The Greatest God Debate In History | Jordan Peterson vs Matt Dillahunty

[@Pangburn]

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

[@3vil3lvis]

The fundamental problem with Dillahunty's iterative morality is that it is entirely situational. Take the premise that life is better than death. Now consider a situation in which overpopulation has become a problem and there is a lack of food. The moral thing to do in that situation is to resort to Cannibalism because it is better for the planet's resources while simultaneously reducing the problem of overpopulation. The thing that Matt misses is that he has borrowed his set of morality from religion and then wants to divorce himself from that. Secular individuals include those cannibals that are diametrically opposed to the morality he espouses. When nothing is sacred, you are only 12 days away from "tastes like chicken".

[@hectorhenry9841]

​@@3vil3lvisLife IS situational. 'Life is sacred', 'Murder is bad' are great concepts, for example, until circumstances force a change. Self defense is real. If a person with a gun is assaulted and has the risk of being raped, should they not use overwhelming force to stop the attacker? My problem with your statement, which is repeated by many religious people, is that you've claimed the moral code for your group (whatever that code is). As EMPATHIC, KIND humans that interact with one another, there is no reason why it would all 'taste like chicken'. How terrifying it would be to live in a world devoid of trust in your fellow human, unless they believe the same as you.

[@3vil3lvis]

@@hectorhenry9841 What do you hold sacred?

[@stopgrovelling9243]

@@3vil3lvis The thing that you seem to be missing is that the concept of a religious morality is utterly spurious. Which religion? And are we talking about the precepts of the religion or the actual lived experience of ordering a polity in accord with theocratic dogma (which does not seem to have ever worked out particularly well for the peasant, or the female of the species, or anyone who might look vaguely different from the rest, or anyone who might ask 'why', etc). When you can present to me an unambiguous set of religious morals that are universally agreed upon then I will begin reflecting on how this code is invariably flawed. As a fan of Bentham I urge you to forgo the idea of a universal and dogmatic 'truth' or 'morality'. These are functional propositions for mankind only when they are elaborated in a particular material context. Absent a particular material context then the proposition of morality is entirely nonsensical. God is the delusion, not the material world.

[@3vil3lvis]

@stopgrovelling9243 You can only voice your dissenting opinion, because of the society that theist built. Western civilization seems to be working for everyone, if you are unhappy with it perhaps you might move to one of those secular countries...but you won't.

[@itsnotme61]

Matt Dillahunty is clearly quite intelligent but what impresses me most is his patience.

[@RA-ie3ss]

Yes his take on incest from this channel thirteen days ago is truly a gift to mankind(sarcasm)

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@RA-ie3ss People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@RA-ie3ss In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

[@operating]

He helps people hang themselves.

[@bretthardin394]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Yea that is one of the problems with the whole thing. The worst child molester in history gets to go to heaven if he just believes but the children he violated would not if they don't. Sounds more like a mechanism to promote conformity than any rules of justice imposed by an infantilely wise being.

[@IamKnucks]

I'm not sure you can call this a debate. Peterson never had a single argument. He just forces Matt into increasingly minuscule pedantic definitions.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

[@owqt]

​@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 You Just Said that If i sinned once, i end Up in hell, so whats the Point repenting after i sinned?! Youre contradicting urself.

[@ryanurban1]

I don't know how people are not insulted by this tactic. Peterson appears to believe that he can spray out a mist of polysyllabic words and people will think he's answered their question. He knows damn well what he is being asked, he knows damn well he could provide a clear and succinct answer, he simply refuses to do so, and he figures he can get away with it. Evidently he's right.

[@dregga7638]

​@@ryanurban1 He became famous by debunking some feminists. Peterson is smart and verbally skilled. However he's lacking actual deep knowledge about many things he so confidentally talks about. Especially when he talks about philosophy.

[@soufianeammou5132]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 how about I put my spinless righteousness on your mama

[@CosmicTuxedo]

Peterson: "I have absolutely no logical argument. But I can however, speak for hours about how not to directly answer questions and talk about how that makes you feel."

[@R3l3ntl3sss]

You missed the nuance of the debate.

[@tool6913ca]

​@@R3l3ntl3sss well that all depends on how you define "nuance". Do you really wanna go there?

[@ceccascorp8149]

​@@R3l3ntl3sssWhat do you mean by "nuance"? Well, that’s not as simple as it seems, because the question "What is nuance?" demands that we first unravel the meaning of the question itself-starting, perhaps, with "what do you mean by meaning?" What are we actually asking when we try to describe a term like nuance? Because, you see, the concept of nuance is built on layers of subtlety and gradation, and so it resists being pinned down, its very nature a rejection of the black-and-white binaries that so often simplify our understanding of things. Think about this: When you ask someone to "describe" nuance, what are you really asking them to do? To put into words something whose essence lies in the spaces between definitions, whose very power is in its ability to convey meaning without collapsing into rigid form? Can something inherently subtle, something defined by its complexity and its capacity to evade oversimplification, ever truly *be* described without doing violence to it in the process? And what do you mean, exactly, by "describe"? Are we looking for a precise articulation of nuance’s conceptual territory, as if it were an object we could pick up, measure, weigh, and say, "This is nuance"? Or do we mean something more experiential, as in, "Show me nuance at work"? Because the description of nuance, you see, is already a paradox: to describe it fully is to engage with it incompletely, for the act of definition carves away the very ambiguity that makes nuance *nuance*. And then there’s the word itself-"nuance." Where does it come from? What do we carry with us when we use it? The word derives, after all, from the Latin *nubes*, meaning "cloud"-a soft, shifting thing that eludes fixed shape, that changes depending on how you look at it, and depending, too, on where you stand. And isn’t that fitting? Because nuance is precisely like that: a cloud of meaning, a cluster of subtleties that refuses to be one thing or another, but is instead an interplay of gradations and perspectives. So when you ask me to describe "nuance," you’re asking me to articulate something that is always *just slightly beyond articulation*. It’s the careful shading in a painting that makes the light feel real; it’s the unspoken hesitation in someone’s voice that makes you pause and reconsider; it’s the word choice that carries a hint of irony or complexity, layered into something seemingly straightforward. Nuance is the way meaning shifts-not just from one person to another, but even within a single person, depending on mood, context, or tone. And what about *you*, the person asking the question? Are you searching for nuance because you recognize that the world is more complicated than simple explanations allow? Are you trying to grasp a term that, itself, grasps at something elusive about human understanding, about art, about language, about truth? So when you say "describe nuance," I can’t help but think: You’re not really asking me for a dictionary definition. You’re asking for an exploration-an invitation to notice the quiet gradations between certainty and ambiguity, the spaces where meaning is felt more than it is defined. In that sense, maybe nuance can’t be described so much as it can be shown, or even lived. It’s in the way we pause before answering a difficult question; it’s in the tension between words and silence; it’s in our ability to hold two conflicting ideas at once, not in opposition, but in harmony. And perhaps *that’s* the most accurate description of nuance we can achieve: not a single answer, but a willingness to dwell in the spaces between answers, where the truth is less a thing to be grasped and more a thing to be felt-lightly, softly, like a cloud passing by.

[@abcdefzhij]

@@tool6913ca Ah yes you are definitely the smarter one in this interaction. Clearly

[@IDraw99]

​@@tool6913ca well that depends on how you interpret "do we really wanna go there?".

[@Komiato2]

Most people say Jordan Peterson is smart but to me he mostly just talk so much abstract not addressing what he's asked. Good thing Matt is the type to call it out

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@amallulla2000]

He became famous by winning against teenagers mainly.

[@Balanar6236]

it's because Matt doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what he is saying, same way as you can't understand it. Exactly that is what is causing us to not evolve more. Think of it same as flat-earthers - physics is too complicated for them so they try to explain things by keeping them more simple. Same thing Matt is trying to do, but fails to do.

[@diegosepulveda6334]

​@@Balanar6236 Peterson is a moron, he has wikipedia knowledge about many things, but he doesnt have any deep knowledge about anything at all. It always happen with him or others like him when they debate a guy who actually studied (and not just 20yo feminists), like Zizek years ago, who made Peterson look like a moron too. It happens with other guys like Ben Shapiro or every alt right guy around the world

[@DoctorGnu]

Wrong

[@funnybusiness6491]

Jordan Peterson explaining why gum sticks to the ground: “Gum sticking to the ground, you know, it's a fascinating collision of human behavior and the tenacious qualities of urban materials. The gum, it's like a symbol of our society's desires, trying to stay connected, but then you have the pavement, so determined to hold onto it. When someone discards that gum, it's like a piece of their identity hitting the pavement, and the ground, it's not just passive, it's an active player in this whole drama. The struggle between the gum's stickiness and the ground's grip, well, it's a bit like the struggle we all face in life - between our dreams and the unyielding realities we encounter. So, next time you step on gum, just remember, it's a reminder of the delicate dance we do with the world around us.”

[@rhondaromano4531]

Very witty and well written! Love it!

[@elliotsumaire5233]

This deserves a lot more likes!

[@Real_MisterSir]

This has more applied intellect poured into it than anything Peterson has ever said tbh

[@mike9512]

Like most things Peterson says I tune out pretty early into the rambling bs while I wait for him to get to a point. But unlike him, I absolutely enjoyed your comment.

[@notrhythm]

what a quantum entangled photosynthetic response

[@MalcolmFather]

*Fun Fact* - Not sure if anyone said this already. According to Dillahunty, immediately after this talk ended, Peterson beelined to his dressing room and locked himself in there. He was apparently advised by his manager and/or publicist to never try to debate Dillahunty again. This was as close to being embarrassingly dominated in combat sports that an intellectual conversation could get. Kudos to Dillahunty, a true intellectual heavyweight.

[@RA-ie3ss]

Can you describe secular humanist positions? It didn't make sense to me.

[@MalcolmFather]

@ In a nutshell, secular humanism prioritizes logic, reason and fundamental rights of all humans while rejecting dogma and supernatural beliefs to uphold their moral code. If you’re wondering how this contrasts with Stalinism, there are a couple major differences to point out. Firstly, while many atheists are anti-theists, most of us believe in ridding the world of its religions through discussion, not by state sponsored religious suppression and persecution. Stalin also persecuted those who questioned his policies, such as communism. No true secular humanist could ever support the rejection of skepticism based on authority. There are many other things Stalin did that contradicts with secular humanism such as major human rights violations, but these are the main things to keep in mind.

[@RA-ie3ss]

​@MalcolmFather What moral code? Stains actions had negative consequences, and therefore, the Soviet Union doesn't count as being Secular humanist? Do you feel that a Secular Humanist founded government can never become tyrannical over time?

[@MalcolmFather]

@@RA-ie3ss Treating people fairly, with compassion and free of government suppression would be part of the moral code. There’s more that could be added, but these are fundamental principles that can be used to determine specific laws and doctrines, but if you don’t stick to those principles then you are no longer a secular humanist society. You’re pretty much asking me, isn’t it still a democracy when a democratic government has become overrun by the 1%? No, because that goes against the very definition of a democracy. Any form of government can eventually turn out bad, but if the foundations of secular humanism are abided by, it cannot by definition become tyrannical. If you’re asking whether Stalin was initially a secular humanist, then became something else, also no. The USSR had already begun its anti-religious policies. They weren’t trying to educate people, they were un-aliving religious leaders, restricting religious practices and saying worshipers didn’t belong in their country. The USSR was anti-religious dogma. They were certainly atheists, anti-theists to be even more specific, but they certainly were not secular humanists.

[@MalcolmFather]

@@RA-ie3ss My longer response was deleted for some reason, but if the fundamental principles of secular humanism I previously mentioned are no longer abided by, it is no longer secular humanism. It’s like asking if a democracy is run by the 1%, isn’t it still a democracy? No, because that defies the very definition of democracy. Any form of government can eventually turn out bad, but if the foundations of secular humanism are abided by, it cannot by definition become tyrannical. The USSR also did not start off respecting the principles of secular humanism, so it wouldn’t count as starting off as that but turning out negative.

[@LazyDarwin]

Matt Dillahunty really opened my eyes. Been a follower of JP for a long time, this debate actually showed his real side. He is definitely one of the best public speakers and clinical psychologists, when it comes to speaking outside of his domains, he really can't put forward rational arguments. He just creates a word salad or word web, to be precise, in attempt to entangle you and confuse you from the original topic

[@green.release]

it's called psychobabble

[@stepfaniehawkins205]

Peterson is that way about everything lol glad you finally noticed.

[@aizabeewalken]

Isn’t this word salad?

[@salinasbeat]

@@aizabeewalken no.

[@aizabeewalken]

Nice one!

[@jellygiraffe]

The psychedelic drugs argument always falls flat for me. It's the very definition of the unreliable witness. You have altered your brain chemistry, you cannot trust any of your experiences while high.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@Ezcape0]

Coffee does it too, mainly everyone is an unreliable witness most of the time then 💀 Also many medicines do, people on anti depressants are should not trust their experiences 💀

[@jellygiraffe]

@@Ezcape0 Well, while we are doing definitions, that is what we call (with the exception of some medicines that can make you hallucinate) a false equivalency. You cannot compare the effects of caffeine on the human brain with the effects of psylocibin, ayahuasca, LSD etc. That is like saying fruit and candy both contain sugar, so they should both be avoided.

[@Ezcape0]

@@jellygiraffe while correct, that is called moving the goal posts, I'll let you reset the posts on a solid position so you don't keep moving them, be exact with your words

[@jellygiraffe]

@@Ezcape0 Did you miss the part in my original comment where I specifically stated "Psychedelic Drugs"? No goal posts were moved, my words were exact. While extremely mildly psychoactive, nobody considers coffee to be a psychedelic drug.

