WHAT HAPPENED WITH JORDAN PETERSON!? Matt Dillahunty & Douglas Murray

[@Pangburn]

If you enjoyed this clip, drop a like on the video and consider subscribing. Watch all 6 Douglas Murray Pangburn debates here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/o3bWnGaqhdV_qZI

[@samtheeagle799]

monumentally arrogant lol!

[@Burtifly]

And Douglas Murray

[@timjackson4649]

Well said. Do you mind if I use that. Not for like money lol, but in an argument, civilly, with an associate

[@govindagovindaji4662]

3:57 I only saw a 15 minutes clip of Dillahunty w Peterson and did not find it fascinating at all. Judging by the thousands of comments left there neither did anyone else. Jordan was his typical 'interruptus change the subjectus' self. WHY~? do tell, do you guys bother with him at all~? To what end and to whose benefit? That is what I would like to know.

[@robynmoase2004]

Great

[@Anonymous-sb9rr]

I'm surprised that Jordan says that you can't have morality as an atheist, because he has described how morality can derive and evolve from our biology and social environment.

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

there is a reason people call him a drifter. because he seems to quickly change positions based on the audience he is speaking to.

[@RatatRatR]

It is possible to be too conservative. i.e. because it was a key part in our past, it will always be wrong to move past it. I believe that by now, it is appropriate to acknowledge both the importance that Christianity had in the development of Western ethics and the fact that an increasing number of us no longer need Christianity.

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

@@RatatRatR everything that christianity had to do with developement of the world isnt from christianity. most of what makes christianity what it is came from other religions and cultures. if you take away the christianity part, we still have all the good things left. and the bad things done away with. anyone that would have the same beliefs amd traditions as original christians would be in prison in the modern day. from stoning gay people and disobedient children to slavery and the abuse of women.

[@krox477]

Morality is time and place dependent

[@PowerRedBullTypology]

I think because he seems to get most of his views from others (like different books on different topics) this can create conflict if he is talking about subjects where 2 of such topics collide, as the ideas of the writers of the of these books may collide too . This can then result in him jumping from one argument to the other even when they seem to conflict. Especially when presented with new information or new ways to look at old information, he seems to struggle. He is best when he can tell a story to an audience without interaction with others, unless these others are dumb tv hosts that try to straw man him (then he is great at handling that). However, it works partly because the other parties are not very intelligent usually.

[@tracythomson2604]

Jordan Peterson I think is not ABLE to acknowledge that he COULD be WRONG (about anything). He becomes unglued when 'debating' anyone smarter than himself. I think he has a very difficult time believing ANYONE could be 'smarter' than him.

[@leishayoung4124]

Yup, like every other narcissist.

[@NRProductionss]

Maybe, or maybe he knows but also knows that his following venerate him as one of the smartest guys of all time, and he’ll do anything to ensure that image remains intact.

[@ApolloVIIIYouAreGoForTLI]

Yes, He's a narcissist. You've succinctly explained how a malignant narcissist thinks.

[@blaynestaleypro]

Peterson is a hero and clearly destroyed Matt last time they debated. Anyone with any sense knows this.

[@NRProductionss]

@@blaynestaleypro now that depends on what you mean by hero, and what I mean by hero, right bucko?

[@williamgrosbach4237]

The primary mistake you make is taking Jordan Peterson seriously.

[@bkfitnessandcombatives8658]

A five-year old could have expressed that, yet you blather about being taken seriously. You can’t make this up…🤣🤣

[@Murphyyyyyyyy]

@@bkfitnessandcombatives8658got the sads from that comment 😂

[@thrandulfthegreen]

Why should you not take Jordan Peterson seriously? I dont understand.

[@Sensorama2000]

​@@thrandulfthegreenhe sais it to goat people into asking serious questions to then hear himself talk smart. It's ment to be provocative and when people disagree he will talk down on them, belittle them. Common tactic of a narcissist...

[@detroitpolak9904]

Thank you! He speaks but doesn’t say a damn thing; or he OVER analyzes everything like he’s a deep thinker, but anyone can do that, we don’t because it becomes completely irrelevant to the conversation, problem, etc.

[@junevandermark952]

From the KZbin podcast … Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer discuss Jordan Peterson (2018) … these are the exact words quoted by the Atheist Michael Shermer. “If you asked me, ‘Do you believe in God?’ … the answer would be ‘No.’ If you asked Jordan, ‘Jordan, do you believe in God?’… It would take me 40 hours to answer that question. Alright, if it takes me forty hours to answer, then you’re talking about something completely different.”

[@Scawtsauce]

"what do you mean by 'do'? what do you mean by 'you'? and most importantly what do you mean by 'believe'? if we can't answer those 4 questions then we can't even agree on anything!!" "that was 3 questions Jordan.." "ahh in reality? perhaps. in the metaphysical? also perhaps. but there in lies the fundamental problem we are dealing with isn't it?" "go f--- yourself Jordan"

[@detroitpolak9904]

Shermer is so awesome.

[@junevandermark952]

@@detroitpolak9904 To anyone that believes the universe was created ... Michael Shermer would be considered as being an evil heretic ... offensive to "GOD."

