact of reality shows how something that was considered absurd fantasy can come to be accepted as if it were a thing you can hold in your hand.

[@kristopherjon6496]

@@danpez1 Except the models of physics indicated their existence. On what basis are religious claims indicated, other than the claims themselves?

[@ThrowAway271]

Matt hates it when Jordan points out that his world view is built on concepts that he never even considered

[@theQuestion626]

I think Matt hates it when Jordan doesn’t actually argue in bad faith or answer questions directly and succinctly. For a guy who constantly does his little Kermit the Frog “I am precise in my speech“ he seems to be rather imprecise with his arguments. He deliberately engages in evasion essentially means, quite plainly that he’s arguing in bad faith. Cranks do this.

[@fourteenten6170]

I think Jordan Peterson was inebriated for this particular interview

[@theQuestion626]

I don’t think so but I do believe that he is a dry drunk. He was an alcoholic for years I think that’s probably one of the reasons why his specialty is on alcohol addiction.

[@bamct]

Science is great but can’t answer the most important questions.

[@timothysparks6949]

Peterson's knowledge is quite impressive...

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

He's an amateur .so is the other one.

[@joshuawoodin7]

​@@Soliloquy-gy6zfthey are both smart, one is more eloquent than the other, your comment lacks substance, but everyone is an amateur by your standard right ? You sound like an average neighborhood basketball player who says the NBA players are amateur. Your comment is the height of intellectuality that would make Einstein jealous.

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

@@joshuawoodin7 Einstein cannot think out the box. Just an ape

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

@@joshuawoodin7 Einstein was ordinary. Just another ape

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

@@joshuawoodin7 wind talker VS garden gnome. Enjoy!🥳

[@AlvenmodFoto]

Matt said after this that Jordan's agent had told him to never debate Matt again after this. Wonder why? 😂

[@kristopherjon6496]

I was already on my way, but this discussion when it originally came out broke the Jordan Peterson spell for me. Peterson having an actually well-reasoned interlocutor, instead of silly news anchors and sensationalist ideologues, who actually challenged the substance of his positions was clearly uncomfortable for him, but more importantly rather damaging to unqualified promulgation of his positions. Hard to know for sure, but it seems to me that this event contributed strongly to Peterson’s retreat into echo chambers he found favorable, where he stays now. I know your question was humorously rhetorical, just giving my opinion on it.

[@jesterc.6763]

​@kristopherjon6496 i felt the exact same way. His lessons on growing up sounded profound. His message of independence and growing up contradicts his religiousness.

[@joshuawoodin7]

Why do you think ? And what tiktok clip did you hear this ? I saw matt rage quit a debate, so holding him up as an intellectual genius that is far better than JP is a lacking in your thinking.

[@jesterc.6763]

@@joshuawoodin7 i bet you've never listened to what matt has to say.

[@joshuawoodin7]

@@jesterc.6763 well I don't see what listening to him means if your equating what the difference is ?

[@earlpelton3094]

This is the best hours of entertainment I've seen in a long time.

[@rmd9746]

Never saw peterson break his composure and becoming kinda lost for words like that... as if he actually met a valid opponent for the first time in a long time.

[@theQuestion626]

It’s really quite interesting to see Peterson at the beginning of the discussion. He’s incredibly smug and arrogant from his question of “ready to go?“ To the way he slides into his seat, crosses his legs fold his hands over his knee and looks at Dillahunty with his look as if he’s trying to hypnotize him. But in no time at all he starts fidgeting, starts waving his cigarette length fingers all around like a conjurer and then he starts playing with his socks and then he just starts getting more and more angry to the point where he won’t even make eye contact with Dillahunty

[@Mr1worldin]

The fact that Matt didn’t seem to understand that JP is an atheist in the usual sense of the word and just has a boner for metaphor is really frustrating to me.

[@HaveAHuff]

Jordan Peterson believes in god. He's not an atheist.

[@timrounse5186]

Well Peterson is a religious apologist. He tries to advocate for religious beliefs in the sense that they are right. This isn’t the typical atheist here. Especially when u act as of their is evidence of mysticism. One man’s mysticism is another man’s surreal. Just like how chemistry before it was understood was “mystical”.

[@amibrainwashed]

I would argue Peterson comes off as more of an agnostic than atheist.