[@JaguarBST]

“I may be wrong, but I think I am right” VS “I may be wrong, and if I am wrong I want to know”

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

[@JaguarBST]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 which God are you talking about? Which God should I repent to? And why not the other one? Even fairytale are more consistent in their made up stories 😂

[@wybrenpolitiek4221]

lol

[@RA-ie3ss]

@@JaguarBST Which fairytale has more merit than the known history regarding Jesus?

[@JaguarBST]

@@RA-ie3ss if your definition of known history is some references made about Jesus within a hundred years after his death than yes Jesus is a known historical figure I guess. But that means jack sh*t about the miracles he supposedly performed or that he was the son of god, or anything he told during his life time were true. He could just be just one of the thousands of charlatans claiming to be prophet around those time period. Even Shrek has more consistency in its story than any religion you can name.

[@ghosttoaster]

Jordon Peterson, literally folding himself into a pretzel, sticks his head out from under his leg behind his ankle, his voice pitched up to super high, finally completes his 3 hour response to the question “What is your name?”: ”…but that depends on what your definition of well-being is!”

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

[@fredsik]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Dude, find somewhere else to paste this copypasta, you're not gonna achieve anything here.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@fredsik Hey you are valuable to me and to God. Ilove you a cup volume of waterand God loves you like all the oceans of the world Jesus loves you and wants to save you from the fiery pit

[@MichaelAronson]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 If I'm valuable to you, send me $100.

[@E_Don]

​@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 LOL enough of the fairy tales. No one is listening.

[@lokdog257]

I want a shirt that says "I may be wrong, but I don't think so"

[@meganmueller]

I feel like it's a weak statement. The better statement would be, "This is the most comprehensive view I hold, but I'm open to finding a more comprehensive view".

[@qwertyvypez]

​@@meganmuellerno lol, that doesn't sound cool. You want a cool statement on your shirt

[@trafficjon400]

How about a shirt "I may be Right, but I think I'm Left !! lol One thing I might think Right about is the way the average high controller Roller's Use their Vocals if they feel Challenged? They Seem to abruptly, when Slightly challenged improvising a Belching Word that is closest to their topic or View to, over run any understanding? Yet, Seemingly Manipulative and Honesty is somewhere out at port in Religion Debates often enough.

[@meganmueller]

@@qwertyvypez Peterson’s statement isn’t cool.

[@ManamaEd]

​@@meganmueller Says "megan mueller" like anyone would give a shit about what you consider cool or not

[@ztormur6504]

jordan was absolutely buried here. it's wonderful to see.

[@NewLifeNow-l5o]

He wasn't, they talked about different things and both are wrong

[@darianm.4521]

@NewLifeNow-l5o the debate from an objective standpoint, he got destroyed. Whether both are wrong is irrelevant. I could watch a video of a Christian destroy an atheist in a debate and agree that at that moment they destroyed the atheist.

[@robertmarshall2502]

​@@darianm.4521 You don't seem to know what an objective standpoint is. Matt didn't actually present arguments that weren't just claims that everything is self-evident and didn't require explanation. The problem being that they did. Neither of them really explained anything but Matt isn't really capable of deeper thought beyond God isn't real cos I have no evidence for him. The guy who had a question at the end had a better argument than Matt.

[@theloneliestloveliesttime]

​@NewLifeNow-l5o Peterson ralked about abolutely nothing of substance like he always does. This brain damanged manlet needs to be in a care home. It's literally giving dementia.

[@diegosepulveda6334]

​@@robertmarshall2502dude, Peterson was anything but objetive, he literally started questioning everything from a subjevtive point of view

[@johnboehmer6683]

Love this format of just having a conversation untimed, unregulated. As long as the people discussing our polite, it allows exchange of thought, and response so much more effectively.

[@MichaelAronson]

What if it wasn't polite? Would that hurt your feelings?

[@johnboehmer6683]

@@MichaelAronson Mike, why would you check in just to say something antagonistic and obnoxious? Are you ok there buddy? Since it seems you have been unable to figure it out, polite exchanges allow the exchange of ideas where we can follow easily, as opposed to the two of them constantly talking at the same time, or yelling at each other, which is often the case in modern discourse... Not so easy to follow. Which by the way, is yet another downfall of Western society since it turned its back on God, which I dealt with in another comment you responded to. Don't worry, I'll give you the rebuttal you're clamoring for tomorrow, have a good night...

[@MichaelAronson]

@@johnboehmer6683 "why would you check in" Do you . . . live here? "Not so easy to follow" It just sounds like you have comprehension issues. "yet another downfall of Western society" People yelling is the downfall of western society? I guess that means it's been falling for all of human history.

[@johnboehmer6683]

@@MichaelAronson You're unfortunately a miserable little man, clearly, you have my sympathy Mike, sincerely. It's got to suck being so empty and devoid of all decency that you can't refrain from pissing on a comment merely expressing a positive opinion about the format of the conversation. That's just pathetic buddy, how did you get this way? I'll be waiting for you to check back in for yet more proof. Dragging atheists through the mud in the process. All the best to you, and all who know you, if you could pass along my sympathies to them as well, thanks.

[@MichaelAronson]

@@johnboehmer6683 "a comment merely expressing a positive opinion" It was a dumb comment and a dumb opinion. Maybe the internet isn't for you?

[@yevgeniygrechka6431]

This really isn't a religious debate, its a linguistic debate.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

WHAT IS HE MEANING OF LIFE? To have a relationship with God on earth so you can spend eternity together in Heaven. So, what pushes me away from God? Sin (lying, unforgiveness, sexual sins from lust, dishonouring parents, steeling, taking the Lord’s Name in vain etc) which leads to hell. But Jesus died on the Cross and rose from the dead to give you the ability to repent and Believe in Him as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[@williamcarr459]

Fiddlesticks. Any god who would hold these things again me can kiss my proverbial ass.

[@valley5617]

That’s where Peterson lives

[@theQuestion626]

@@valley5617 And honestly it’s funny when you see Peterson try to employ tricks of linguistics and changing of definitions in order to hide the fact that he doesn’t have a solid an evidence-based argument. It’s also humorous when he tries to be philosophical, and he just face plants so hard his teeth burst out his ears. His ramblings about metaphysical substrate were hilarious. He doesn’t even make an attempt to define what he means by metaphysical substrate because we know from his past interviews that he has a different understanding of certain definitions and even scientific concepts and even history. It’s hilarious watching him ramble on and on making things up as he goes along and people sit there slack-jawed and clap like seals acting like he’s some kind of titan of intellect.

[@jordanchen23]

@@theQuestion626 I can't believe I ever fell for Jordan Peterson's bill C-16 hype back in the day. He got me. He got me good.

[@james-cz4xx]

I quit smoking with no religious/mystical experience or drugs of any kind. You get beyond the first three days and don't hang around others that smoke and you're good.

[@fgoindarkg]

My experience exactly. Peterson is a self deluded fool. If it's in a book he believes it.

[@caiofernando]

Yes, that argument is laughable.

[@james-cz4xx]

@ActionGamerAaron you may want to ratchet the part they went over about quitting smoking. It was said that you cannot do it without religion or drugs. I'm evidence to the contrary.

[@Billy-id9kb]

This is what you got from this debate?? Good luck in life and beyond.

[@james-cz4xx]

@@Billy-id9kb refuting his bs strawman of people's willpower and the NEED for a god is only one thing. You're missing the point. If he can be so obtuse about something as simple and proven as that, then how wrong does he allow himself to be about bigger questions. But if you think that the smoking thing was all I got from the debate then you don't see how weak the foundation of the argument is, and thus would be the kind of person to believe impossible things because someone with authority told you it was true.

[@crystalcooper6798]

The thing i like most about Jordan Peterson is his ability to use so many big words and still not say a damn thing.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

[@Fobber1980]

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough

[@schloops8473]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 ofc god is sinless as he defines what's a sin lol... and then, knowingly, creates a universe knowing exactly how it will end, based on his setup... then he punishes, violently... and here you are clapping to that exercice in stupidity

[@peptalk7658]

In the legal field, that is a sign of dumbness.

[@MizMorgue1]

He talks like that on purpose. His aim is to lull you into a sleepy boredom, where you'll just say "ok" so you can get away from him.😂

[@daves7775]

Thank you for posting this - without a bunch of interrupting commentary; or inserting dumb images and or music. Just the discussion. Thank you.

[@vlogshd2081]

No one does that

[@donttrustthem7601]

quik and simple god is your jewish pagan god Yahwe(יהוה). why? The nation of Israel believes in a fake god (Yahweh - יהוה) who is at rest. If your fake god is at rest, who then controls the Universe and all creation?... To control all creation, the True God is needed. It turns out that if your fake god (Yahweh - יהוה) is resting, then he is replaced by another of the same fake god, and he is also resting... And so on ad infinitum, this is repeated. It turns out that in fact the Jewish fake god (Yahweh - יהוה) does not exist.

[@WhoThisMonkey]

​@@vlogshd2081 In your experience

[@daves7775]

@@vlogshd2081 Really? What rock do you keep your head under? There are THOUSANDS of videos - doing just that! One example - kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIu9d32ka7Fpars but they certainly are not hard to find or run into - when delving into a topic.

[@antony5502]

Yeah i always find that annoying

[@ElTestok]

I just want to point out that my Dad decided to stop smoking one day, crumpled the pack containing his last cigarettes, and threw it in the can. He understood it could have negative effects on his, and his kids', health and made the decision that enough was enough. Never smoked since. you don't need chemicals, let alone supernatural interventions, to stop smoking. This take has me baffled.

[@paulbrut]

Dads are a thing aren't they- its amazing how many dads moms, aunts uncles , bus drivers walkers and cyclists- i gotta stop somewhere lol, Do this every day of every month somewhere, in fact in countries of tens of millions- hundreds of thousands stop every Year, Me ? Oh I'm an Ex - smoker- and someones dad. Am I Amazing, NO- Im just a Stubborn Brit.

[@thevoteman]

he still had a point because just "thugging it out" and quitting cold turkey is not a demonstrably consistent method of quitting. willpower is a very transient thing and not everyone has the same amount of it to begin with

[@Robyn-l7v]

Its will power. He admitted to himself that is was not good for his health or the kids. God can take that and show him greater things.

[@Robyn-l7v]

God exist. God cannot be proven or said he doesn't exist. Were we there when God created ? The answer is no. So the real challenge is how do we prove or disprove God who has already existed. Would there be evidence ? Yes. Just look at all that has been created and how much time we spend on trying to figure out how it all works.

[@no_prisoners1]

It’s the Holy Spirit that helped with that cause how else do you explain the epiphany

[@treztreiz6370]

Please tell me when JP actually answers a question

[@PortmanRd]

He seems to make a habit of promoting his own agenda whilst sidestepping any questions directed to him.

[@andresgarciacastro1783]

He's there to sell books, patreon subscriptions and other products, he isn't actually engaging.

[@DMV8662]

Your just too dμmmmm to comprehend..🤦🏼‍♀️🤷🏼‍♀️

[@sirllamaiii9708]

​@@andresgarciacastro1783yeah I don't think he's a good representative of Christianity whatsoever. He's just here because he's popular.

[@RafaelValle12]

​@sirllamaiii9708 hes here because he's a thinker and a good communicator. He actively seeks the truth. I don't believe he's a Christian at all, though he does see the merit of its existence for society

[@donharris8846]

0:55 is a textbook display of stalling with platitudes. I believe JP thinks that the words “substrate” and “phenomenology” are too complex to understand? His long meandering statement certainly didn’t address the question, he just said that atheists don’t look at all of the perspectives of religion.

[@gtrob1]

He's corrupted Kermit the frog with a real time thesaurus.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@gtrob1 God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

[@YouVSMeTV]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Yes, friend tell them about the one true god, the only one to create the heavens and the earth, the mighty Zeus.

[@MizMorgue1]

Exactly. He was being a pompous AH, and insulting the intelligence of anyone who is an aethiest.

[@YouVSMeTV]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 No praise for the one true god, Zeus?

[@Apheem]

The noise gate is insane

[@Observette]

They actually enhanced the audio, check the description.

[@Linguae_Music]

@@Observette The noise gate is the thing that blocks out small sounds and lets in loud sounds... Like if you want to remove audio information below a certain amplitude - (like sneezes or coughs in the crowd) you can use a noise gate I think what they mean is that the attack and release of the noise gate is quite sharp and noticeable. Fixing the audio later wont change that. Although they could have "enhanced the audio" by applying a noise-gate... in which case nevermind!

[@DarkBunnyLord]

@@ObservetteAt most they take the original audio and boost/lower it. They can also apply a noise gate which means sounds below a certain level get cut out usually to stop background audio that they don’t want you to hear. Now it is possible the noise gate was awful in the original video meaning they can’t really fix that without some meticulous audio editing but regardless it doesn’t change the criticism that the noise gate is atrocious regardless of if it’s to blame on the source video or the edited reupload.

[@dtf-productions6134]

It actually is lol

[@extendedlines]

Yep. I noticed that too.

[@waldemarkirszniok298]

Isn't it fascinating, that two people, who recieve so much hate on a daily basis about reportedly being disrespectful, debate on a topic to which they have opposite views, and yet they agree on so much and demonstrate an amount of respect towards each other that I haven't seen in public debate in years? This should at least in part in any debate seminar as an example on how it's done.