[@vinny142]

"then you’re talking about something completely different" Peterson is a jerk, but "not talking about the same thing" was exactly the point that Peterson was trying to make. If you ask 100 people what they mean by "god" then you will get 134 different, often conflicting, answers. So why would anybody say "yes" if you don't define what you are talking about when you say "god"? In fact Peterson was also right about the word "believe", because that means something entirely different to everybody too. Some just feel that there is a higher power, others go to church every sunday. So the question "do you believe in god" very easy to answer with "no" and blanket reject all forms of believing in all forms of gods, but what do you do if you are not an atheist? What exactly do you say when you answer "yes" to that question? "yes" I do whatever you mean when you say "believe in god"? Ofcourse Peterson is unable to express himself in any meaningful way, let alone any useful way, but he's not a complete moron... he's just an arse.

[@junevandermark952]

@@vinny142 OH. Well then ... would you please explain to me what the difference is between a moron and an arse?

[@unhiro7]

I have always been impressed when someone has the ability to communicate complicated ideas in simple words. Extraordinary is that person's reach.

[@Omfguwu]

Its the accent. No British scholars take him seriously 👍

[@swagikuro]

That debate (between Matt and JP) was embarrassing. JP is used to talking with other public intellectuals who are very cordial and patient with him, but Matt showed him no mercy and exposed his nonsense. It's like JP was naked out there, it was hard to watch.

[@Cmkrs34]

I enjoyed it thoroughly. Sick of Jordans attitude eg calling bible the biblical corpus just to impress.

[@jordanexploded]

Yeah but he suddenly found himself with a big conservative Christian fan base so he is pandering to keep the dough coming in

[@mikeo9074]

I think he’s more used to talking with childish people who want to discredit and attack him, he couldn’t find himself in the serious context of that debate. Which is nothing strange for me, he spent his last 10+ years fighting with stupid people mostly, didn’t have much time arguing with intelligent people. He’s smart only when there are no really smart people in the room.

[@inoderlulzer5163]

Because he got no morals.

[@huntermathias5353]

@074 Exactly. He's known for "destroying" stupid people in debates to which anyone with common sense could do the same. I like Jordan but it's annoying when he tries to have actual debates with true intellectuals when he clearly isn't prepared for it, he needs to understand that his philosophical word salads aren't gonna overwhelm real intelligent debaters and leave them speechless in the way it does with the typical clueless goons that he typically likes to "debate" lol.

[@olfrud]

"You can't quit smoking without having a mystical experience."...I quit smoking because I kept waking up at night because I was not able to breath anymore. It was fairly easy after that. I mean if the fear of dying a horrible death is a "mystical" experience, then fair game...but as someone who studied some of the Mystics from the early European middle ages I can say with quite certainty, that that's not what they were talking about.

[@MrBekliyom]

Peterson knows what sells. I loved and adored him and clung to everything that left his mouth for years. But he made a turn I cannot follow. He is well aware of what he is doing.

[@marcomoreno6748]

No. He never changed trajectory. You simply chose not to follow him off the cliff he was always heading towards.

[@kuidaorekitchen5850]

Why???

[@parallaxcrafttale]

​@@kuidaorekitchen5850 His whole brand is reliant upon pushing existing right wing narratives irrespective of the truth.

[@HkFinn83]

Cosplay intellectual

[@MrBekliyom]

@@marcomoreno6748 In hindsight your comment makes sense. But nevertheless I think in the beginning he genuinely wanted to move something. No he is just selling what pays best and trying to build a brand.

[@sole__doubt]

JP lost his mind from benzos and too much time online. Not only that but his daughter has increasingly taken over his life and she is a psychological mess. Its like when the barbers kid is the one who needs a haircut the most.

[@1984isnotamanual]

I didn’t know his daughter was a psychological mess, what have you seen that indicates that?

[@elmango705]

His daughter has taken over his life?? Psychological mess?? What do you even mean?? I’m sure you as a Harvard educated doctor of psychology can evaluate her state of mind better than he can…

[@sole__doubt]

@@1984isnotamanual Her own words about being in mental institution.

[@sole__doubt]

@@elmango705 "His daughter has taken over his life??" Yes she handles all his appearances. She approves them or they dont happen. "Psychological mess??" Her own words tell us she is damaged to the point of needing to be in a mental institution. "I’m sure you as a Harvard educated doctor of psychology can evaluate her state of mind better than he can…" Credential elitism aside being removed from the subject is often the best way of assessing a persons mental state, at least from a cursory state.

[@elmango705]

@@sole__doubt Her managing his appearances is a sign of her taking over in his life? That’s just a business relationship inside the family because hopefully you can trust your family better than strangers. Any quasi celebrity like Jordan Peterson would have an agent and they would also not take all the requests that come in. An agent would also make the decisions for him or at least he should listen to them. So if she acts as his agent, where’s the problem? Not exactly, Mikhaila said in her podcast that she WAS depressed, mainly because of her many autoimmune diseases. But what she also talks about all the time is how her all meat diet practically made all of her symptoms go away and at the same time her mental health got way better. Same for Jordan btw. I don’t know exactly what you mean by elitism, just saying I trust the judgement of a clinician who taught at Harvard and has years of experience with thousands of clients more than yours about the mental state of Mikhaila

[@nixworld767]

I absolutely love Matt. I used to watch him on "The Atheist Experience" during a period of my life when I was shedding my fundamentalist Christian beliefs. I even went to Houston to attend a live filming of the show. Prince of a man.

[@RoamingHeathen]

You would have had a hard time watching in live in Houston ….

[@Patrick-uh8xj]

So you become fanatic to Christianity and then a fanatic over atheism. I think you need to find your own identity.