[@kristopherjon6496]

He would have no excuse to misunderstand this if Jordan would be honest and direct about it. I think Matt does understand this, though, and is just trying to get Jordan to acknowledge it in any kind of definitive way. As others have said commenting on this video, Jordan has a vested interest in avoiding that level of honesty. It would alienate far too many of his acolytes.

[@Mr1worldin]

@@kristopherjon6496 i agree Jordan doesn’t want to explicitly state his ideology in a way that would alienate a percentage of his audience, but rather than interpreting this as a desire on his part to retain blind followers or to keep their money in his pocket, i tend to understand him as wanting to bring his fundamentalist audience closer to his metaphorical and scientific understanding of spirituality by gradually exposing them to the more sophisticated explanations for religion and religious experience (i imagine quite a few fundies have begun to warm up to evolution, for instance, thanks to his lectures) and i imagine he fears that stating his belief without heavily qualifying his views would sever his connection to a sizable group of people who might be helped into a more proper and less superstitious religious state, where they can embody the socially beneficial aspects without all the primitive literalism.

[@Lee-vp8vs]

When Jordan Peterson realises he isn't the smartest guy in the room: 1. So we need to agree the concept, etymology, and contextual meaning of *every*single*word*in*every *sentence* 2. I've been thinking about this a lot and I have come to the conclusion I am correct. 3. In my years of practice... (regardless of the subject being discussed actually relating to his field of expertise) 4. Here's a 10 minute monologue about Dostoyevsky that has no correlation to this discussion but I think sounds impressive as fuck.

[@Culturecrack]

😂

[@kristopherjon6496]

This is not the most steel of men, but it isn’t bad.

[@TR13400]

Yea man who defines words and uses words by their definition.

[@ryanhoffman5477]

What is a woman! Matt: word salad! Basically! Matt likes a hotdog in his chocolate pocket!

[@Lee-vp8vs]

@TR13400 I'm assuming you haven't seen the clip where JP tries to get into the sentence 'do you believe in god' by asking 'What do you mean by do' 'What do you mean mean by you' 'What do you mean by believe' 'What do you mean by in' 'What do you mean by God' Trying to find the meaning in 60% of a 5 word sentence when that 60% are very small common use words that are generally understood even by an average kindergartener is pretty ridiculous.

[@PaulRevere2.0]

On this side of the temporal, some people just don't want God and be separate from Him simply because they prefer to do what thou wilt... on the other side of the eternal, God will let them be separate from Him. Choose wisely by really studying and getting to know Him. If there's no God, no consequence. If there is, and He exists, then eternity is a very loooooooong time. Matthew 13 🕊

[@oliverjamito9902]

Yes many have blown their own Trumpets and their own walls comes crushing down in front! Physical strength exalting themselves above!

[@emiliog.4432]

Two guys arguing over the existence of the Easter bunny and Santa Claus. And if Jordan believes that Mat believes. Oh man. Word salad with vinegar and oil.

[@LanaKay777]

Matt is just a master skeptic. If truth were brought to him on a silver platter (which JP brought), he would question that the platter was supporting the truth, rather than accepting the truth as the gift. In elementary thought: he can’t see the forest for the trees

[@willdarko]

Which truth did he deliver?

[@Dustin030888]

False

[@robertmcclintock8701]

(^3^)/ This is the artistic proof that the universe was created. When you paint a shadow its the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.

[@mikestravels609]

The answer is yes there is GOD

[@alfredomanccini9786]

Is interesting to see in the comments how misunderstood Peterson is

[@haydenlovelace9921]

Expound!

[@happyrascal1009]

The guy, whos getting old and went to conservative far right on social media influences? 🤔

[@theQuestion626]

I love how Peterson fans always love this whole “you misunderstood him!“ Defense and think that’s somehow invalidates that Peterson is quite often wrong.