[@stickitupyourasteric]

As a leader in any field you can only go so far if you have thin skin.. debate clarifies

[@waldemarkirszniok298]

@@stickitupyourasteric Sadly perspective skewes the perception and influences said clarity to favor preconcieved notions, but of course, you're right.

[@MichaelAronson]

@@waldemarkirszniok298 "perspective skewes the perception" All perception is from a perspective. It can't "skew" perception. It's part of the same thing.

[@waldemarkirszniok298]

@@MichaelAronson It is. But there are different perspectives with their respective biases. Or do you disagree.

[@RufusShinra]

@@waldemarkirszniok298 Perspective conditions perception to certain degree, that's a fairly acceptable statement, there can be no objective perspective and therefore all perception goes through a skewed prism which is perspective.

[@lipgloss202]

The metaphorical substrate is strong in this one. May the Force be with you!

[@ABC-li4he]

😂

[@J.Rose9210]

😂😂😂

[@stephenfrench3888]

👍😂

[@talonnightstar]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@sabin97]

i was gonna comment in the metaphorical substrate and jungian archetypal hierarchy.......but you beat me to it.....well done!

[@michaelsavard8689]

Jordan Peterson is a terrible debater, but he's a hell of a magic mushroom salesman

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

[@michaelsavard8689]

@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 You're wasting your time and life on fairy tales. Go do something to actually make the world a better place.

[@healthyplanet-b5z]

Yeah right!

[@healthyplanet-b5z]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 why do you say this to everyone commenting on the video it's lame man

[@itotallycare]

@@healthyplanet-b5z Because these kind of people are weird as shit. He probably runs to church to repent whenever he has a boner.

[@briandoerfler726]

Everyone: Matt won this debate Jordan Peterson: well that depends how you define "won" 🤡🤡

[@nicholasullery5129]

One speaking abstractly and one speaking concretely. I think you missed his point

[@valroniclehre193]

@@nicholasullery5129 Petersons abstractions have a pattern. It is the willful obfuscation between god as a reality and god as a metaphor. He wont even answer the most basic questions in a clear enough way to talk about them in any meaningful way. If he were stupid I would assume it was incidental. But hes a master of language. This is intentional, in line with a clear financial incentive to not distance the two sides of his audience. Hes to vague to be called right or wrong. So hes wrong.

[@versatilejams]

One always supposes the proposition of “win” implies the defeat or unremarkable characteristics of something in comparison. But upon what criteria is the winner chosen? When we speak of time, we say that it’s relative…. I swear, he’s got the most long-winded and verbose ways of arguing ridiculous points. Two and two does not make five, not matter how much word salad you dress it up with.

[@FlashRayLaser]

​@@nicholasullery5129Well maybe he should stop the bullshit and speak concretely like we do anything else real.

[@BluishNomad]

@@FlashRayLaser Would you say math is real?

[@stephenfreeman4256]

I wish I was a student in Dr. Peterson's class when he taught at university. For every test question I would reply with "well its really really really hard to explain" or "what do you mean by that?" He would have to pass me because he does this every time he gets asked a straight forward questions in a debate. Dr. Peterson; master of equivocation.

[@tomy8339]

You have to understand the context of that question in relation to the metaphorical substrate of critical analysis. 😅

[@ghost79ish]

Not really. A debate is a much different format than a test. Much of what goes into a good debate includes defining of terms and clarifications for the people of participating in the debate and for the audience. Yeah, this can be a bit tedious, but it's essential for a quality conversation like this, especially when the two people debating are coming from very different perspectives and trying to find some common ground to work from.

[@RyanGetLow]

He's insufferable. He just just likes to hear himself talk. He rambles and panders to the point of boredom. I think he blacks out when he talks, and only comes to when he's run out of words and/or forgets what he's even talking about. Either way, he's completely expecting you to be so amazed with what he thinks is a profound and well thought out response. He's too used to preaching to college kids in a classroom. It's good to see him get his foot put in his mouth.

[@midnytthunda]

@@RyanGetLow what Peterson have you been watching?

[@MasterCoachUniversity]

So far 45 minutes of Peterson, double talking and confusing very simple issues. This is what people say, is the intellectual pinnacle? There’s no doubt he’s smart, but he certainly sounds stupid in this debate.

[@kivitropikal6755]

Noise gate feels like I'm deaf when the silence comes again

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

[@not_porter]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 bruh who invited this guy

[@andreww4751]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 if God is real then why is the world so fucked up and so much evil, corruption, and suffering? Why does God allow for all the innocent people to suffer ? You have millions of children who born and live their whole lives starving, dirty and horrible diseases , worms inside their skin, inside their brain, and then they die. What's the point of that? Why God allows that? Ive seen so many cases of people with horrible diseases or accidents, where's God? The fuck God's done about all this suffering? What about the insane corruption that goes on in our world, the people in power are stealing lying and brainwashing the masses and cause insane suffering, and people who try to rise up and do the right thing they get shut down, censored and humiliated? Where is God in all this? Why has God allowed communism to thrive for so many years and starve and kill more than 100 million people and ruined whole cultures. Do you understand the damage , soviet countries are so diseased they look like cadavers, like carcases, entire cultures ruined, entire countries ruined. For what? What God allows that? There is only one conclusion: Either this God is an evil fucked up sadistic God that allows this cancerous abomination of a world to exist, or it doesn't exist. You're gonna come with the bullshit afterlife assumption? What actual proof do you have of that? Beside a random book? What makes your religion true? Your God true, and not the other major or minor religions or God? Why is your God and book the real true one? The arrogance. You know what baffles me about you people? The sheer arrogance in you, to be sooo sure about all these thing. Like you know better. Your arrogance is insulting. Why is your book the real one and not the Quran ? or Hindu ? If you were born in india you would be a hinduist , believing that Shiva is the one true God. We live in hell bro. The difference between me and you is that I have the guts to accept with without any pathetic crutches and fantasies and I can live on and be a good person despite all of that, and you don't. And also i'm not so arrogant as you to know for suuure that what im saying is true to the point where i'm so arrogant I go telling people "the truth". F off.

[@thevoteman]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 right sure but the noise gate tho

[@Cotillion308]

​@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 didn't god appear to Moses? Cause Moses like committed murder which is a pretty big sin and he kept on living.

[@Anon18259]

Jordan peterson talking is like when I ask chatGPT to make something twice as long.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@malcolm-danielfreeman5940]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 quoting crap from the fictinal story the bible isnt convincing us of mythical god either yure a 50 or a nutcase all religious nuts like you are desparate or bainwashed - no sane person choses religion as a crutch - fpr intelligent people we need be proved god exists never mind the bullshit in the bible then one a miracle you could prove god - i say keep your evil master hes not for me.

[@tyr7876]

That's a hilarious way to put it.

[@calebalton2084]

Jordan seems to have forgotten about the pre Greek scientists found in Egypt, in Sumeria, who built pyramids, developed writing, built ships, chariots, and had other ancient technological and mathematical knowledge long before the Greeks appeared on the scene.

[@muddywaters1472]

People like Jordan always "forget" when it's convenient for them 🤷🤷🤷

[@PsychicSploob]

One of my biggest issues with JP whenever I was interested in his lectures was that he really just ignored everything outside of his care, even though it would have been perfectly relevant and substantive to his philosophies. He’s very willfully ignorant.

[@5h1f7]

What’s your point?

[@vampirgirl41]

Peterson would probably say that it's because of the Gods that they had being an approach to the devine that exists. All of our social fabric existing is based on that and even 10000 years ago when tribes began evolving at a higher rate, it was due to moral standards based on solidarity, which is based on an approach to find God or to communicate what God is and all of that makes sense because of our modern understanding of God xD This is what this clown would probably say because he went in that direction xD

[@ltmund]

Are you not confusing science with engineering?

[@nathanmaxey2966]

Peterson: "I'm not trying to be difficult." No, for some, that just comes naturally

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.

[@nathanmaxey2966]

@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 I don't know what people you're talking to, but I don't know anyone who thinks lying and stealing are "ok." In some cases, I'd argue that it is good to lie and steal. The world isn't all black and white like religion paints it. Disrespecting your parents isn't a serious offense. All kids disobey their parents. It's even a good thing if the parent is a narcissistic abuser. Leviticus 20 9 For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him. The God of the Bible is a monster who I do not want to be with for eternity. Fortunately, I don't believe in sin, the devil, God, or any other fairytale, so I don't have anything to be afraid of. I do what feels right in my heart with love and compassion. That is enough.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@nathanmaxey2966 Obviously there are exceptions tothe rule, alady in the Bible hid 2 men and lied about hiding them, she saved their life , if your parents tell you to jump off a brdgge then you dont listen to them but when is the last time you were in such a situation? People have bad hearts when people do what is right in their own mind we get corruption because humans need to be born again through Jesus Christ

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@nathanmaxey2966 God through the Holy Spirit has shown me several things relating to the afterlife with the purpose of convincing people like yourself. Stuff like Heaven and Hell, Angels, and evil Spirits the Lord Jesus (not worthy at all), a miracle happened to me that saved my life (thank you God) & so much more. I am more than happy to give further details.

[@rafaelthetoaster7292]

@@nathanmaxey2966 I think I can explain the disconnect here. When JP, and others who think like him use the word "God" it as a job description, a position in someones life. It is this central tenant, set of principles, experience, person (such as empearor worship in imperial Japan or N. Korea), or even a literal physical object with some more primitive societies. So isn't this just changing definitions? No, Matt and other atheists confuse these two, they are so immersed in christianity that they do not understand the difference. They believe that if you can show that Yaweh, the abrahamic God isn't real, or that he is evil, or that there is no evidence for him that people would act in a more rational and moral manner. What you call morality is just abrahamic ethics. You all are so immerssed in this view that you believe debating whether or not Yahew is real matters at all. You think it matters because you just can't conceive of other gods, and there have been many many gods there for humanity. "But those are fairy tales, like Odin and Zeus aren't real", yes but emperor Hirohito was real, we have photographs to prove it, and he was a god. The Japanese knew that he wasn't omnipotent and could fend off the allies in WW2, they also knew he wasn't a universal god, yet he was still their god. The rivers are real, I've been in some to I'm convinced of that, and they are gods to many. Money is real (sorta), I have some in the bank, and it is a lot of people's god. A painter chooses their art to be their god. Art has been many people's god; many painter's basically live lives of poverty while they dedicate their time to their art god. A narcisist has themselves as their own god, they probably don't think about if their god is real either. You can be killed for these real tangible provable gods. And many many people have died and killed for them. With this in mind, does asking whether Yaweh is real or not matter? To me it makes it seem like a big waste of time. No one can prove anything about things outside of perceivable reality. The better question asking what should be our god? Maybe we should also ask if we should have one or multiple gods, which I beleive JP has discussed before. JP is asking the latter questions because he understands this. Matt is focused on the first because he can't see the lineup of candidates out there waiting to assume the position of god. He thinks if we throw out Yahew because he isn't real then that's it! We are done! No more god!!! But this is false. To you Yaweh might be a monster, and you are glad he isn't real I assume. But there are many monstrous things out there that can become god too, and they are very very real. Trying to prove Kim Jung Un is fake won't get you anywhere with a north korean. You have prove he should not be their god. This is why JP just tells atheists they do have a god, and it is Yahew. Yahew is occupying the position of god to a western atheist, they just don't believe he is real, and they think he is an evil asshole. Yaweh is so firm in that position that the western atheist just can't see anything else being god.

[@psychicbyinternet]

I love how they both have evil villain chairs.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@baz00katooth]

It was almost distracting, every minute or so I couldn’t help but think “Damn, those are some nice chairs”.

[@linuxramblingproductions8554]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363wow for god being a designer he sure does love making his designs evil

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@baz00katooth People underestimate hell, it is bad because it is separation from God. In a vision I was shown a person who claimed to be Christian but started fornication (premarital sex), He died relatively young and went to hell forever (1 Cor 6:9). God’s holiness means He will not coexist with sinners forever therefore Repent (Luke 13:3) and have a relationship with Jesus.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@linuxramblingproductions8554 WHY DOESN’T GOD STOP EVIL ? Suppose God were to get involved every time something bad were to happen. God can prevent fatal car accidents, child molestation, grape, murder etc This sounds good on the surface but lets dig in a little deeper. God is the epitome of holiness so He would prevent you from fornicating (premarital sex), lusting (watching pornography), swearing or taking His Holy Name in vain (so God would control your speech) , even eating certain foods or drinks (because God considers it to be junk food and it is destroying your health), hating someone ( so God would control your thoughts). You have essentially been reduced to a robot (following instructions only). But the reality is, you were created as a free creature with the ability to choose right from wrong (freewill), the ability to stop doing sin (Repentance) and to Believe in Jesus (Faith).

[@Edwardenterprise]

How can anyone talk to Jordan Peterson seriously. He's so bogged down with trying to use big words that delinienate nothing to his points, and come across as mumbo jumbo. And he's supposed to be a leading intellectual in our present culture.

[@imp_mane]

he grifted to neutralize losing his family, becoming religious. he's on either end of the philosophical/political spectrum where it's so rigid and absolute, that there really is nothing of substance that's useful. It's exactly as you say, too driven by his ability to open semantic duels, not curious enough to question his obsession with zeroing out in death.

[@philipmckee1033]

@@imp_manewell said, near to how Dr Peterson would’ve articulated his response, you’ve forgotten the most crucial first 3 words, “well not necessarily.” Then of course the last 3 “Man that’s brutal”

[@aaronlong5020]

he lives in a world of variables that bind a world of fact, most people are not capable of opening their mind enough to understand him.

[@kiwikim5163]

@@imp_manehe lost his family?