[@nixworld767]

@@Simrealism Correction. Austin....it was 17 years ago.

[@nixworld767]

@@RoamingHeathen Austin...it was 2007.

[@nixworld767]

@@Patrick-uh8xj Sure did. About the same time you became an internet troll. You found your identity. Congratulations winner.

[@becr9369]

Watching this makes me feel like I'm eavesdropping on 2 people having a gossip about someone. 😂

[@JesseP.Watson]

Mmm. You're not wrong there.

[@janaanne8382]

The debates/conversations in the first place are public. To have commentary on the debate is reasonable. If you listen to very many of Peterson's conversations with people, he mentions/denigrates/puts down/praises Sam Harris and/or Richard Dawkins so many times, I feel like knocking him upside the head sometimes. When his battery runs down on his own BS, he points to the "New Atheists" for ammunition. I think a review such as this one is fair game.

[@becr9369]

@@janaanne8382 ... I didn't say it wasn't fair game.. i just felt like I was eavesdropping.

[@janaanne8382]

. . . @@becr9369 . . . and fair enough.

[@jamesmcinnis208]

You feel that way because that is precisely what's happening. Even though I lean towards Matt's point of view, it's unfair of them (the host, mostly) to speculate on why JP clings to his religious beliefs. That is a conversation that should involve him.

[@TheMixCurator]

I just find it incredibly arrogant that some humans believe they have a god, which is created in their image and that is the standard throughout the entire universe. Carl Sagans "Pale Blue Dot" speech displays human arrogance perfectly.

[@johneastwood3039]

If you were going create life, you would most likely do it in your own image. You would give it arms, legs, mouth, teeth etc. It isn't arrogant, what's arrogant is your self-righteousness, your sneering at people with different beliefs to your own.

[@tommcfadden5232]

Foolish to be bothered by what people believe….unless they try to force their beliefs upon you or others.

[@nyxcole9879]

❤

[@Dorothyinstead]

"Somebody you know, who has never read a book, can be the lovliest person you know." This line at the end by Mr Murray makes him as quite affable. Likeable even.

[@morticiag]

Most Atheists have never read a book , but I wouldn't call them lovely. 😅😅

[@adamgates1142]

@morticiag Funny because polls done about religious knowledge place non-believers at the tippy top. Why would this be?

[@JesusSavesSouls]

@@adamgates1142 What "polls" are these? Bring evidence for your claim.

[@steven5054]

Until you remember what a right-wing bigot he is.

[@landspide]

Affable indeed.... and a true intellectual.

[@Bobisuruncle54]

Morality doesn't come from religion, that's what organised religion wishes you to believe in order to strengthen its position. Morality is part of the in-built survival system for the species. This is why morality continues to change and religions do too, despite the fact that their texts can't be updated alongside our rapidly evolving civilisation, but at best reinterpreted. These texts hold a powerful sway because we assume that our reasoning is infallible and it neatly collects excess variables within our lives we can't understand into a single explanation, i.e. faith.

[@LeeZaslofsky]

Religion is a way of expressing the wisdom and the fantasy of a community. It sanctifies the community and its moral code, which helps the community to enforce its code and demand sacrifice from its members for the good of the community. The contempt for "organized religion" expressed by many people is a statement that the "sanctification" offered by these institutions is no longer effective -- it cannot command compliance or sacrifice. Its mythology no longer convinces or inspires. In a consumer society, where individualism DOES command compliance and DOES inspire people, many people substitute individualist consumerism for religion. They even apply it to religion, as with "church shopping" or enjoying performances by "preachers" who own megachurches and appear on TV. Are shopping malls the cathedrals of consumer society? You bet they are.

[@zaydeshaddox7015]

One of the things that atheists get wrong about faith is equating it with belief and it's not. Belief is just an opinion without facts supporting it and it tends to be a reactive function in the brain. But faith is a very proactive determination to trust in a greater thing, to relax and not stress out and to even be okay when things DON'T work out. There are Christians who yammer about faith all the time yet utterly fail to demonstrate it. My grandmother was one of these. She was an archetypal church lady, lecturing everyone about Jesus and God but she lived her life with more fear than most other people do, which caused her to become very controlling. So she believed but had no faith. We are such silly creatures.

[@LeeZaslofsky]

That sounds like a sermon from a liberal minded, modern Minister preaching to a congregation of college educated middle class people. They love that kind of fluff, which means nothing, but sounds so very reassuring and "intellectual". Playing around with definitions of vague terms like "faith" and "belief" is fun, but it means nothing. if you "believe' in ghosts, you will have emotional reactions to them, and will accept various events as "proof" that they exist. Then you may wish to propitiate them so they don't harm you or your family, and you invent rituals or prayers or activities that you hope they will like. You may come to have a deep faith in their existence and how to please them. These may take the form of moral teachings, such as not eating beans because the ghosts don't like it, or being polite to strangers so the ghosts don't get angry with you. You may get a warm feeling of security from you relations with ghosts, as you find that your rituals and moral behaviour please them and they communicate this to you in ghostly ways that no one can see, but which you feel very strongly. You find that when you explain this to others, they are skeptical, but you KNOW that you're right. And you are generous to those who don't agree with you, because that is what is pleasing to the ghosts. if you substitute some word meaning "God", such as "Jesus" or "Allah" or "Shiva" etc, this is what "faith" is all about. Without belief there can be no faith, for no one will have 'faith" in something they don't believe exists. From what you say, "faith" for you is an emotional response to a belief that you have, which is shared by others, and which can be enacted using certain rituals common to your group. Jesus was no so interested in rituals, or in defining "faith" as opposed to "belief". He was more concerned with encouraging people to become more intimate with God through private prayer, and urging them to follow some moral principles and practices he described, often using parables to show what he meant. Unfortunately his parables deal with the agricultural society that existed in his time and place, so they are often a bit obscure to us. I admire Jesus and his moral teachings. He was a man of great moral insight, courage and integrity. It is no wonder that his friends were reluctant to admit that he was dead and gone, and attempted to preserve his memory and teachings after he was executed. However I don't think he was divine, and I don't think he thought he was divine either. For him to claim divinity would have been blasphemy, as the Jewish God is One.