[@alfredomanccini9786]

@@theQuestion626 I don’t know what’s your definition of Peterson fan , but that’s ok , I’m more interested in the stuff that Peterson got wrong , can you elaborate on that ? Maybe give one example

[@theQuestion626]

@@alfredomanccini9786 The definition of a Peterson fan is basically someone who employs the most ridiculous of defense of Peterson being indefensible. They also play with definitions and semantics the same way that Pearson does. It’s cult level nonsense. Peterson pretty much got everything wrong. His whole bit about you can’t quit smoking without a spiritual experience is laughable to the point of being a standup routine. He brings up psychedelics and studies of psilocybin studies… But he doesn’t reference any of his studies. He doesn’t reference a single one. And then he can’t even prove that the person that took the psilocybin experienced something that can be even empirically to find a spiritual. He just makes it up. I just think it’s a little strange that you think he is “misunderstood“ when it’s obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary sense of science and philosophy that he deliberately plays with words and definitions in order to avoid making direct evidence-based statements. It’s called arguing in bad faith. And Peterson does it all the time. So now it’s your turn. Can you elaborate on how you believe him to be “misunderstood“?

[@leeretaschen231]

I think the bottom line is that Jordan Peterson feels that religion is useful and necessary in order to govern people, but he goes to great lengths to avoid the question of whether religious claims are objectively true. He is a master at question dodging and redirection.

[@malnotmal6084]

I think he can't afford to be totally honest about the subject because of alliances that keep him relevant.

[@kiwidubz]

Dillahunty probably still loses sleep thinking about Andrew Wilson I bet

[@markdouglas1601]

People with schizophrenia also report supernatural experiences

[@theQuestion626]

If I remember correctly Jordan Peterson was once diagnosed schizophrenic. I don’t know if he has schizophrenia but I do believe him to be incredibly mentally unwell. Listen to him speak and read his written works and it’s a lot of stream of consciousness Gish Gallup. Have you ever seen a person who was under the influence of narcotics or very drunk? Many of them talk the way Peterson does. Except the difference between them and him is that they slurred or words. Have you ever seen a person in the middle of a delusional episode? They talk like Peterson does up to and including the ridiculous hand gestures and the theatrical tone and syntax.

[@markdouglas1601]

@@theQuestion626 iirc, Mikhaila or he mentioned how doctors “incorrectly” (their words) diagnosed him with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is no joke, though. I think if he had that we would know. You also don’t get schizophrenia at his age. Maybe drug induced psychosis? He was having by his accounts, having withdrawals from inexplicably cold-turkey quitting benzodiazepine medication, which is extremely dangerous and can/likely will kill you.

[@theQuestion626]

@@markdouglas1601 I don’t really trust her either. I think she is riding his coattails, because he still has millions of fans and still makes a lot of money even though we had to run to the daily wire. Schizophrenia can present itself later in life motion especially if it’s been untreated. But as I say I think he’s always been mentally unwell. I remember watching his lectures and reading his books, even maps of meaning and I thought to myself that it was the rambling dribble of a man whom clearly is not in control of his faculties. And what is weird is that he seems to be highly resistant to getting treatment. His addiction to benzodiazepine, instead of relying upon a “mystical experience“ he actually took the harder rooad it had himself placed in a medically induced coma. But I don’t think necessarily that that was the call that he could make because I don’t believe he was in any position to make any type of decisions himself. But it’s just strange to me that a man whose specialty is alcohol addiction didn’t seem to even remotely recognize that he was becoming addicted to benzodiazepine. Which further illustrates his mental state is unstable.

[@AudunWangen]

Dissecting Peterson's word salad is almost impossible for philosophers that are versed in this "metaphysical" slush. Matt is a very pragmatic guy, the exact opposite of Peterson, which makes it very impressive that he can even have a digestible conversation with him at all.

[@nightowl0815]

Jordan lobster Peterson uses Socrates' strategy of deconstructing sentences to confuse his interactor. But like magicarp it has no effect on people that realize this.

[@daves2955]

Best Pangburn event ever!

[@Vrakoat]

The unknown is not unquestionable because the unquestionable is unnecessary. denial is never a question just as acceptance will never be a question either. People have a problem when you enforce the mystery of divinity as unquestionable with no definition. Even more so if you pretend to have the definition in a bid for power, labeling others as unworthy of the knowledgeable privilege in spite of your own secret awareness that you aren’t “worthy” either.

[@Hyperbog]

"False teachers of life use flowery words and start nonsense." The Way of Life, According to Lao Tzu - Wytter Bynner (my favorite translation of the Tao)

[@asayake1]

What the heck is Jordan on with you can't quit smoking without taking a drug? I quit smoking after 15 years by moving across the country. It was enough of a change in environment to break all the old habits and triggers. No drugs or supernatural experience required. Just outgrew the addiction. Of course there were cravings but those were reduced and eliminated over time.