[@sitr2516]

This debate was a one sided ass whooping because Jordan is incapable of giving a straight answer to any question posed to him.

[@DownBYOB]

of course, because it is much easier and direct to say 'God doesn't exist, I can't see him', than going in the rabbit hole trying to defend that he does exist... would be interesting to see how would the debate be if Matt would be defending God's existance and Jordan would be the atheist... would be interesting to see what you say then

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@DownBYOB All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@Hellenicheavymetal]

it's not like he's a minister or anything. At least they can give all sorts of answers to make them sound like they are gaining the upper hand. JP debating Matt is only a bit better than your next door neighbor debating Matt.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@Hellenicheavymetal People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.

[@mesterzombi6632]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 See, this is the reason why many religious people can't be taken seriously. They throw around with these magical words like "God", "Him", "devil", "hell", "Jesus", "Heaven". They come off as living in a fantasy land of absolute good and evil, where everything is revolving around humans, and there are absolute answers to everything. It's childish beyond words.

[@josephvickers7426]

"I don't believe in God" Matt "Well if you take drugs you might!!!!" Jordan

[@dkhan88942]

Everything with a name exist

[@MichaelAronson]

​@@dkhan88942 Does Batman exist?

[@gelberfubelag4717]

@@MichaelAronson in the same world god and all other fantasy dudes live.

[@Damnchaosemerald_e.e]

@@dkhan88942 my imaginary friend has a name

[@griffinturner5046]

Yeah you’re so much smarter than the guys in the debate.

[@stevedriscoll2539]

I am glad there are people tough enough and willing to have these discussions. Respect to both participants.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

[@hughmac13]

They ain't volunteering, friend. You'd find the toughness (though I'd dispute the necessity of that quality) and the willingness too if you were earning at the rate these discussions permit.

[@stevedriscoll2539]

@@hughmac13 You may be right, but I find it just a tad cynical, but be that as it may, I find them useful and instructive, thanks for the feedback

[@stevedriscoll2539]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 ok, fine I would hope I have the courage to stand up and fight for your right to believe as you do and put voice to it...I, however, found Hitchens (and others) arguments more compelling on why their is no evidence that what you are saying is true, even though, sometimes, I wish it were

[@thotmas3097]

We’ve been having this conversation for eons. There’s no proof god exists let’s move on

[@kingobama4305]

8:18 the easiest way to dismiss petersons ramblings about the various philosophers like jung is to say "if they've presented a valid reason to believe in the existence of god, i'd like it if you could share some of their arguments, and we can go over if they're convincing or not." easy peasy. it would keep peterson more on topic too, since he likes to run all over the place.

[@helisean10]

I don't see how he didn't do that. He explores and expresses a lot of ideas for which there are no real clear answers. Various philosphers have presented many valid reasons to suspect the existance of a greater "being" or greater level of consciousness. The other side of the coin that you've expressed is simply to dismiss the ideas or thoughts silly and shut the door to further debate about it. That is the definition of ignorance.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@helisean10 All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@-guy-2686]

The funny thing is Jung never claimed that god or the supernatural even exist, he was much more concerned with psychological and cultural repercussions of the idea of god.

[@expandingknowledge8269]

Jordan's nonsensical word salad and psychobabble really takes away from this conversation. Kind of a shock and awe treatment to the senses.

[@seef279]

Believing this guy was smart was my biggest blunder🤣

[@mjabdelrazzaq]

@@seef279 I mean, he is still smart. But when it comes to this topic... Yup... Retard alert! Retard alert! Seems like no matter the evidence, he will still believe in god, reminds me of Kurt Wise (the Harvard geologist who believes in a young earth model based on the bible).

[@baumann9551]

@@seef279 fell into that trap as well about a year or two ago.. I feel so stupid in retrospect lmao

[@MichaelAronson]

@@baumann9551 Hey, better you got yourself out late than never. Personal growth is worth celebrating.

[@DownBYOB]

could you provide some examples?

[@MobiusVideo]

You should go easy on the noise reduction for the audio because at the moment it’s too aggressive and it sounds like there is something wrong with the audio the way it keeps ducking in and out.

[@awkwardcapgun6131]

Idk if you heard the original audio debate back in 2018, but this is actually a HUGE improvement. Audio was trash, super quiet and still unbalanced.

[@MobiusVideo]

@@awkwardcapgun6131 Sure, I’m not disputing that. But the fact remains that there are now many dead silent sections between the talking which is unnatural and unsettling. No noise is nearly as bad as too much noise. It’s really not that hard to get right. I’ve done this sort of thing a lot.

[@stevenson720]

I'm glad you said the original was trash, I was annoyed about this audio until I heard that. Sound guy had an off night I guess.

[@Xechor]

Definitely could use some adjustment on the compression, but I'm glad it's at least improved now.

[@Maelthorn1337]

​@@MobiusVideo I've always found it amusing how the majority of live recorded events like these tend to have poor audio production. This is far from the worst, but as a hobbyist broadcaster I feel I could set up and run the majority of these events way better and I'm no where near being an audio engineer.

[@DrGsTube]

Peterson is a character that belongs on Seinfeld.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

[@charlottemacmaster3221]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363Bro SHUT UP

[@Linda-z3g3k]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363thanks but no thanks. No heaven. No hell. No god. At 78 years old, that’s worked for me just fine.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@Linda-z3g3k Trust me there is, i wouldn't waste my time otherwise God through the Holy Spirit has shown me several things relating to the afterlife with the purpose of convincing people like yourself. Stuff like Heaven and Hell, Angels, ,evil Spirits, the Lord Jesus (not worthy at all), a miracle happened to me that saved my life (thank you God) & so much more. I am more than happy to give further details.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@Linda-z3g3k Ive seen everything you mentioned This is coming from a good place, my love for you are drops in the ocean compared to God’s love for you. Jesus loves you and wants to save you from hell so love Him back

[@Krikenemp18]

I usually don't care for the Q&A section of debates (the questions are often poorly framed and/or have ulterior motives behind them), but this is a rare case where I think it was the most interesting part of the debate. Fantastic questions with fantastic answers.

[@FilDoyon]

I totally agree with you. These questions was just amazing and sincerely asked with curiosity. Which is very rare. I really liked the introduction of Matt to the Q&A session. Haha. It seems to have done the job and brilliant persons stood up for asking pretty relevant questions.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@FilDoyon In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

[@FilDoyon]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 I already believe in him man.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@FilDoyon Make sure as a you are a repentant Christian. Read the Bible daily and pray often throughout the day, the devil is trying to make lukewarm Christians everywhere (Rev 3:16). Join us in spreading the good news of Jesus Christ. If you tell everyone that you are a mechanic but day in and out, you do the work of an accountant are you truly a mechanic? No, you are an accountant. Likewise, a Christian by name who lives contrary to Jesus’ teachings by living sinful/worldly is not a real Christian.

[@X4lkor]

As a computer scientist one thing I found very odd was Peterson's statement that AI are not rule based systems. Ignoring the fact that he meant machine learning not AI (most AI systems are rule based in the classical sense) but even ML systems are rule based, we just allow them to change their rules while they learn, and often the rules they generate are not easy to interpret, but that in know way means that they are not rule based. The standard ML model is to multiply the input by a value, add a value and then pass it through a function. You do this a certain number of times and the result is the output of the model. I see no reasonable way to describe that as not being a rule-based system. Perhaps he means that human minds are not capable of discovering the proper rules on our own, but to Matt's point, we are doing what the ML systems are. We guess at what the rules are, and if a rule makes a bad outcome we change it. This is the exact way the ML algorithms act intelligently

[@dougschneider8243]

I too really opened my eyes at that part, because computers are my background, too -- educationally and professionally. He's flat-out wrong -- but what it does show you is that Peterson is happy to talk authoritatively about topics he has no knowledge about. Quite embarrassingly, actually, in this case.

[@webdactic]

I thought this. ML really just a way of capturing rules mathematically that are too complicated for us to linguistically (verbally or in code) express. Though neither of them seem to appreciate this, I think there may actually be a good analogy here with what Peterson was saying about brain hemispheres. The linguistic left hemisphere maybe is more like a standard piece of code with simple verbally expressed rules. If Sam angers me then don't throw him off the stage except if there's a fire. Not sure we humans really act much along these lines. Then the extra-linguistic right hemisphere maybe is more like ML that is trained by exposure to the world, its culture, narratives, art, symbols, etc. When we feel in our gut that we shouldn't throw Sam off the stage, there's surely some learned rules at play there that are a lot more complex, but it's really just the "sum" of our input/experience. Maybe one day with a brain scan, we could extract this learning as a table of numbers. If anyone can connect any of this thought splurge back to whether Peterson believes in God or not, please go ahead. I still don't know what he means by God.

[@dca4840]

He needs to stay in his lane.

[@JTeya0]

😂😂😂 that's what you took from the whole discussion

[@sudowtf]

I am happy to see someone else point this out. For a while I was dabbling with A.I. before I set my interest on Game Development. I had read many, many things on A.I. development with most of its categories. As far as I know, every single program of any kind needs to be rule based because without rules, a computer simply doesn’t know what to do or how to do things. Hearing JP say his thoughts opened my eyes to just how phony he really is. He speaks on things he knows nothing about with great authority quite often. Ask anyone with a little bit of programming knowledge the question if a program can not be rule based and they will answer with a “no”, everybody knows this

[@steelcom5976]

@11:24 Peterson refers to a study on psilocybin and the effect of a mystical experience that induces someone to quit smoking. I found the study, or trial. But it isn't a trial. I would call it a vague, inexplicable observation. It didn't come up to even one of the number of standards that would constitute a trial. There were only 15 subjects (trials require at least 100), it was not randomized, it wasn't double-blind, there was no placebo group, and it didn't list any possible bias nor conflict of interest that could diminish the strength of the conclusion. In any case, the trial never concluded that it proved the existence of mystical experiences.

[@MisterG2323]

Peterson betrayed his biased ignorance with that bit of nonsense. I've been an atheist for decades, and recently quit smoking. Cold turkey. No drugs, no deity, no magic, no mystic experience, just a decision made and followed. Prove me wrong, Jordan, you pedantic obscurantist!

[@phillystevesteak6982]

Yo, I know people personally with mystical experiences. I had a friend Mike who began fervently believing in God and aliens after taking acid regularly for months. This is definitely a thing. Anyone who's been involved in psychedelics knows people who have been "changed" by a profound, overwhelming psychedelic trip. Anecdotl, yes. But still come on. This is obviously a recurring phenomenon. That being said, I've done all kinds of psychedelics. I don't believe in the supernatural. But I get how these drugs could essentially do the opposite of PTSD. So, there ya go

[@steelcom5976]

@@phillystevesteak6982 Let's review. You've taken lots of drugs and it has advanced your critical thinking skills to such a high level that not only can you evaluate yourself correctly but all the others in your social group.

[@MisterG2323]

@@phillystevesteak6982 Having a "mystical" experience while on psychedelics in no way demonstrates anything supernatural. All it demonstrates is one of the effects of consuming psychedelics. Nothing more.

[@phillystevesteak6982]

Read the VERY end paragraph of my comment @@MisterG2323

[@macha3191]

You can literally write a formula for what AI systems will output based on the input after training. Just because we didn't hard code the rules doesn't mean there aren't rules.

[@LucisRoar]

JP is a joke

[@chronomaster5779]

Yes i didnt understand his point there. Computers (unless maybe quantum computer) are not working on principles. They are working on on and off, which are then translated to more complex binaries. The ai simply studied the rules of each scenario until it knew the rules of each stance in chess stages, hence knew all the answers in advance. It didnt operate on principles at all, It calculates mathematically everything and therefore governed by the rules of hardware and software. Machines operates only by rules one puts into them. Principles implies they have some kind of autonomous living judgement.

[@Midg-td3ty]

Its not that easy. AI models are somewhat of a blackbox right now.

[@andrew_stamps]

@@Midg-td3ty This is incorrect, the models they're still running on Turing complete hardware that means that with enough time you and I could perform the same RAM manipulations by hand even and get the same output.

[@Midg-td3ty]

@@andrew_stamps Well I just relay what AI engineers are saying. Who do I believe? KZbin comments or Ai engineers? Though decision.

[@ErinWilke]

Jordan Peterson calling atheists not atheists was like an Uno reverse "No True Scotsman"

[@jestes7]

What do you mean by uno reverse? I'm not sure I understand that part. If that part were left out of the sentence, I agree.

[@SleepyMatt-zzz]

The "atheists are not atheists" argument is so old and dishonest. I'm surprised that Christian theists continue to use it.

[@lukedegraaf1186]

​@jestes7 it's a card game.

[@jestes7]

@@lukedegraaf1186 Uno reverse isn't a card game. Uno is. Reverse is a card in that game. People use the term uno reverse to mean comeback. Which doesn't make sense here. Using a fallacy as a "comeback" isn't a comeback at all.

[@vampirgirl41]

​​@@jestes7I get why you're confused, but you're too hung up on the mechanics of the actual uno reverse card. He's using it as a rhetoric device to make fun of how Peterson makes an absolutely unreasonable argument by shifting the goalpost. He changed the definition of what an atheist is by saying that through our morals we all unconsciously believe in God or something like that. It's like a kid that says "No, you" to a certain extent. Imagine you tell someone you don't believe in God and he says "Yes, you do because you believe killing people is bad". You could also use a YuGi Oh reference, saying that the mirrored his ass. There's sarcasm involved. From Peterson's perspective he believes to understand something deeper about the concept of God, but to anyone, who can somewhat think critically, he's asspulling stuff in a fashion of a uno reverse card, in an outrageous way, which makes me laugh xD

[@soufianeammou5132]

"I am not trying to be difficult." - *Peterson trying his best to be difficult*

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

[@Arvind60606]

R u insane or an asshole? ​@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363

[@R3l3ntl3sss]

I think you mean, he is difficult and it appears as if he is being difficult on purpose. I personally think he is just approaching these issues from a different perspective and it isn’t satisfactory to yours.