[@jamesedwards.1069]

God doesn't rely on what we think of as "morality" to judge us. God judges us based on whether we receive the love of the truth or not. "Morality" is merely the system of principles that form the philosophical framework for the practical rules that people rely on to allow society to exist. Moral principles don't really change, how the moral principles are applied certainly does. Stealing a horse in the Old West got you hanged, and rightly so in my opinion, but, stealing a horse nowadays is still illegal but nowhere near a capital offense, and rightly so, in my opinion.

[@zaydeshaddox7015]

@@jamesedwards.1069 moral principles may not change but they are varied and not universal. People rationalize morality for all kinds of reasons. EDIT: And some morals can even contradict others. Everyone has different views of when violence is actually justified. What you describe is an ideal but in real life, moral principles are used for evil all the time. Case in point: the rampant child abuse that occurs within the Evangelical Christian populace. They ALWAYS have a moral justification for it. Also, the notion that God judges us by any criteria at all is purely a human opinion. People don't even agree on the definition of God.

[@theodorearaujo971]

Truth, like facts, are things that exist regardless of one's belief.

[@AngryReptileKeeper]

It's like what I like to tell people: Believing something does not make it so.

[@streetaware]

that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. noun: the truth

[@jameswarrren2545]

"There are two sorts of truth: trivialities, where opposites are clearly absurd, and profound truths, recognised by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth." --Quantum physicist Niels Bohr

[@justadad6677]

Not only that it is only through that you can find Justice.

[@damienkarras8552]

@@AngryReptileKeeper Yes but it implies that if something exists, it does even if you do not believe in it.

[@longstops1430]

Having watched JP talk with others, it seems he just plays games with words and definitions to turn the debate into a dead end. The sort of debate I used to have with my friends with I was 15. Yet for Peterson it seems to bring him accolades from his followers.

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

They are not aware enough to see what he's doing.

[@DarylHandsome]

Pertersons entire debate tactic is gaslighting and disingenuous word salad. Hes a professional narcissist.

[@davidtkocz8356]

And he is extremely rude and disrespectful. Constantly interrupts the other debater or debaters, then flies off at a tangent for a while spouting pure bs.

[@ayougo]

Matt mopped the floor with Jordan. That’s what happened.

[@timothyglassbrook4886]

I don't think anyone mopped anyone. I feel like the argument went over most people's heads is all

[@ayougo]

@@timothyglassbrook4886I disagree. The conversation topics are easy enough to grasp. Jordan was cornered and didn’t have a coherent response to many of Matt’s answers and expansions. Jordan didn’t have the knowledge surrounding his own blueprint much less about ontology to go up against Matt. It’s objectively evident if you observe how he deflects direct questions given clear examples demonstrated by Matt. He can barely keep a coherent series of responses together without diverting or going into a reduction unrelated to the question at hand. It’s painful to watch.

[@timothyglassbrook4886]

@@ayougo I likewise disagree. Having seen some of his lectures and read a little bit of his work, his argument was easy enough to follow. He was pushing Matt to get to the specifics of how they conceptualize truth and religion in more than just a base level colloquial sense. He pried at Matt's explanations to get clarity, but his prying wasn't without an end concept in mind

[@susanwjoh0re735]

@@timothyglassbrook4886 another peterson groupie lmao. go finisyour you oatmeal kid.

[@leishayoung4124]

@@timothyglassbrook4886 "He was pushing Matt to get to the specifics of how they conceptualize truth and religion in more than just a base level colloquial sense." - that's word salad, and means nothing.

[@eyemallears2647]

I was internally emotionally tortured as a christian. The guilt of questioning was very painful. As an atheist I am afraid of death but I am FREE.

[@davycrockett8886]

Why were you tortured as a Christian?

[@tonyabrown7796]

The bible tells us to question. Why would you feel guilt for that?

[@billyb4790]

@@tonyabrown7796 it does? Can you cite numerous examples?

[@davycrockett8886]

Closed minded stereotypical Christianity doesn't encourage questioning. Enlightened Christianity does. Atheism doesn't encourage questioning in regards to the spiritual, it just says it doesn't exist. Atheism is therefore extremely closed minded too.

[@Bungaloo]

Epicurus had the answer 300 years bc. Death is nothing to us. ‘I was not, I am, I will not be.

[@AtamMardes]

"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." Voltaire

[@Thor-Orion]

The same guy who said the HRE wasn’t an empire. But Frederick Barbarossa was 1,000 times the man Voltaire could ever dream of being and WAS an emperor of an empire.

[@dan8346]

"Assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Also Voltaire

[@patrickmurphy2443]

That is so stupid i pity anybody that stupid

[@johneastwood3039]

Religion is a great thing. A belief in God can cause your subconscious mind to perform miracles.