[@peterwhyte-zl1kv]

There must decided to stop smoking. I did after 20 years. All it took was a doctor who told me I would be unable to work at 60 years if I continued. The Doctor was also an insurance assessor. I think JP confused the issue. He often finds it necessary

[@timothyglassbrook4886]

He wasn't saying it's impossible to quit smoking, his point was that we haven't found an effective pharmaceutical to stop smoking. There isn't a medicine that makes you stop, but amazingly enough, mushrooms paired with the subjectively divine experience, seems to work. Which suggests that there's something physically real occuring in relation to the subjectively divine

[@aukemebel4263]

@@timothyglassbrook4886 Why call it divine? I have used shrooms on numerous occasions and the experience has been all in my head the entire time. Your subconcious and concious seem to blend together, you can think very clearly and become hyper focused on your own body. I can also still remember all the halucinations I have had in every trip. Nothing of that has to be described as "subjectively divine" just call it "subjective experience". This is exactly the "Woo woo" language that people ascribe to JP, as he smuggles in words of his preconceived notions into these discussions. My brother stopped smoking due to his partner wanting him to stop. He has since stopped snoring, being short of breath, stopped coughing. JP is one of those christians that wants to have these things be "magical" in some way so they can cling to the last remaining areas of faith. The last few things that science cannot easily test: conciousness and the grounding of reality.

[@G-O425]

Yeah, you truly didn't get him. Don't limit supernatural to mean only drugs, but rather any other form of external interventions. Listen from 15:15 to 15:50, he expanded on what it could mean.

[@danpez1]

He didn’t say that you can’t, but that A psychedelic experience has resulted in a significant amount of people quitting smoking, when there is no pharmaceutical mechanism for the change in behavior. It’s an example of what some may call a spiritual experience.

[@leversandpulleys9274]

I think this was recorded when Peterson was starting to fully have that illness. Here are points when he was starting to lose his ideal thinking process due to God-knows-what. 1. He proposed a situation when death is preferable to life through a story of a burnt victim; this is the situation of Mercy, but he lacks an example based on its opposite which is Justice; he could ally the Mercy example with a story of a serial killer that has to be put to death by the court to maintain civilization-this metaphysical duality of Mercy and Justice (Two hands of God, mytho-poetically) could shed the light better, which can be powerfully developed EVEN through Matt's framework of moral revision: "Matt, the revision still RELIES on metaphysics", this could lock him back into his first initiation of the metaphorical substrate, and from there he could strengthen his position that wrestles with religious issues. I might want to add more to this, this is fun! Still standing close to Peterson 😎

[@JohnDoe-qh5xg]

God is what ever boundaries your subconscious upkeeps

[@fenrirhere]

God is also this glass of water.

[@JohnDoe-qh5xg]

@@fenrirhere sure nice job buddy A+

[@fenrirhere]

@@JohnDoe-qh5xg I don't need your inane retorts.

[@JohnDoe-qh5xg]

@@fenrirhere did I need yours? A bit ridiculous to come in thinking your view is relevant looking for a reply and when getting one acting like you were insulted by the interaction you came seeking You came in with the poison drank it and left weeping "why didn't it work" Other don't die to the poison you drink so maybe stop drinking it

[@aukemebel4263]

@@JohnDoe-qh5xg "god is whatever boundaries your subconciousnes upkeeps" What boundaries? How does subconciousness do anything? Do you mean to say that god is part of the mind? You sound like JP when you say this.

[@daisyl2629]

Peterson’s wife recently recovered from cancer. I’m so happy she accepted medical treatment even though they both have only spoken on the subject to give credit to their Catholic God rather than the science behind her cure. I’m sure Peterson would agree that his wife’s survival was better than her death for his own wellbeing and for hers.

[@ZedricTeague-qp6vc]

noooo that’s not what he said haha😊

[@daisyl2629]

Peterson: death is preferable to life because you “stop suffering” is not a presupposition he would offer his wife and not a starting point he considered. He sounds like he is arguing just to be controversial. Matt is making logical, reasonable points and Peterson just wants to be argumentative because he thinks it makes him look intelligent

[@tonythomas1010]

@@daisyl2629I am an atheist and I think Jordan is way above Matt’s level.