[@soufianeammou5132]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 I don't want anyone to put his sinless righteousness on me. I can put mine in them though

[@DPSMattDiggitty]

​@thereisnonegoodbutgod😂😂😂😂john363

[@punkaholia]

Peterson uses such an obvious trick the whole time. He speaks in vague terms and refuses to be specific but then requires an insane level of specificity from Matt. This way it appears to his audience that Matt agrees with him while he never has to appear to agree with Matt.

[@RA-ie3ss]

On the other side, what does Matt mean by getting better at getting better? What is improving?

[@MichaelAronson]

​@@RA-ie3ssWere you able to whine to atheists on the internet 20 years ago, naz? Or has your ability to whine to atheists in the internet gotten better and better?

[@RA-ie3ss]

@@MichaelAronson You are saying getting better refers to technology? You are ascribing the improvement of the internet to Secular Humanism? Is Secular humanism in practice? According to Matt, there has never been a secular humanist government.

[@MichaelAronson]

@@RA-ie3ss Naz, where did I mention secular humanism? Why are you incapable of reading?

[@triedbythefire4777]

Jordan- "It's not an obvious fact!" Matt- "That chopping off someone's head is not beneficial to someone's well-being?" Jordan- "Well, that depends on how you define well-being!" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Absolute classic Jordan response!!! I never thought he would take it that far!!!😂😂

[@smokeydiamond489]

Can't stand the guy. He obviously ain't as smart as Matt. Matt's arrogant af but chit he's smart

[@triedbythefire4777]

@@smokeydiamond489 Lol, you're ignorant

[@MichaelAronson]

@@triedbythefire4777 Incredible, you have literally no arguments.

[@smokeydiamond489]

He should be removed from the stage for pulling this shit

[@triedbythefire4777]

@@smokeydiamond489 Pulled off the stage for thinking more than others? Pulled off the stage for not simply excepting axioms without properly understanding the implications? Pulled off the stage for not being lazy? You're calling that "sh**"? Listen to yourself.

[@_D_W_]

How is the thought of humans not existing too hypothetical? We didn’t exist at one point, now we exist, and at some point… we won’t exist. That’s the most realistic thing you could say about the human race.

[@Bungaloo]

Epicurus said over 2300 years ago “I was not, I am, I will not be.

[@ioannescontramundum]

@@Bungaloo “I don’t care” ;)

[@crimsonguy723]

It's actually a tougher question than you think, philosophically. We don't, and can't, actually know anything when we aren't observing said "thing".

[@MichaelAronson]

​@thesemicolonclub Perception is not reality. We can perceive things that aren't there and miss things that are there. Perception doesn't tell you what is true.

[@MichaelAronson]

​@@crimsonguy723 Observation doesn't impart knowledge either. We observe the Sun moving across the sky. That doesn't mean we know the Sun moves. It doesn't.

[@germantoenglish898]

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” - W.C. Fields

[@kentonbaird1723]

I feel neither baffled nor dazzled, just vaguely irritated.

[@germantoenglish898]

@@kentonbaird1723 vaguely is good. It's positive. 🤣

[@saintsword23]

Wow, what an thoughtful, resounding, and insightful analysis of the arguments. You really addressed the pragmatic argument Dr. Peterson made for example, that effective beliefs imply true beliefs. You also had insightful commentary on how this argument is usually used by scientific materialists and it's ironic that Peterson is using it in favor of arguing for God. So well done addressing his actual arguments.

[@kentonbaird1723]

@@saintsword23 are you copy-pasting this onto every comment that judges quack Peterson too harshly?

[@saintsword23]

@@kentonbaird1723 I'll do it for any comment that ad hominem's Matt too. I'm not a JBP fanboy and I agree far more with Matt in this debate. I'm just sick of seeing ad hominems and stupidity EVERYWHERE I GO. Debate the actual arguments. Have a conversation of substance rather than "whose expert has the biggest dick."

[@maanmouzaik4860]

Excellent video. HUGE THANK YOU.

[@DruMusica]

Just a tip for the next ones: You shouldn’t have put the noise gate at 100%. With headphones, the total absence of background noise from the room creates cuts in the audio that sound unnatural.

[@Mixdreamer]

Agreed insanely annoying

[@JasonKutchma]

It's probably so it can be used as a podcast equivalent.

[@JoeKing69]

I thought the video was buffering haha

[@jacobshandymantreeservicel2522]

Thought it broke multiple times or ended on a random note… 😂

[@chiggedycheckyoself]

Interesting. I find it to be nicely balanced. Enough audience participation comes through when appropriate., no plosives, not too much reverb coming from the two speakers. Definitely helpful to keep my adhd brain engaged and focused on the conversation. Edit: it becomes more apparent further into the debate. I have to agree, those are some very harsh cuts, as if the audio is completely muted in between.

[@lewni25]

I love how much they used the ‘throwing Sam Harris off the stage’ analogy for the core of the argument/question 😂

[@bloodybonescomic]

Yeah, that was enjoyable.

[@NMSUNSETGOURMET]

If you throw the Deity off the stage all that remains is the word GOD.

[@MichaelAronson]

​@@NMSUNSETGOURMETYou can't throw deities. They don't exist.

[@NMSUNSETGOURMET]

@@MichaelAronson Not throwing imagined Deities. Throwing the things that we subjectively define off the stage to see what can be objectively defined, by what we can measure with truth. When I say the word GOD exists, its meant in an absolute way, as it needs to exist for you to see it included in the sentence. The only thing left to measure when we accept the Deity sacrifice from the word GOD is the word GOD. When we choose to use it, we can see it. If we can see it, we can choose to give the picture that the word uses to build its objective property. To give the word requires we draw it, simple truth. Rather than place the imagined pillar of spaghetti, having no objective truth. That's why I've given the word GOD the definition that's seen without the Deity, for a division of time. The argument of subjective things is division, not Holy measured. The Sacrifice of the Deity value from GOD exchanges the subjective for the objective property. That being a claim requires I demonstrate that objective truth with GOD as a measure. So here it is again: Kneel to trace picture children. G is an incomplete whole with one square angle drawn in Earth. O is a whole measure. D is a split whole with two square angles drawn in Earth. Sacrificed, Holy measured. That is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me GOD.

[@MichaelAronson]

@@NMSUNSETGOURMET Please learn English. This is so sad.

[@mudkipfan2420]

Help me give the exact timestamp where JP actually answers the questions where it matters without going around for 30minutes

[@MisterG2323]

Good luck!

[@Siwena]

How do you actually define an answer, or a question, the young men in south Asian prehistoric society had different answer for what a question is , I see that as an immutable fact don’t you agree? J.P., probably

[@molybdenum1275]

He always pulls this crap. It's a debate technique called the "Gish Gallop".

[@alessiobettega6760]

Here is the complete list:

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@alessiobettega6760 All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@Axxeman2112]

The way Jordan jumps into the middle of every one of Matt's sentences tells you who is less willing to listen; just as the way Matt stops every time he gets interrupted tells you who is actually willing to listen in order to get to a common ground. "Understand in irder to be understood". Jordan has no (seeming) interest in genuinely listening, but he is only trying to find something to disagree with.

[@THEInfamousRAY]

Albert Einstein said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" ......... Is what I would tell Jordan Peterson! At times I felt like I understood and at times I was just lost in his vocabulary! It was always so refreshing when Matt would speak, he was clear and coherent, and he used great examples and analogies to support his perspective! In my opinion Jordan can learn alot from Matt in terms of the way he explains himself.

[@rickymitchelmore9102]

I know exactly what you mean, which is more than i can say for Jordan Peterson.

[@MichaelAronson]

Never forget this is the guy whose "12 Rules for Life" included the rule to *_be precise in your speech._*

[@THEInfamousRAY]

​@@MichaelAronsonthe irony! 😅

[@ronaldrrootiii6040]

Yeah Jordan Peterson honestly seems like he was full of crap but he knows he's gained a lot of Christian followers so he wants to sound smart and not go against what I think his intellect nose is true about the lack of evidence for a god. It's almost kind of annoying because you see him pause and then just start saying a bunch of weird words in a row as if they are valid. He's very opening thing saying that it's not taken serious biologically intellectually all this stuff what is he talking about? It's not taken serious the fact of considering if there's a God that's the stupidest opening line ever of course it's taken serious it's taken way more serious by atheist than this by any religious

[@martelljhixson]

The man was perfectly coherent to me. Although I’m the type of person that learns new words for fun. I’ll summarize what I heard in simple terms: 1. The concept of God seems to be a result of biological and cultural development. It developed as a necessary means for our ability to communicate and to move beyond pragmatism. 2. Matt’s view is simple pragmatism on the back of the work that faith has constructed. Pragmatism does not give you the power to dream and to enter into danger, chaos, or the unknown. There is no good reason to do so unless forced by a greater foundational narrative. 3. Values are shaped in our intuition to believe in God and purpose. It is the majority of people’s innate operating systems. It explains why we should value ourselves and others. 4. Without God we can only have facts and opinions but not truth. Truth is necessary for the formation of society. 5. The functional benefit of God and its universal metaphysical power can serve as a type of evidence for its reality. For example…we conceive of circles so much so that we intuitively make use of them. To argue about if they are a thing in reality is silly. We conceive them therefore the question is irrelevant. 6. Atheism have no unifying narrative to challenge the evil that seems to be innate in all of us. At best it can give us pragmatism but not moral duties…this seems to him to be possible evidence that we know God is real in some sort. Those were a few of his points. There were a lot more. Matt was arguing that you can’t prove God exist beyond the shadow of doubt to call it objective truth. But Jordan seemed to be arguing that is irrelevant because you can’t live functionally without the concept. Matt was getting angry when Jordan was trying to highlight that when he presented his working system for human wellbeing. I tend to agree with Jordan. Matt himself acknowledged that the work of thinking through a grounded functional worldview and value system…most would never do it. They will default to superstition or being told what to believe. That system needs to create empathy and creativity and boldness while restraining human “evil” in a potent way. That’s what religion does…atheism does not have the capacity to do that. We all know you can’t prove God in any absolute sense. But most people aren’t interested establishing anything in an absolute sense because most things we assume can’t be proven…for the theists and atheists alike.

[@GuitarDiddlerJP15]

I feel that the crowds presence and reactions to their discussion was counter productive in this situation. I would have liked to see them debate/discuss in a one on one setting. Their laughs were misplaced and creates the wrong perception of what they were saying to each other

[@XanderShiller]

I think JPs debates with Sam Harris were intellectual blockbusters. You could feel the aggression via audio. This was a drunken convo but easy going and I'm glad Jordan is chilling. Good to see him laugh

[@FilDoyon]

I'm not so sure about that. I think this debate is worth listening and many people should listen to that. I think the public and their reactions add to the funny part of it and it will be easier for many people to listen to that simply because of that. And they were interacting with the public. I think it might be good

[@GuitarDiddlerJP15]

@@FilDoyon I agree with almost everything you said, but I feel that it amplified the argumentative state of this debate. What seemed like pretty standard answers from Jordan changed into more aggressive sounding statements because of the crowds misplaced laughs and reactions. I don't think he was trying to be that way much of the time but the crowds perception and reaction made it seem like his responses were more argumentative than he intended and it changed the dynamic of the conversation. I agree with the benefits you stated though.

[@FilDoyon]

@@GuitarDiddlerJP15 fair enough. I think you're right. But what I'm not sure about is the fact that it is wrong. Indeed, it might have changed a little bit the perception of Jordan's arguments, but when you know Jordan, you know that it was not his intention, like you've said, and if you don't know him, even if it might have sounded a bit more aggressive than the reality, Jordan's reactions to Matt answers throughout that part of the debate was so funny that I don't think it will depict him as someone's interrupting or being too much aggressive. "I might be wrong, but I don't think so" 😋🤣 hahaha

[@danvalare]

100%, and the ones that say no are the ones whoe will be laughing and clapping with every dull statement. Sorry.

[@TheJPomp]

Would be nice if you had the date of the debate somewhere in the title or description.

[@nailiveira]

Sometime between January and April 2018.

[@svn_ysrk]

I agree. I assume they don't put the date in there intentionally to make it look like it's a recent recording when in reality it's at least 5 years old stuff. Very unprofessional.

[@diggie9598]

@@svn_ysrk Classical Click Calculation.

[@zabbyzooby]

@@svn_ysrk sure worked on me!

[@Station9.75]

@@svn_ysrk- that’s exactly why they do it.

[@joshnull6132]

Peterson keeps trying to pull the conversation into metaphor which is essentially an unspoken admission that he has no material reason to believe they’re actually is a god

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@rogerroger6857]

I am always in awe of how Peterson can talk for minutes and hours on end without even saying one meaningful concept...

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY

[@julia347]

​@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 did you want to proof that Peterson is not the only one with that skill?

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@julia347 This is coming from a good place, my love for you are drops in the ocean compared to God’s love for you. Jesus loves you and wants to save you from hell so love Him back.