[@miquelr2353]

​@@johneastwood3039miracles like... ?

[@antoniotorcoli5740]

Peterson started being confused as soon as he started talking about everything, literally everything. Even about topics he does'nt have a clue about.

[@AtanuKDey]

I agree. His fame and fortune went to his head. He began to think that he was an expert in all domains of human knowledge. He lacks humility.

[@ronaldrrootiii6040]

​@@AtanuKDeyseriously I couldn't even comprehend the insanity of what he was saying during the entire debate. All I know is that there is a lot of large words and none of it really supported anything about God or the Bible which I don't think he believes he just thinks that his fans like it and that he thinks maybe it's good for society. But wow I literally tried to watch the debate more than once and truly pay attention and it's like he was purposely being a lunatic to sound smart at the same time

[@LeeZaslofsky]

He is confused, but he uses his confusion to pose as a "questioning intellectual" with an "open mind". This impresses his fans tremendously, and has brought him fame and fortune.

[@raia9]

Yes I think his fame has sadly gone to his head - losing or lost his humility.

[@timothyglassbrook4886]

I think it's more that most people didn't follow his train of thought, which admittedly was not well communicated, and part of that is probably that they're not more familiar with his other works, lectures, etc. I tend to find him interesting so I've seen a bit of his work and was able to follow along well enough

[@13137713]

On a side note, i couldn't help but noticed that this stage need a sweep and a mop

[@LeeZaslofsky]

Well, what are you waiting for? Get busy! And put some elbow grease into it!

[@testlab6643]

Feminism rules! You go girl!

[@1984isnotamanual]

Nah it’s fine. It’s just a special flooring style called “chalkboard” 😁

[@alphakevin687]

Peterson can mop it, he is yapping about cleaning all the time, and it will keep him off Twitter and benzos for at least a few minutes.

[@Interwurlitzer]

Set the world in perfect order before you criticise your house🙃

[@roysmallian2889]

Good humanist sentiments expressed by both parties in this conversation.

[@ysf-psfx]

Murray not looking good on the humanist front when it comes to Gaza. He's balls deep for Israel. It's sickening.

[@banishedbr]

@@ysf-psfx sadge

[@snaggiz]

Thought the way this clip ended was pretty good on that front! Loved that bit.

[@ronrice1931]

Mr. Peterson is living proof that intellectual powers never fully compensate for emotional pathologies.

[@DharmaBeing]

I was planning to make a comment, but yours covered it entirely.

[@foxmulder6695]

What do you mean?

[@MarcosElMalo2]

@@foxmulder6695 Your intelligence doesn’t change how screwed up you are.

[@inoderlulzer5163]

What's pathological about believing in the concept of good and evil? I feel like denouncing a good Christian believer is more pathological than anything they're doing.

[@ronrice1931]

@@inoderlulzer5163 Good vs eeevil. Yes, nothing psychotic about that.

[@Jdanielsson76]

"He who knows he believes is less dangerous than he who believes he knows,"

[@OoO-rf2gt]

I know you think you said something here. But you only made your English teacher cry.

[@Jdanielsson76]

​@@OoO-rf2gt Probably, but if I would have written it in my mother tongue you would probably not understood it at all.

[@OoO-rf2gt]

Correct. That would have been even more stupid.

[@Jdanielsson76]

@@OoO-rf2gt You are obviously someone who believe you know

[@OoO-rf2gt]

@@Jdanielsson76 1. Stop liking your own comments. It a tad ironic. 2. Why do you hate your English teacher so much. 3. It's "believes he knows", and yes you are correct. I am fluent in English.

[@shostycellist]

One can't do metaphysics (i.e. what is reality) without first making assumptions about what reality is. Just not possible philosophically. This is why it gets so tricky.

[@gking407]

Religious lemmings traded in reality for stories about alternate reality, i.e. delusional thinking

[@beeeps]

What makes you say that?

[@shostycellist]

@@beeeps Well, what I mean is, if I am going to develop a metaphysical theory, I need an epistemology (meaning, how am I to think to yield true or mostly true metaphysicsl beliefs). Yet for my epistemology to yield mostly true metaphysical beliefs it's laws must be one with or reflect the nature of reality. So to do metaphysics I have to make assumptions about the nature of reality prior to developing an epistemology or I could not be sure my epistemology will yield true beliefs.

[@monkeknts]

​@@beeepsmaking anti metaphysical argument against metaphysics ends up metaphysical making a paradox

[@craigsmith1443]

One cannot 'do reality' without assumptions. They're called 'first principles.' That's why reality gets so tricky.

[@daszieher]

I quit smoking in the most anticlimactic way imaginable. I smoked less and less with the intention to never quit, because I actually enjoyed smoking my choice of Virginia-Burley mix in hand-rolled cigarettes. However, one day, when I was supposed to get life insurance for a house we bought, I looked at the difference on payments and thought, that's as good a reason as any. When I tried smoking again after having decided, cigarettes no longer tasted nice. I will enjoy a pipe or a cigar from time to time.

[@benbunyip]

I don’t know whether you’re fortunate or strong. My brother is having a terrible time trying to give up.