[@timothyglassbrook4886]

That's hardly an accurate representation of what happened. They're not dismissing the science that saved her, the fact that she's the only person they've ever recorded that has recovered from her specific type of cancer was miraculous to her and her process of recovery led her to her faith.

[@wanderingstar5270]

@@timothyglassbrook4886I’m not taking away from her remarkable experience but I am forced to take it all with a bit of skepticism. I think they were fortunate enough to discover the cancer during her other surgery when normally it’s so fast growing that it kills a person before they even realise they have it. They were lucky in this regard. But I also have to say the accounts of JPs hospitalisation over his bezo treatment make me doubt so much about this man’s integrity and formulation of reality. It leads me to question so much of his reporting of events and how he even conceptualises the world at all.

[@zebvandinteren7441]

A couple of years ago when i was like 18, I always saw JP as an extremely intelligent man because he made all these sentences that made him sound like some sort of wisdom god. Now I understand his words and sentences alot better and it just seems like he's blending all sorts of intellectual soundbytes together without actually talking about anything or giving any clear thoughts or answers. How tf did I fall for this!?

[@trip4923]

Maybe you just thought you were smart enough to understand but turns out not. If Peterson is the one you worry about between these two, you're on the wrong path, sir.

[@starrasmussen5997]

Or maybe when u were 18 u hadn’t been indoctrinated by college echo chambers yet 😂😂😂

[@Tropdop]

Did you read his book Maps of Meaning or just watch videos?

[@percy832]

No one person has all the answers. Some things he says might make perfect sense to you. Others things may not. That is how it's supposed to be. Unless of course you are looking for one person with all the answers. And if you are looking for that it means you do not have a mind of your own and will probably end up in a cult, or following a political ideology like a zombie, which is quite common these days.

[@andykrykant5378]

This reminds me of a late night TV discussion show I saw years ago. The subject was something like the significance of god/faith in one's working life. The panel included the then Archbishop of Canterbury, rowan Williams, Sister Wendy (a nun) a police chief and some other men. Sister Wendy let the men pontificate for about twenty minutes. No one took any notice of her. Suddenly she intervened with "The trouble with this word 'god' is that when it is used, no on really knows what anyone else is talking about". There then followed a long silence with rowan staring at the camera looking like a rabbit caught in headlights. Then the police chief continued as if he had not heard that!

[@ChristianJulesCruto-bp6fe]

In my opinion we don’t know the beginning if mysterious creator create the universe or universe create by a Big Bang. Creator gonna exist if we believe there creator or it exists and we don’t know where the Big Bang came from and there major problems in the Big Bang we cant solved it because of our lack of knowledge I’m a Christian I just have faith.

[@tommyvictorbuch6960]

"If God exists, I want him to tell me himself. I don't want to hear it from anybody else - and in case you're wondering, that includes you." - Pat Condell -

[@joshuawoodin7]

Well God must live up to your commands, this comment is why your the intellectuals of the 21st century.

[@JosephLee706]

God doesn't have to prove himself to anyone, just like no president goes around trying to convince people he's the president.. 🤦 the reason you don't know God is because you don't want to simple..

[@joshuawoodin7]

@@JosephLee706 I get what your trying to say, however your analogy has a little flaw, I am not convinced that joe biden is president even with his holding office as US president. God almighty, Jesus Christ Yahweh one God is self evident. And I see it compared to showing a flat earther real evidence for a globe/spherical earth, and they reject evidence because they are wise in their own eyes.

[@tommyvictorbuch6960]

@@JosephLee706, you know just as much about a god as I do: Nothing. The difference is, that I don't pretend to know.

[@JosephLee706]

@tommyvictorbuch6960 how do you know what I know?? That's right you dont!! Just because you don't know doesn't = nobody knows.. come on now 🤦 the difference is you pretend nobody knows..

[@troysdogtraining]

you don’t get to think “ohh that’s self evident”, nothing is self evident to the skeptic. banger line of argumentation

[@chrisbingham3289]

Give me an answer to this if consciousness is the state we are in when we are awake. How do you explain that when you are asleep and have a dream in that dream you can make decisions to do something or not?