[@julia347]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 no thank you. I'm taking it with Matt, even if you could proof a God exist, I wouldn't want anything to do with it.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@julia347 PLEASURES/HAPPINESS Jesus wants to give you an abundant life (John 10:10). A life full of love, joy (happiness), peace etc (Galatians 5:22) Right now you think your happy but you’re not; your happiness lasts a minority of the time and the majority is spent in depression and sadness. Jesus says “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” Your dopamine (pleasure) levels will be higher. Finally you will go through trials and tribulations but it won’t last and when you die you have eternity of EXTREME PLEASURE waiting for you with no sadness whatsoever.

[@Flornmonk]

Dillahunty is such a sharp debater. Very impressive to watch.

[@hyperfox4494]

Guy believes a man can be a woman.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

[@Flornmonk]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 sounds like someone is GAY for Jesus.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@Flornmonk John 3: 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. f anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!-1 Corinthians 16:22

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@Flornmonk For a society to function there must be rules. For instance, if there were no road rules there would be utter chaos on the roads, accidents and death would be the norm. If there were no laws society would collapse as there would be way too much suffering and death. God has given sexual desire for the male and female and the rule is to use it within the context of marriage between a Husband and Wife (Research suggests married couples have better sex and Christians live longer than non Christians). Gain an upper hand by Repenting and Believing in Jesus today.

[@mikelikesmee]

The problem is that JP doesn’t debate. He just wants to dig and pontificate.

[@mikelikesmee]

…and he’s wonderful to listen to ❤

[@MichaelAronson]

​@@mikelikesmee It just sounds like you didn't understand anything he said.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@mvmarcozombie]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 this drivel is boring

[@milehieheal5140]

@@mikelikesmeeUNTIL the second time you listen to him and use critical thinking skills. His debate game is trash. He constantly moves the topic goalpost. The good debaters pick up on this, navigate thru the world salad bs, and blow his theories outta the water.

[@shanesmith734]

I tried to read JPs book "Maps of Meaning." Its absoloute word salad non sense right iff the bat. Couldn't make it ten pages.

[@M123OCT]

I've been following JP for years now, and I suppose I'd be described as a 'fan'. But, recently I feel like I'm shaking off the illusion that he's always right. This is the first time I've seen him squirm with discomfort, clearly aware that his clever linguistic party tricks and convoluted arguments are simply outgunned by common sense. I hate to admit it, but MD outclassed the master here, without resorting to smoke screens and straw-man arguments.

[@andresgarciacastro1783]

After this debate, JP won't debate Matt again.

[@M123OCT]

@@andresgarciacastro1783 I'd heard that. Although, to be fair, I did only hear it from MD. I suppose you never what happens behind the scenes. 👍

[@andresgarciacastro1783]

"Outgunned by common sense ". Nailed it.

[@xMaGuSx888]

Why do even like JP at all if you think he uses "Clever linguistic party tricks and convoluted arguments"? Those aren't the behaviors of an intellectual who wants to have an honest conversation in the pursuit of truth and mutual understanding. They are tactics of someone who just wants to win a discussion and sound superior by using word salad. Something JP lives on and his fans eat up.

[@M123OCT]

@@xMaGuSx888 Because life and complex topics are not black and white. Sometimes he's right; sometimes he's wrong. If you see life through such a simplistic lens, you never learn anything. 👍

[@franzseidel7891]

Great debate. I hope Jordan and Matt do it again.

[@drwzer]

Matt has already said that Peterson, after initially agreeing to another talk, he now refuses to do it on advice of his manager. Apparently the manager thought Matt was too effective at debunking Jordan’s arguments.

[@bauist]

It confirms that Peterson is a narcissist. Not sure what’s so ‘great’ about a whiny theist who won’t admit it trying to keep up with a well informed humble nuanced gentleman. JP had his 15 min of fame - now he’s just a tired apologist like hundreds of others. He likes to fancify his speech by using what Dan Dennett called ‘deepity.’

[@brownsterring9259]

I still prefer the 403 / whatever debates where everyone talks over each other before rage quitting

[@FireMuscle11]

Can you do Sam Mat and Jordan 😂😂😂

[@ayotundeayoko5861]

Sir, with due respect, I am damn sure Mr. Peterson won't want to do another debate with Matt.

[@LuxeonIII]

I stopped smoking after 30 years cold Turkey. My mystical experience was the price of life insurance if I continued to smoke. Never had any mushrooms though. My brother too just quit, same as eating carbs and getting fat, three words “just stop it” works.

[@kirkcybulski6777]

Me too. Went cold turkey about 20 without any kind of aids or anything metaphysical. So his comment is crap on that example.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@kirkcybulski6777 People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.

[@AndrewHunterMusic]

But why quit? Then ask why again. Do that for a while. Eventually you get to a metaphysical reason to want to be alive.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

This is coming from a good place, my love for you are drops in the ocean compared to God’s love for you. Jesus loves you and wants to save you from hell so love Him back.

[@kd6613]

🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00 *🤔 Introduction to the God Debate* - Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty discuss the existence of God, focusing on the complexity of religious belief and its cultural significance. - Peterson argues that religious traditions are deeply rooted in metaphorical and cultural substrates, which are essential for understanding human cognition and morality. 02:13 *🧠 Religious Belief vs. Reality* - Dillahunty critiques the conflation of religious utility with reality, particularly in fundamentalist beliefs. - Peterson acknowledges the value of religious stories and ethos but distinguishes them from scientific theories. 05:37 *📚 The Role of Religious Stories and Ethos* - Peterson defends the importance of religious stories in preserving cultural ethos, even if they are not scientifically accurate. - Dillahunty questions whether preserving these stories justifies belief in their literal truth. 07:31 *🎯 Critique of Celebrity Atheism* - Peterson criticizes prominent atheists for not engaging deeply with religious phenomenology and thinkers like Dostoevsky and Jung. - Dillahunty counters that his focus is on the scientific and philosophical arguments for God's existence, not the cultural or psychological aspects of religion. 09:24 *🔬 Science and the Supernatural* - Dillahunty argues that science cannot confirm the supernatural, as it lacks a mechanism to explore or validate such claims. - Peterson agrees but suggests that the limitations of science do not negate the importance of religious or metaphysical questions. 09:36 *🧠 Psychedelics and Mystical Experiences* - Discussion on the replicability of mystical experiences induced by psychedelics across cultures and their impact on culture and behavior. - Psychedelics like psilocybin are linked to significant behavioral changes, such as increased smoking cessation rates and reduced death anxiety. 13:50 *🕊️ Subjectivity of Mystical Experiences* - Exploration of how subjective experiences, whether from drugs, religion, or other sources, are described as mystical or supernatural. - Skepticism is emphasized as a tool for inquiry, not cynicism, to understand these experiences without confirming supernatural claims. 16:11 *🎵 Cultural and Psychological Influences on Religious Experiences* - Personal anecdotes about religious experiences, such as feeling the "Holy Spirit," are compared to similar sensations from music or drugs. - The role of cultural and psychological factors, like preacher cadence and music, in shaping religious experiences is examined. 18:44 *🎭 Exploring the origins of religious belief and transcendent experiences* - Discusses how transcendent emotions, evoked by rituals and music, are often attributed to supernatural agency. - Contrasts biological theories of religious origin with Freudian and Marxist explanations. 20:52 *🧠 Why mystical experiences are attributed to supernatural sources* - Examines the human tendency to attribute transcendent experiences to divine or supernatural causes. - Compares this tendency to cultural narratives shaping perceptions, such as alien abduction stories. 23:52 *💡 Consciousness and the "ghost in the machine" debate* - Explores the mystery of consciousness and the discomfort with admitting ignorance about its nature. - Critiques the leap to untestable explanations like the existence of a soul or "ghost in the machine." 26:54 *🔮 Consciousness as a faculty confronting possibility* - Describes consciousness as a mechanism for engaging with potential and future possibilities. - Links belief to action, suggesting that how we perceive consciousness reflects our deepest beliefs. 27:34 *🤔 Consciousness as a tool for shaping possibility into reality* - Consciousness enables humans to act as agents, shaping potential into actuality. - Legal systems and societal structures are built on the assumption of human agency. 30:07 *🧠 Moral responsibility and the role of belief in God* - Discussion on moral authority and the fear of losing it without belief in God. - The distinction between thinking and believing, and how belief shapes moral actions. 34:05 *🎭 Metaphorical substrate and the broader context of belief* - Belief systems are multi-level, integrating linguistic, emotional, and metaphorical elements. - Religious narratives provide a foundational context for moral and ethical understanding. 36:41 *🤔 Belief, Propositions, and the Limits of Narrative* - Discussion on belief as a state of being convinced of a proposition's truth and the challenge of reducing the world to propositions. - Debate over whether everything true can be expressed as a proposition. 38:06 *🎨 Art, Morality, and Secular Foundations* - Reflection on art and its connection (or lack thereof) to belief in God. - Debate on whether morality requires a divine foundation or can exist independently. 41:11 *🌍 Well-being as the Basis for Morality* - Introduction of well-being as a foundation for morality, referencing Sam Harris's perspective. - Debate over whether well-being is a sufficient or clearly defined basis for ethical systems. 43:48 *⚖️ Free Will, Value, and the Nature of Well-being* - Discussion on the relevance of free will to moral decisions and well-being. - Debate over whether well-being is an intrinsic or subjective value. 45:27 *💀 Debating the value of life vs. death in moral frameworks* - Discussion on whether death can be preferable to life in extreme cases, but generally, life is seen as preferable. - Exploration of secular moral systems being open to revision, unlike religious systems. 51:54 *🤖 Limitations of rule-based systems in AI and morality* - Critique of rule-based expert systems in AI, highlighting their failure in complex tasks like medical diagnosis. - Introduction of machine learning as a solution, emphasizing its non-rule-based predictive capabilities. 53:48 *🤔 Exploring Moral Systems and Rule-Based Decision Making* - Discussion on the possibility of deriving a rule-based moral system from finite axioms. - Emphasis on identifying actions that align with goals like improving quality of life. 55:32 *🤖 AI and Human Learning Parallels* - Exploration of AI systems like AlphaZero and their ability to learn and optimize without predefined strategies. 58:19 *🛑 Critique of Authoritarian and Divine Dictates* - Frustration with societal acceptance of divine or authoritarian dictates on life goals. 01:00:08 *🎤 Transition to Audience Q&A* - Introduction to the Q&A session with guidelines for audience participation. 01:01:03 *🙏 Philosophical Inquiry on God and Consciousness* - Question on the existence of God in the absence of humanity. 01:02:51 *🤔 The Nature of Consciousness and God* - Explores the relationship between consciousness, reality, and the concept of God. 01:04:12 *📜 Religion as a Moral Archive* - Discusses religion as a system that preserves moral truths. 01:06:50 *⚖️ Moral Judgment and Religious Authority* - Questions how individuals determine which religious figures or doctrines are "good." 01:08:45 *🗿 The Role of Giants and Christ as a Meta-Giant* - Introduces the idea of "riding on the shoulders of giants," with God as the ultimate giant. 01:10:39 *📖 Critique of Religious Teachings and Secular Humanism* - Critiques the teachings of Jesus, citing both good and problematic advice. 01:11:47 *🤔 The nature of ideals and their relation to religion* - Discussion on whether all actions and ideals can be considered religious or God-like. 01:15:44 *🗣️ Comparing secular humanism and religious language* - Debate on whether secular humanism or religious language better conveys values. 01:18:29 *🧠 Religious language as a framework for understanding existence* - Peterson elaborates on religious propositions as evolutionary tools for navigating the unknown and known. 01:21:06 *🌌 The interplay between the known and the unknown, and the role of meaning in navigating life.* - Reality consists of the known (order) and the unknown (chaos), and meaning is the instinctive response to the unknown. 01:23:50 *🤔 The distinction between genuine atheism and professed atheism, and the moral implications of disbelief.* - Jordan Peterson suggests that true atheists, like Raskolnikov in *Crime and Punishment*, act without moral constraints, leading to self-destruction. 01:28:40 *🗣️ Matt Dillahunty's response to Peterson's characterization of atheism and the nature of belief.* - Dillahunty challenges the notion that atheists must lack morality or purpose, emphasizing that disbelief in God does not equate to amorality. 01:30:36 *🤔 Atheism, Religion, and Identity* - Discussion on atheism, religious identity, and societal perceptions. 01:33:06 *🧬 Evolution and Morality* - Debate on whether morality is rooted in evolutionary biology without requiring metaphysical explanations. Made with HARPA AI

[@calvitojuanito]

that portion where you were discussing societies,chess, and computers was incredible. Explaining humans and our behavior in such an understandable way

[@raven09r1]

Not really. Because the chess rules are already established. Matt cannot come to that conclusion with life, because we have nothing giving us rules. He’s still wrong

[@psicosiluetas]

God reveals the laws that make human existence worthwile and purposeful, which aligns with the truth@@raven09r1

[@2fast2block]

@@raven09r1 Matt can't even get around basic science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, energy can only change forms, energy creation/destruction can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

[@wendellkelsey356]

@@raven09r1 We have a full set of rules that we learn from members of our tribes and families plus we have inherited the neurobiological capacity or aptititude to incorporate all this cultural info and then once grown we can extrapolate the same value judgement system onto previously unkown problems that we face. These rules are what has given us the best shot at being here alive now. possibly/hopefully have childre and . And provide the next generation with the tools they need to keep it going. These rules, traditions, folkways, periodic social activities: We could do Apollo 11 because 2 milllion years ago or whenever a handful of protohumans formed and alliance that defeated an adversary. Even it the adversary was just hunger. The individuals who were not building a culture are extinct.

[@MichaelAronson]

​@@2fast2blockYou keep copying and pasting this everywhere. It seems you don't understand what you're pasting.