[@Ixnatifual]

That's highly mystical, daszier. You are basically a shaman now

[@daszieher]

@@Ixnatifual 😂

[@daszieher]

@@benbunyip I guess very fortunate, or just not very addicted to things. For sure not mystical or believing. Quite the contrary, actually. I don't even see myself in a position to give your brother any advice, but to think about it rationally (as in: who makes the money on smokes, who carries the bodily harm, how good do industrially manufactured cigarettes actually taste

[@benbunyip]

@@daszieher on quitting, well done. My brother’s case is difficult. Even though smoking is killing him, he can’t stop. That’s how bad this is. Hoping things will get better.

[@villen2020]

JP is smart enough to know that its all lies but he wants to live forever.

[@SwedeSpeeder]

Jordan has decided grifting off gullible right wingers is his ticket to salvation (and riches).

[@swellerferret2506]

@@SwedeSpeederSounds like something the prophet of Islam would do. And I’m serious, could the same be said about the two of you?

[@DanielGarcia-rx3kt]

​@@swellerferret2506probably not because they don't have the actual influence Peterson or a prophet of Islam would have over others. They deserve to be properly scrutinized *because* of the influence they have.

[@chrisa.4384]

​@SwedeSpeeder sure, his work as a therapist is grifting. The way he breaks down, is emotionally unstable himself with an incredibly dark sense of the world are all fake tactics to buy appeal and not at all sincere! JP has perfect health and no depression confirmed by you!

[@banishedbr]

he's on youtube being shamed, he's probably going for a long time after death hu3

[@aaronwalderslade]

I'm not sure either of these two have thought long and hard about what the most important human traits are. I don't know why they didn't say honesty. The thing about honesty is that it is a trait that you can value in people you agree with and also those you disagree with. You can value the honesty of those who like you and also of those who dislike you. I have had enemies or dislikers in my life, but very poignant to me was a gentleman I worked with who I hardly ever spoke to, but I felt he didn't like me. One day, I felt it had gone on long enough and I asked him straight out "Why don't you like me?" He rewarded my honesty with his own. "I just don't like you." Though he didn't get me any closer to understanding why he didn't (perhaps even he didn't know), he curiously gained my respect, and in a weird way, my trust. You see, you can even trust your enemies if they are honest. It seems to me, on the other hand, that deception is the root of much evil and destruction, so much of it completely unnecessary.

[@srkibble]

The problem with honesty is that it requires the person to have an awareness of what they're talking about. This is obvious in the case of words, as many people use words without really knowing what they mean/imply. But even beyond just words, you'd be surprised how many people, even grown adults, genuinely can't recognize when they hate someone, when they're sad, when they're angry, etc.

[@sandarahcatmom9897]

@@srkibble. Boy that’s some hard won insight, eh?

[@Stierenkloot]

Dishonesty is the most human thing of all

[@eogg25]

President Kennedy once said, Forgive your enemies but remember their names.

[@Jcs57]

He said he just doesn’t like you without any context. He may not like you because you drive a Ford and not a Toyota and you would express respect and trust for that. That is exactly how you end up with people like the Orange Jesus.

[@jameskingstoncatch22]

Best thing about this conversation is the conversations taking place afterwards!

[@christophermccarthy884]

I'm not surprised they are talking about relative truth as being fuzzy with Peterson. I believe he himself believes in God as a representation of the pinnacle of the moral hierarchy, but doesn't actually believe in a sentient being capable of miracles. He has avoided answering that question on numerous occasions. He understands that the idea of God is essential for the sheep, but the thinkers are more skeptical...even if they quickly learn where and where not they can state their views.

[@LeeZaslofsky]

His whole method is to avoid answering questions. His method is to get bogged down in definitions, thus using up the time and wearing down his interlocutors. Don't laugh -- he has made lots of money by doing this.

[@timothyglassbrook4886]

I agree and disagree. I think his notion of God is a metaphorical pinnacle of morality. He doesn't seem to believe in a Literal god, but I think part of that is simply that he doesn't know and there's no way to know. I don't see his aversion to the question as manipulative, more as irrelevant in terms of his personal beliefs, and possibly damaging to the exploration of the topic if he takes a stance one way or another

[@cshariat]

“Well what do you mean by believe?”😂

[@76blackwidow]

Finally a reasonable, actual criticism of dr. Peterson's views. And I say this as a huge Peterson fan. People seem to love to critisize him but very rarely it is for a real, actual thing. This one I actually agree with. I would love to see them discuss again.

[@Sergiuss555]

Sam Harris dismantled him like a decade ago

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

If this is the first time you ever saw a "a reasonable, actual criticism of dr. Peterson's views", then you haven't been paying attention, or your views are just as bad as his.

[@hypno5690]

​@@Bob-of-Zoiddork

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

@@hypno5690 Is that all you got: Childish name calling? Do you have a real valid argument, preferably one with some substance? Because if not, it's abundantly clear who the dork really is, and that dork is just projecting for being butt hurt!

[@It__From__Bit]

Peterson is such a bizarre dude.

[@davidmireles9774]

Wow. This was a golden interaction ❤

[@grendlsma]

I quit smoking by just giving up smoking. I had cravings for a few weeks, but then they went away. I certainly didn't have a mystical experience. What bullshit.

[@russellward4624]

What's BS about it? I quite smoking and didn't have a mystical experience either. JP is the only person in the world making this claim.

[@grendlsma]

@@russellward4624 Peterson's take is BS.

[@pg-xp1jy]

Why did you give it up in the first place? & How is it different from when you started?