[@oluwatobifaniyi]

When you are asleep, you are still conscious

[@chrisbingham3289]

@@oluwatobifaniyi I don't think we are conscious. Our scenes are still working but our actual cognitive thinking for what is happening outside our body is switched off, it seem to me we are only experiencing what our brains are creating from the information it's storing. This would explain why our dreams can be so confused, they are just a random selection of thought our brains are going through and trying to put in order.

[@ryanhoffman5477]

What is reality? How do you know if you are asleep or not?

[@chrisbingham3289]

@@ryanhoffman5477 They say if you die in your sleep you will never awake .Therefore if you die you're awake .

[@ryanhoffman5477]

@chrisbingham3289 Our five senses give us a filtered down version of reality. If you were to get the full version of light, sound, taste, and touch, it would be too overwhelming to the point that you couldn't navigate reality. Philosophy has wrestled with the question of reality vs. consciousness for the past two thousand years. They have gotten nowhere. "Those who look outside are asleep. Those who look inside are awake." C.G.Jung

[@notbad2440]

Also Conciousness is viewed through the lens of having a purpose. Not just a ghost in the machine

[@Joe-un1tl]

This smackdown of Peterson will never get old. The fact that people buy the religious BS Jordan's been pushing for the past 6 years is absolutely wild to me.

[@hypno5690]

Grow up man

[@lukedmoss]

Peterson seems to take an important insight about the 'religious' i.e. spiritual roots of civilization or at least human psychology and extrapolate it to all sorts of convoluted nonsequiter assertions.

[@johnmoonitz2968]

"Smackdown of Peterson" ?? This was not a smackdown of either of these men. Just because you disagree with Peterson's views (or perhaps lack the cognitive ability to grasp what he is actually saying in any given moment), does not mean he was bested in any way. I think this was an interesting conversation about an incredibly complex topic, and I would like to see more conversations like this.

[@brockwhite8699]

​@@johnmoonitz2968you know you don't have to scour the comments section of this video to defend your champion, Mr. JP. If you are inclined, this is a re-upload. You can go find the original and argue with all the people calling him a whacko there too.

[@user-sp7mg9mr3l]

@@brockwhite8699JP has done more for young men than almost anyone in modern times and that’s because God blessed him with the ability to do so. It’s always interesting when people use click bait words like “smack down” or “destroyed” that have lost all meaning. A conversation doesn’t need or require someone being bested. You either agree or disagree. Unfortunately for most people they can’t accept that Jesus is the truth and the fact that Peterson grows ever closer to that realization brings him a lot of unwarranted hate. If you can’t see God in everything you’ve probably never spent an adequate amount of time stepping back and truly observing the world as a whole.

[@leeretaschen231]

Whenever Peterson says something to the effect of “are you sure you really want the answer to that” it reeks of a stalling tactic, where he is trying to think up an acceptable answer to his opponent’s question.

[@DemePoole]

Bingo

[@smokeyb321]

Nah , he understands things more than the normal human mind logic. that’s why ! I understand what he is trying to say. Things are not always black and white basically.

[@DemePoole]

@smokeyb321 Life is only as complicated as one makes it. Peterson talks gibberish, and he knows it.

[@smokeyb321]

But isn’t that statement you made just a lazy remark on being a human being. Why can’t life be more than all that. That sounds like giving up to me.

[@DemePoole]

@smokeyb321 Seems to me that you just want to believe that you know something that only a few other people can understand. You've been watching too much Rick & Morty. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@philosophy_by_psyche]

@42:26 Matt has just conflated physical laws (which in this context, would be better described as 'conditions'), to being the arbiters of the metaphysical. This is just such a crass and obtuse rationalistic equivalency to make... its also the mark of a lowly sophistry. The use of the phrase "best interest"... is a value judgement, values need value-frameworks, and also lead to a phenomenology that supersedes the natural world, ie. thought becomes the first mover, in a culturally laden context, fulfilling populated by the free will of contributed thoughts.

[@theQuestion626]

I’m sorry but but how exactly do you arrive at this conclusion? And for that matter… Are you not going to factor into your comment that Peterson himself is basically a sophist? That’s his entire approach to this discussion.

[@templecreations2351]

Psychedelics are miraculous things, so of course Peter would connect them to god.