[@TylerHartgrove]

It seems Sam Harris got the raw end of this debate.

[@AsifKhan-hf9zy]

he probably threw himself off a stage after he watched this.

[@iymspartacus7089]

Sam hasn’t been doing his own reputation any favors lately either. Poor guy!

[@nicholaskoenig3106]

Haha!! Indeed.

[@fredrikfjeld1575]

@@iymspartacus7089 Well, he hasn't tried to ruin his reputation as much as Peterson, Rogan, Crowder and the likes. Almost mentioned Shapiro, but he never had much repuitation to begin with

[@jessereichbach588]

@@fredrikfjeld1575 So it's all about politics eh?

[@DeusKDuo]

This is how a debate should be. You can still have common ground while being on opposite sides. Most debates seem to be about destroying the person who opposes you pretending as if there is no value to anything they have to say.

[@godcorrodedgod]

I dont precive this conversation as a debate. Thats why it is so learning and positiv to listen to.

[@julianmanjarres1998]

They're not even on opposite sides.. Peterson isn't a Christian per se

[@brandondill5640]

There was no debate here whatsoever. JBP simply does not allow for it.

[@hijodelayoka]

This is a debate, its just, we are accostumed to what politics do in debates

[@theQuestion626]

@@brandondill5640 but Peterson doesn’t really know how to debate. I’ve watched him in the past and I’ve watched him on interviews. He has these tired rhetorical tricks that he employs where he makes sweeping generalizations, bold claims and doesn’t present any evidence to support his arguments. He rambles with a lot of academic jargon and talks and talks in order to avoid being pressed to provide proof. He also engages in a lot of epistemological games in order to further muddy the waters and confuse his opponent. And he also does this so that he can do that little giggle of his and say “I didn’t say that.” The joke being here that he doesn’t really ever say much of anything of relevance or validity. Also Peterson seems to take every form of interaction as some form of competition that he must dominate. Dillahunty is treating it as this is, a conversation. Peterson is walking up as if this is a fight to be won. His smug “Ready to go?” when Matt welcomes him onstage was a clear giveaway.

[@joelhc9703]

36:46 here, forward I wished so much that Matt just would've let Jordan try to answer to the challenge: tell me something that is true but you can't put in a series of propositions. Jordan was lost and he threw a lifejacket to him by keeping with his example, so then Jordan grabbed that to further debate with an intimidation, evaded the said question and never came back to the challenge.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@Balanar6236]

name a thing you can be sure about without any propositions

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@Balanar6236 God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

[@HelloWorld-lv4we]

These two guys are always fighting in my head.

[@shabbaranks7968]

Jordan Peterson is the stubborn childish ideologically submissive beta side of me, Matt is the logical, stoic pragmatic and reasonable chad side of me

[@nicolasandre9886]

Dr Peterson is always fighting with meaning on youtube.

[@hammiranda]

Ali vs Frazier

[@hypno5690]

​@@shabbaranks7968tell me you don't listen to Peterson without telling me. His whole fuckin thing is to not be idealogically submissive

[@AnimatedLoopHD]

@@shabbaranks7968 Matt might be logical but definitely not stoic. He has pretty poor emotional regulation and loses his patience often. EDIT: agree with your opinion of Peterson though, that man speaks like a cult leader. His followers worship him like some Christ figure, it's really bizarre. Peterson is just a grifter monetizing outrage.

[@Dr.Succ0]

The guy that laughed when Jordan said “there may be artists who think they’re godless” made my night haha

[@kanimangaa.4574]

Peterson is the most annoying man that I have ever seen. He always talks as if he knows it all and that whatever he says are facts.

[@zarrok9857]

Same here 😂 What a stupid concept to elude to.

[@viola308]

​@@zarrok9857hm yes zarrok the let's play KZbinr is capable of discerning what's stupid

[@92brunod]

@@viola308He obviously can, your judgemental little brain obviously can't.

[@weforgecraft]

Whynis artist a God given talent? Cause I haven't made any money from my art or my martial arts but ppl who like the young ones is still doing it today this is all bullshit life is what it is good bad doesn't matter

[@Jibbson]

Thank you for reuploading this with higher volume.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

[@EloyBarrera-r5w]

Thanks for uploading this kinda videos.

[@Hedron-Design]

I love the comments. They display perfectly how people can hear the same thing and receive it so differently. We all apply our filters, our bias and our experience and then align it with Matt or J.P. And then both sides GENERALLY (not completely) decide the other is just wrong for any myriad of reasons.

[@undeadman7676]

I love this comment. It displays how people can notice any pattern, regardless of how small and insignificant, and project their own bias and experience onto it and then make broad generalized statements that present no new information about the topic.

[@thomascromwell6840]

I don't understand why conservatives can't learn simple writing etiquette. You don't write random words in block letters. It sounds like you're a maniac shouting at the corner of the street about the end of the world.

[@realphoenixking]

I'm amazed at the number of people that casually hate Jordan Peterson. It reminds me of how someone that spoke love and peace was also hated a couple of thousand years ago.

[@finndaniels9139]

@@thomascromwell6840 I think it’s Reddit, not necessarily conservatives. People on Reddit *love* emphasising CERTAIN

[@beorntwit711]

​@@realphoenixkingI don't think anyone 'casually hates' Jordan Peterson. I think they purposefully dislike him, because he twists facts to sustain his general narrative. The 'ethos' he values shouldn't be more valuable than the truth; yet he clearly believes this to be true. To him, illustrative examples (true or false in themselves) are just props for a grander (instrumentally valuable) narrative. To 'enlightenment folks' this sounds like the tail wagging the dog. In my experience, most people who like him approve because he tells them a nice story that makes sense of things. People who disapprove dislike him because he stepped onto a subject that they studied OUTSIDE of a grand narrative.

[@siddid7620]

Damn Dillahunty really sliced through JBP's sophistry...

[@FlorissMusic]

right! it was pretty shocking to see hahaha

[@IYPITWL]

Sophistry is the absolute best word to describe JP in this debate.

[@johnfoster144]

You mean what is what? Didn't hold water for you? Let's debate the verbage of wellbeing and it's implicit expectation as it applies to people in general because exceptions exist... Man JP is an idiot. I can't have a discussion on the merits of generally excerpted principles, because then I wouldn't get to say I have a PHD. Like yes or no, do you think it's better to be a millionaire asshole only respected by tools, or just be a moderately reasonable human being... We all know how JP answers, "let's define a millionaire, like are we talking specifically from 1 million up to $999,999,999, cause until you give me an exact number that I agree upon is a millionaire..."

[@hurtingmurphy]

Guess you didn’t watch the same debate haha

[@Scawtsauce]

​@@hurtingmurphy please point out a statement where you think Jordan Peterson made a good point?

[@byaustingragg]

"The sky is blue." Jordan: "Well, actually..."

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@byaustingragg]

@ thanks for repeating what I’ve already heard a billion times in my upbringing within the church. Go do some real tangible good in the world. Proselytizing God online ain’t the vibe.

[@IoT_]

Well actually, the perception that "the sky is blue" is a simplification of a far more intricate interplay between solar radiation and the Earth's atmospheric composition. To elaborate, when sunlight, which is composed of a continuous spectrum of electromagnetic wavelengths, penetrates the Earth's atmosphere, it encounters molecules of nitrogen and oxygen. Due to Rayleigh scattering-a phenomenon inversely proportional to the fourth power of the wavelength-shorter wavelengths of light, specifically in the blue-violet region (~400-500 nm), are scattered more efficiently than longer wavelengths, such as red or yellow light. However, the sky does not appear violet, despite violet light being scattered even more, due to the human eye's photoreceptor sensitivity being more attuned to blue wavelengths and the partial absorption of violet light by the upper atmosphere. Furthermore, atmospheric conditions, particulate matter, and the angle of solar incidence (considering the Earth's axial tilt and orbital eccentricity) can dynamically alter this perception. Therefore, while colloquially acceptable, the statement "the sky is blue" disregards the nuanced, wavelength-dependent scattering mechanisms and the physiological limitations of human color perception that collectively contribute to this observable phenomenon.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@byaustingragg God through the Holy Spirit has shown me several things relating to the afterlife with the purpose of convincing people like yourself. Stuff like Heaven and Hell, Angels, ,evil Spirits, the Lord Jesus (not worthy at all), a miracle happened to me that saved my life (thank you God) & so much more. I am more than happy to give further details.

[@nicholasullery5129]

To simplify petersons view as "youre not really an atheist or youd be a murderer" really shows his lack of familiarity with the abstract.

[@MichaelAronson]

What is abstract about murder?

[@nickdragonslayer]

JP claim wasn't "you're not really an atheist or you'd be a murderer" his claim was "if you really were an atheist, you have no good reason not to have moral relativism and murder someone if the circumstances are optimal, as happens in the book", the character had all the good reasons and even then hi fail not exactly the same.

[@jestes7]

Explain it better then, so we can all understand. How does that example in a novel make Matt not an atheist?

[@DanielRodriguez-zj5il]

His claim boils down to affirming Matt is not really an atheist because of his morals. But if you really think about it, this cannot be more wrong. 1. If you believe there is a god, you can do anything and everything and then just pray for forgiveness, since the lord is so all-mighty and powerful. If you did not have the cushion of a promised eternal life, you'd value the life as you know it, since you know your time is limited. Pretty sure you wouldnt want to spend that time in jail. 2. Morals dont come from the bible or any other religious books. Men wrote these, so humans wrote these values and morals based on their own humanity at the time, hence why slavery is condoned and supported in the bible. This was an acceptable practice back then. 3. You can get morals from literally everywhere else, watching movies, reading stories, even interacting with people. Claiming that we can only get morals from the bible is undermining our own desire to create a better place. 4. If you are christian, and if you are a good person SOLELY on the basis of fear of divine punishment, then are you really moral? Sorry for the essay lmao.

[@jestes7]

@@DanielRodriguez-zj5il Haha I agree. I always find it funny when people think that without God you can't be a good person. Like what? Are you projecting? If anything, I'm a good person because I want to be, not because of any ulterior motive like pleasing God, receiving blessing, or the fear of hell.

[@LoftyAssertions]

12:18 this is the first and only time I've ever seen someone wave down claps for themselves and say "No he's right, I will correct that" in any debate... Wow I also hugely appreciate Matt's demeanour the whole way through, he never diminished Jordan at any point, and had ample opportunity to with the audience on his "side."

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@Hugo4104]

My wife says to me everyday. “I’m not always right, but I’m never wrong”

[@joseviu969]

my wife says to me everyday. "Im right all the time because i let you speak for me, thank you honey"

[@SleepyMatt-zzz]

That sounds like a toxic relationship.

[@fuckyeahbaphomet]

​@@SleepyMatt-zzz It's hard to tell with people. Could be an ironic slogan, like one on a Walmart shirt, but it could be a sign of an underlying issue in their relationship

[@Medvelelet]

​@@SleepyMatt-zzzoh get a grip

[@Guys_Love_Each_Other]

If she were good, she would have said, "Maybe I am right or wrong, but I'm trying to improve."

[@hanzo935]

Petterson turns an answer into 10 books and still doesnt answer it directly. Even a yes or no question.

[@brettfinan7461]

hes truly insufferable

[@homedepotindustrialfan936]

Does your boyfriend know you’re gay? Yes or no only.

[@hanzo935]

@@homedepotindustrialfan936 projecting much?

[@spacebook8923]

@@homedepotindustrialfan936this is an intentionally complex question and is in no way analogous

[@Myfootonyourneck1]

Lost brain cells on this response. The only one dodging questions was Matt.

[@robertmontenegro5000]

Both of these gentlemen are such powerhouses. Even though they're both in disagreement, it's such a pleasure to listen to two enlightened gentlemen on opposite ends have a constructive argument. I don't agree with Jordan Peterson, but I'd still love to see more conversations with him and Matt.

[@DaviniaHill]

Peterson is a simpleton.

[@mxgggrmxgggr6232]

One enlightened gentleman my man .Peterson is just a meme

[@gloriaf6971]

Peterson makes no sense.

[@AtanuKDey]

@@gloriaf6971 Peterson makes no sense but boy oh boy does he produce word salad by the tons for the millions of his followers who love to eat it all up.

[@seanday20]

​@gloriaf6971 Peterson isn't an apologist, like James White or Jeff Durban, but he actually used their arguments. Not only that, Matt ended up defending Jesus' teaching 'do unto others as you want others to do to you'. That's when he was talking about morals. Matthew 19:17-19 & 22:36-40 Peterson is flawed but he's on the right path.

[@kieranirmiter1323]

The noise gate on the audio is incredibly annoying and distracting. If anyone reading this doesn’t know what a noise gate is, just listen for the unnatural silence that happens each time someone stops talking. In place of a natural noise floor the noise gate engages and drops the signal to 0 DB, totally unnatural. Please forgive my off-topic comment.

[@rjjr7064]

If only presidential debates could be this civil

[@JakeWitmer]

Or this intelligent

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@JakeWitmer All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@ahambrahmas]

That sound gate is so aggressive I keep thinking my audio is going out

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

[@ahambrahmas]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 LOL

[@Vladd7]

@@ahambrahmas you got checkmated, bro

[@romanmay2867]

50:00 actually this is why there are so many different bibles, from the kjv to the niv to the nrsvue (literally came out this year 2024) has new updated information. he focuses so much on fundamental religious people and beliefs that it doesn’t give credit to those that actually DO update and change their beliefs based on new evidence

[@ROVA00]

Funny how we can have these amazing discussions with such intellectuals still and end up in the exact same place we started: with fundamental disagreement.