[@ellenmendoza7246]

I love both of these men..they are a pleasure to listen to

[@laniefeleski7288]

I like Murray. I don't find Dillahunty that persuasive or knowledgeable, anymore. I wonder if these people ever read Genealogy of Morals or The Antichrist. They don't even seem aware of the arguments that the main values of Christianity suffuse the entire culture and are perceived and absorbed; and that atheism can have a moral system, but it looks COMPLETELY different to the operating set.

[@rickl5596]

He realized being crazy was way better clickbait....

[@markfeland2285]

Certainly more profitable

[@pussyhammer6969]

He's just trying to sell lobster merch.

[@blaynestaleypro]

Nice try smear campaigner. Peterson is a hero. He's helped millions of people take responsibility for their lives. How is that a bad thing?

[@mymaster1402]

​@@blaynestaleyproMy meth addict uncle has probably motivated more people to take responsibility for their lives simply by existing.

[@thejuddah]

Truth is what comports with reality. But what is real? This is a materialist reductionist interpretation of what is real, reducible to what can be apprehended by the senses. JBP is becoming more expansive, and I appreciate it.

[@anaximanderofapollonia9842]

Does this mean that one's faith is by default beyond one's senses, or within those?

[@_Stargazer_.]

Real, is anything that can be observed using any of the 5 senses + deduced using data (effects of a phenomenon. Atleast we have good reason for conclusion there) . That is all we have to work with as human beings . So we have no other choice but to go with that view ... and anything beyond it is mere hypothesis . Until anything beyond is proven , reality is all we have. Its good to explore and guess work .. but to conclude on them, change your belief structure and change your lifestyle based off such blind conclusions is what is unproductive .. and sometimes even harmful .

[@harryposner7584]

Exactly. If truth is what comports with reality and it's the individual who ultimately decides what is real (which is the state of our planet right now in the age of relativism), then there can be no agreement as to what is 'true' for all. His statement rests on a cloud of nothing. And he accuses JP of being 'blurry' and slippery...

[@bernierasmusson9257]

​@@harryposner7584Reality can be observed, measured, tested, and peer reviewed.

[@LeeZaslofsky]

"Expansive?" Please. And what does "comport with" mean?

[@chelseapoet3664]

In five minutes this man, who I am listening to for the first time, is more convincing to me in challenging JP, who I love, than Sam Harris has been.

[@SolarJakee]

@@arjuna190178 the ironic thing is that Dillahunty has fallen for woke ideology in the last couple years. A real shame

[@tomw4918]

Sam just doesn’t come off as aggressive and I don’t think he always knows how to respond to JP’s unintelligible word salad. I also think he likes Jordan as a person so that might make it tough

[@lindseyroy1629]

Douglas Murray is incredible. Matt has gone woke in recent years, and I wouldn’t recommend him.

[@SolarJakee]

@@meowpurrrrr It's just an easy way to write-off what someone says without actually trying to understand it

[@tzc832]

So cheers for this men cause JP definitely has to get challanged

[@gayeblinman5055]

Jordan Peterson has decided himself to be the paramount speaker of truth via his belief in god He responds to an opposite point of view as being too painful for him to hear or ever appreciate He wiggles in his seat , bows his head as he displays his apparent anger and disgust via both his body language and expression It’s as though he has met with a lower and lesser human than himself and he can’t stand for their perspective to insult his superior & just mind I used to listen with interest I now feel distracted by his discomfort at anything other than than hearing himself speak …. sometimes bloody endlessly !

[@Djscott2728]

It's because he says something logical and is always met with half baked circular nonsense... and no one knows how to reply in manner more than outright insulting... it would make me uncomfortable as well...

[@Supahdave1000]

Jordan has always been half a christofascist and half a hippie. I don't mind for the hippie bullshit; cleaning one's room and standing up straight is good stuff. But the christofascism bit is so evident and so blatant that it's ridiculous. Peterson is simply so used to hearing himself speak that he can't conceive someone not agreeing with him.

[@MarcusKovesi]

"sometimes, among very conservative people, they come to very rigid feelings about things because they intuit where they might go unleashed" One of the scariest things my Catholic dad said to me, among a plethora of terrifying things, was that without his faith there'd be nothing to stop him murdering the people he hated. That was probably the tipping point of me losing my faith around 12 or 13 years old. Other things were seeing my cousins screaming and crying at their dad for not going to church because "don't you want to be in heaven with us", with their awful mum egging this on. And when one of my cousins was saying that gays go to hell I told him that Elton John, one of his favourite singers, was gay at which point he began crying and then later claimed that he hated Elton John's music - I also got the lecture of a lifetime from my aunt for that one.

[@argondrolf785]

I feel like the NEED for religion to keep you on a moral path is a horrible, yet all too common way of approaching it. That being said, i feel ethics has set a terribly low bar for what is considered acceptable, and the amount of people who have been killed in the past two centuries through war, revolution and unbound experimentation shows that some people do need that “fear” of God more than others.

[@joeyadair9228]

Rhetorical question: like most atheists I have talked to, the reason you are an atheist is because of your experiences with theists? That would be like me saying I don't believe in science because I've met some really mean scientists. Our experiences with people unfortunately influence our ability to make rational decisions.

[@Dillon1099]

@@joeyadair9228 While I agree with this, based on the fact I had some really bad experiences with doctors when I was a child, and now I know some amazing doctors and medical staff in general, I do feel compelled to point out that this is a lot like telling a refugee "not all soldiers are bad". At the end of the day you being right about the facts doesn't make the dismissal of someone's trauma an effective argument. Even though that isn't your intent, it is how it comes across, and it does you no favors. Took me a long time to figure that out. You can pour your pure water into someone else's cup, but if their cup is full of boiling mud than you've only made a terrible mess.