[@conscientiamngo]

In fact, it is Dillahunty vs someone that must clean his room first...😂

[@singwithpowerinfo5815]

Matt exposed JP as the fraud that he is when discussing anything to do spirituality.

[@johnmoonitz2968]

There appear to be a lot of simple minded trolls like yourself here . . . are you the typical audience of the new atheist movement? As an agnostic, I find this a bit distressing . . . but only a bit. Aaahh! Who am I kidding?!? Simple minded trolls are the most common creature on the internet . . . you pests are ubiquitous! :D

[@georgepoe1283]

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” appears in the King James Version of the Bible in Philippians 1:21 and this is why Matt will ever understand God or faith or what it is to live

[@mediocreatbest7574]

Why tell everyone you can’t understand what Jordan is saying? It’s like you’re seeking validation from the other people who can’t follow along.

[@MLNeidig]

It takes three braincells to follow Peterson, which is two more than most atheists have.

[@theQuestion626]

Dillahunty tell everyone he couldn’t understand what Pearson was saying? Seems to me he was trying to decipher the nebulousness of Peterson’s statements. You do know that Peterson has this rather irritating habit of not being clear within his arguments and has this pesky problem with not providing evidence to support the validity of those arguments? It’s kind of cute really. For a guy who talks about being “precise in your speech“ he seems to confuse being articulate with being truthful.

[@mediocreatbest7574]

@@MLNeidig and that’s who can’t follow along lol

[@mediocreatbest7574]

@@theQuestion626 No, I was making a general statement to anyone in the comments who was saying the typical “word salad” or “says so much without saying anything.” Anyways, of course I know he can get a bit wordy when he’s trying to talk about complex topics, but they’re like REALLY complex topics and I don’t think Dillahunty is on the same level. I’m gonna have to pull a Jordan here, and ask what do you mean by evidence? Lol, but seriously you should check out the podcast he just released with Alex O’Connor. It was great. Alex really nailed him down and they get into exactly what Jordan means by the things he says.

[@theQuestion626]

@@mediocreatbest7574 but throughout his diatribe he never makes a solid point nor does he logic change anything that supports his point. And I’ll address your little Peterson trope about “evidence“. What I mean by evidence is actual evidence that I can go back and check to see if Petersons claims are valid or not. And that’s the problem I have with Peterson and his fans, they love to play fast and loose with definitions in order to move goal posts and change parameters of the conversation to avoid making actual solid points. I’ll give an example, Peterson says in the conversation with Dillahunty that you cannot quit smoking without a spiritual experience. He brings up studies about psychedelics… But he doesn’t specify which ones and he doesn’t even remotely come close to proving that a person on psilocybin has had an actual empirically defined spiritual experience. He proceeded to waffle all over the place instead of actually providing documented evidence in order to back up his point. Peterson never provides proof for what he claims. Never. He just provides Gish gallop in order to make it seem that what he’s saying is not only profound but objectively true. As I said, cranks operate like this.

[@escrtn84]

Me, any time I hear JP talk... "I have absolutely no idea what he just tried to say, and what's more, I'm not sure he knows what he said either."

[@patbickmonty6900]

Dunning-Kruger effect in full swing here

[@johnmoonitz2968]

Your inability to understand what Peterson is saying is not an indictment against him, but rather against yourself. One of the things I appreciate most about Jordan Peterson is that he can take difficult, complex ideas and make them understandable, whether or not I agree with his position on that particular topic. I found this conversation to be interesting and informative, and I am not bothered in the least that I agreed with both men on certain issues, and disagreed with both men on other issues . . . an experience I believe would be the case for such conversations the majority of the time.

[@davidevans1723]

Not for you

[@escrtn84]

@@johnmoonitz2968 Communication isn't just about saying big words guys. He intentionally obfuscates his language in order to project the impression his emerging consciousness is superior and insinuates the reflection that his minds interaction with metaphysical godstuff has made upon the substrate of his brain is incalculably valuable and you don't take it seriously.. and you gobble it up. I could think of 100 ways to say what he said simpler than the way he said it. What's worse is he gets angry when he envisions you misunderstand his fuckin' half baked metaphysical gobbledygook..

[@escrtn84]

@@davidevans1723you're right.. it's not for me. Because I don't want to have to parse obfuscatory and unnecessary abstractions before I find the substance of your argument. Which is why I made the comment