[@MichaelAronson]

Because these aren't amazing discussions. They don't go anywhere.

[@RA-ie3ss]

@@MichaelAronson So why don't you be the change you want to see?

[@MichaelAronson]

@@RA-ie3ss I don't want to be your boyfriend, fash. I want you to find your own boyfriend.

[@RA-ie3ss]

@@MichaelAronson Oof not anywhere and no substance as usual.

[@MichaelAronson]

@@RA-ie3ss Your future boyfriend is out there somewhere. Go find him, fash.

[@spiderrabbit1556]

Jordan’s whole career is based on the simple premise that you can rationalise anything if you try hard enough.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

[@dimitrifake53]

​@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 I'm good.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@dimitrifake53 This is coming from a good place, my love for you are drops in the ocean compared to God’s love for you. Jesus loves you and wants to save you from hell so love Him back.

[@dimitrifake53]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Nah, I'm good.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@dimitrifake53 I’m for you not against you. Jesus is not some bad Person to Believe nor is He made up (look at all the attention He gets). He is not a hypocrite either. He practiced what He preached. He is Loving but also Just; So, He will punish sinners like any just judge would. But followers of Jesus are exempt because the precious Blood of Jesus atones for their sins.

[@chrisvandermerwe7111]

I've never seen Matt behave so well in a debate. I appreciate this side of him.

[@smokeydiamond489]

They probably told him look dude, your attitude ain't good for business

[@BusterrHimen]

yeah because he knows if he looks like a fucking moron like he normally does on a big scale with a much larger name in Jordan Peterson, that he will lose all of the little respect he has in the debate community. I'm actually shocked that Peterson even chose to do this debate and it's very satisfying to watch Matt get his little sneaky roundabout smokescreens cleared and pressed through like he did at 40:45. Fucking poetry in motion watching the self-proclaimed "debater" get pie faced in front of the peanut gallery who kept falling for his cheap tricks.

[@LikeYoungMike]

He’s going against another well educated person whom he has some level of respect towards

[@Beastrend]

Yeah, it wasn't about him behaving well for the debate. Peterson may be wrong in his viewpoint, but he presents at least somewhat reasonable arguments relative to what Matt usually has to contend with. He just doesn't have patience for outright stupidity.

[@alexvdubb]

They disagree but Matt has respect for Peterson. I think he believes where Peterson is coming from is a good, educated, honest place. It's in good faith is what I'm trying to say I guess lol

[@aydenmcmillen7782]

the audio makes this unlistenable. why do their mics mute whenever they’re not talking it’s so off-putting

[@jackredden3445]

Imagine a political debate that could be even 1/10th this informational, honest, and polite. Two great minds, that I heavily respect.

[@MichaelAronson]

"this informational" What information did you perceive?

[@jackredden3445]

@@MichaelAronson You didn't receive a single piece of information from this 2 hour debate? They both are informing us on their beliefs, and doing their best to dissect and converse on the other person's beliefs.

[@MichaelAronson]

@@jackredden3445 "They both are informing us on their beliefs" Opinions and beliefs aren't information.

[@jackredden3445]

@@MichaelAronson really? So to know that Hitler believed Jewish people were less than human, and his opinions on how they should be treated, that knowledge isn't information? I believe you are an annoying troll, and my opinion is that you should get a new hobby besides trying to annoy people online. Hopefully this informs you of my belief and opinion. If that's even possible in your brain.

[@exyiseyres]

You owe me some pants

[@liamnguyen2819]

If you wanna call this a debate, Matt Dillahunty clearly won.

[@ThisguyQuake]

This was Matt being very patient with your run of the mill apologist.

[@versatilejams]

“Religious cognition.” - Peterson. These are called thoughts and feelings. There’s nothing special because they are religious, I have fried chicken cognition on Thursdays. I have it so much on Thursdays I may get restless without it. It’s not fried chicken cognition, it’s cognition. Everything is cognitive unless you’re in and out of consciousness. Don’t even get me started on “metaphorical/metaphysical substrate”. 🙄

[@AdamBechtol]

indeed.😛

[@SupSucka]

Well, I’m trying to better understand what metaphorical/metaphysical substrate means. Can you explain to me exactly what it means?

[@righteousshift482]

@@SupSucka He's basically saying there's a latent metaphorical meaning behind the prosaic meaning of the biblical stories. In other words, they are metaphorical and open to interpretation +, which suits him as he can then just apply whatever interpretation he likes such as _"When God asks Abraham directly to kill his son, what he's "really saying" is God is asking all of us to make the ultimate sacrifice."_ He doesn't go on to explain why God pulls out at the last minute and says "April fool." Essentially, he's doing to the bible what he accused Cathy Newman of doing to him. + _He adds "substrate" redundantly._

[@SupSucka]

@@righteousshift482 Yo I appreciate that.

[@markdoughty8780]

Even as a Roman Catholic, I have to say that Matt Dillahunty is my favourite Secular Humanist. Great debate/discussion - civil, engaging, and educational. What's not to like. Thoroughly enjoyable; thanks for uploading.

[@matthewmartin725]

He sucks. I yawn when he speaks. Peterson clearly destroyed him here

[@teo5836]

Why are you a Roman Catholic?

[@donfette5301]

Jordan Peterson’s publicist saw him get destroyed and there will be no more debates between these two. Too bad! This was entertaining as hell.

[@SilverSixpence888]

@@Rileyed Where do you get this bullshit from, and why do you believe it???

[@matthewmartin725]

@@Rileyed lol but you forget the part about how Christ is risen. Clearly a fundamental Protestant. Best of luck brother. I guess best thing I could say to you is … no body cares about your ideas in your head. Not me not atheists not god… everyone cares about what you actually do with your life tho. To believe is to do. It’s a philosophical statement to say I believe. And therefore: “faith without works is dead !”

[@forivall]

Roughly 54:00 JBP is completely wrong about expert systems. Expert systems do work: theyre just too expensive to keep up to date with the current knowledge. ML based AI works because it derives the rules through by encoding complex problems into a multidimensional space, and extracts answers by statistical analysis of that encodes problem space. And that procedure can be automated much more easily than manually encoding every possible rule as was done in expert systems. Humans can adapt in comparable ways to the ML systems. So, we both can work by interpreting and adapting to those base rule sets.

[@emilydiffenderffer6191]

Matt knew it was over when he said metaphorical substrate

[@wesley3300]

Lol that phrase alone really gives up the whole game

[@jonathanmunyi5549]

He said "metaphysical substrate", he was trying to get to the heart of Matt's axioms, because Matt was making self evident claims that were not self evident in a philosophical sense. A great example is his first claim, that death is preferable over life, this is not self evident. Think of samurai code or Aztec and Mayan sacrifice....the claim that death is preferable over life is not a universal self-evident axiom to build any moral architecture on....Matt is happily playing 2d checkers while Jordan is wrestling with a 4 dimensional chess board. It's not an easy thing.

[@williamhorn363]

@@jonathanmunyi5549 It is self-evident to prefer life over death because we are all born with the instinct to survive. The objective is to avoid death. If you posit that death is preferable to life, then there is no life in question. It's not a matter of implicit "value". I do not wish to live because I think I have some divinely imposed value upon me, I do so because I was born and living creatures have an impulse to survive and thrive as much as possible to continue reproducing and keep the cycle going, so to speak. Furthermore, you are flat out agreeing with Matt in your final statement. To quote you: "the claim that death is preferable over life is not a universal self-evident axiom to build any moral architecture on" - Yeah, this is exactly what Matt said. Nowhere in this debate did Matt say "death is preferable over life" was a self-evident universal axiom. He advocated the opposite. If what you mean is that it is not self-evidence to universally rule out this axiom, then please refer to the beginning of my comment.

[@jonathanmunyi5549]

@@williamhorn363 Thanks for your reply. What I was saying is that it is not a universally self evident truth that life is better than death, and since you agree with me that this is not a universal self-evident truth then all reasoning from this as a principle is shaky. Something cannot be true most of the times or true yet untrue in the same sense. Matt saying we can create a self-improving morality, by simply defining rules for life and the goal of life, is not as trivial as he would lead the audience to believe. The great thing about the physical world is how well designed it is, infinite forms of being can be expressed based on finite laws. In metaphysics, philosophers try and reason out or discover the finite laws on which we can base everything including being, knowing, beauty, goodness etc. Matt suggests that we can swap out our axioms on the fly as our knowledge of things improve and that is never going to work because everything else that has been reasoned from a faulty axiom will be trash as well. So we constantly have to start from scratch every time we discover a faulty axiom.

[@williamhorn363]

@@jonathanmunyi5549 I appreciate your response as well. With all due respect, I disagree with all of these points. I'll try to address all my counterpoints: "since you agree with me that this is not a universal self-evident truth then all reasoning from this as a principle is shaky" I agree that the axiom is "shaky", but that does not follow that the principle is faulty. The purpose of this foundation of logic is to filter out the axioms from which no constructive progress is made toward a thriving society. The fact that we can agree that this is a dud axiom, is proving the efficacy of the principle. We can now throw it away and start from a stronger premise. "Matt is saying we can create a self-improving morality, by simply defining rules for life and the goal of life, is not as trivial as he would lead the audience to believe" I agree. This is not a trivial task, but it is one that is worth the effort. As such, it should be adaptable, otherwise we would still be living the barbaric lifestyle of our ancestors. "Matt suggests that we can swap out our axioms on the fly as our knowledge of things improve and that is never going to work because everything else that has been reasoned from a faulty axiom will be trash as well" Firstly, that depends on the intensity of the change you're making to the axiom. If you start from "stabbing people is bad" and you realize this isn't specific enough, so you generalize it to "killing people is bad", then some (if not all) moral reasoning derived from the initial axiom still remains a subset of the new axiom. As time goes on, the adjustments you make to your initial axiom(s) should get asymptotically smaller. Secondly, if a new axiom should take the place of the old one and it completely uproots the moral foundation of a society - trashing everything it once knew - why is this a bad thing? Would it be a slow and controversial transition? Sure. But a bad one at that? Of course not. If tomorrow we find a solution to free infinite energy, that would surely change the world and cause all sorts of controversy and uproar, but ultimately it would push us as a society much further along. We have seen this time and time again throughout history, both technologically and ethically speaking. This truth emerges from nature, not from humans.

[@garbojaxmcbruce9626]

It's so nice to watch the two of them having fun even though they disagree!!

[@JoeKing69]

That is the only way humanity will move forward.

[@WhoThisMonkey]

Yup, freedom from religion is essential for our species sanity

[@MichaelAronson]

@@JoeKing69 Move forward from what?

[@JoeKing69]

@@MichaelAronson I can already tell this won't be a productive discussion...

[@MichaelAronson]

​@@JoeKing69 We don't have to discuss anything. Just answer my question.

[@Guts240]

Always love a good, clean debate. No disrespect, just a mutual desire to learn. Edit: I posted my original comment prior to watching the debate. It was simple, wishful thinking and nothing more.

[@malchir4036]

There was no mutual desire to learn. Peterson made shit up and doesn't understand basic philosophy.

[@C0smicNINJA]

@@malchir4036he’s a psychologist. You have to understand that he is arguing from a psychological perspective, with some philosophy. He’s by no means coming from a conventional philosophical perspective like what you’d see from Josh Rasmussen, Trent Dougherty, Richard Swinburne, etc. Matt couldn’t understand that. …not that Matt himself comes from a philosophical perspective. No offense intended if you’re a fan of his, but Matt does not understand philosophy, even less so than Jordan Peterson. I’ve only ever seen Matt respond to the strawman/weak form of arguments or just flat out not understand whenever someone present an actual sophisticated argument like from the philosophers I mentioned. If you’re an atheist, just read up on atheist philosophers of religion like Graham Oppy or Paul Draper who actually study the existence of God as a profession rather than a popularizer.

[@redrustyhill2]

JP wasnt there to learn. His argument was petty and pathetic

[@decegrease]

​@@C0smicNINJA why not just name good arguments for God's existence? I dont really care for the argument from authority "they actually study this for a living" doesnt mean anything when your ideas are stupid. 3% of climate scientists dont agree with the consensus of climate change so, i mean, not exactly a reliable way to vet the truth of a claim. Hence, it being a fallacy And as far as Peterson speaking from a psychological perspective, i dont care what goes on in people's heads. Whether or not God is real has no bearing on human psychology, he either exists or he doesnt, and according to Abrahamic tradition, he existed way before humans or psychology. He just likes to use flowery language to hide the fact he cant substantiate anything

[@Anthonycapone8146]

​@@redrustyhill2haha!

[@AlcoVoz]

Peterson's first statement was a long drawn out way to say "people have believed in god for a very long time. You gotta respect that." No you don't. He said "It's worth preserving." The history? Or the belief? And which god are we preserving?

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@AlcoVoz]

@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 I'm so scared. Even if a real person existed historically that we could point to as Jesus, the jesus you are referring to is a fictional character that only exists in your mind. Can you prove otherwise? Without referencing a book?

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@AlcoVoz God through the Holy Spirit has shown me several things relating to the afterlife with the purpose of convincing people like yourself. Stuff like Heaven and Hell, Angels, ,evil Spirits, the Lord Jesus (not worthy at all), a miracle happened to me that saved my life (thank you God) & so much more. I am more than happy to give further details.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@AlcoVoz This is coming from a good place, my love for you are drops in the ocean compared to God’s love for you. Jesus loves you and wants to save you from hell so love Him back.

[@AlcoVoz]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363okay. you win. I love him. I love him even more than you do actually. He might even choose me over you. And we'll be together forever.