[@johnandersson8258]

@@joeyadair9228 Yes, but in a qualified way. As you grow older, get more educated and experienced their way of relating to religion makes you realise how inconsistent and, quite frankly, childish their beliefs are. To me it was pretty much the same experience as realizing Santa Claus wasn't real, just a couple of years later.

[@Masowe.]

are you pro-life on abortion and why?

[@eek412]

I'd love to see a debate between Matt Dillahunty and Andrew Wilson

[@mickadams1905]

Lol!

[@nestorar]

JP’s problem is that he’s emotionally dishonest, not to mention his anger.

[@undead.rising]

One of the better sit-down-discussions between two "great thinkers" of late, because neither one of them is trying to outdo the other. Neither is aiming for a battle of fancy words or pitting belief systems against each other, but are having an actual civil discussion (nor trying to push a worldview onto their audience).

[@JerryMayne503]

Dillahunty is not a "Great thinker"

[@opietwoep1247]

@@JerryMayne503i lost any respect I had for him after he ran away Andrew Wilson.

[@tommore3263]

Everyone , usually unwittingly as is the case here, is always pushing ideas that unbeknownst to them are usually just the badly expressed notions of dead philosophers. Ever use the word "information"? Form and matter, actual, potential? All grounded in Plato and Aristotle. We live in a very ignorant culture.

[@MichaelAronson]

@@opietwoep1247 You mean the guy who started ranting about trans people in the middle of a debate about religion?

[@opietwoep1247]

@@MichaelAronson yes that guy you saw that too

[@sambeatty2312]

I actually used to admire peterson a bit back in 2015-2016. He was a decent psychologist who gave decent and solid advice. He has since turned into a major political pundit and sacrificed any credibility for fame. I still maintain his old lectures are worth a listen, just don’t take anything he says outside of psychology seriously.

[@garysanders8350]

Poor lefty

[@pixie3458]

I agree.. I really enjoy the psychology lectures which seem so well founded, but when he veers into religion his intellectual grounding is lost.

[@garysanders8350]

@@pixie3458 You are too dim to understand

[@sambeatty2312]

@@pixie3458 exactly. Also, why would I listen to a psychologist about the WEF or climate change. He gets away with pretending to be a highly educated intellectual on subjects he’s just not familiar with.

[@gracielagomez3685]

Educational credentials are seen as indicators of individual merit and diplomas grant access to social and economic positions in society, but they come accompany by ideologies implanted by agendas to exclude those that don't go along with the dogmas of privilege cemented on meritocracy as being the foremost human value.

[@noxiousdow]

Why are these two giving JP the time of day? JP is fundamentally dishonest.

[@Djscott2728]

How?

[@rosalind1635]

​@@Djscott2728there are numerous videos and articles on this.

[@rosalind1635]

​@@Djscott2728if you are really interested.

[@noxiousdow]

@@Djscott2728 shifting the goalposts constantly in discussions on truth and anything metaphysical, not to mention his comments about atheists and morality. Just watch his stuff more critically and you'll see.

[@Djscott2728]

@@noxiousdow do you have recommendation of a specific occasion/video I can go watch?

[@jameshart3879]

Grift. Grift is what happened to Peterson

[@Nightceasar]

They are all grifters. Some more and some less.

[@TonyB2279]

I think he started out as a very stubborn literalist who, in his mind, really was objecting to being FORCED to use people's preferred pronouns, etc. on pain of termination, rather than to using the pronouns themselves. In the years since then, a combination of profound arrogance (forcing him further into his chosen camp in direct proportion to the vehemence with which many people disagree with him), and recognition that, yes, there's a huge number of CHUDs out there who will eat up his anti-woke, etc. screeds like turkey at Thanksgiving dinner, have turned him into one of the most profoundly intellectually dishonest people on the planet.

[@pee-ray5760]

Agree and disagree. Peterson is, quite simply, not as smart as the empty rhetoric, his fanboys, the manufactured hype and his background would all suggest. He is talking about, and being invited to talk about, things he is wholly unqualified and unread on to talk about. Conservatives and the religious Right think they've found a towering intellect and are pushing him hard. He is a fool and even in his field, when he sticks to it, he presents debunked theories, his own biased conclusions (reached via an incredibly unscientific process) and other demonstrably bollocks shite as fact. Even the guy who hired him regretted it after sitting in on a few lectures for these reasons.

[@jimjiminy5836]

Plus a lot of benzo’s and experimental Russian treatment.

[@AnnoyingQuentin]

Forgot brain damage as well.

[@geoff1391]

This turned into a very refreshing affirmation of every person’s intrinsic value. Thank you gentlemen

[@morticiag]

There's No intrinsic value if you can't acknowledge Basic Truths, Like NOTHING Can't create you.. SOMETHING had to create you.

[@LWylie]

​@@morticiagwhat created that something

[@morticiag]

@@LWylie So you ACKNOWLEDGE that IF there IS a GOD, that SOMEONE or SOMETHING had to Create HIM too, just like you were CREATED?? God didn't Self-Create himself then ? So how do you believe you self created?

[@zaydevans2077]

Just can’t see any intrinsic value in Murray as hard as I try. All he does is fear monger and spread Islamophobia in times like this.

[@LWylie]

@@morticiag I was also 13 once. I THOUGHT WRITING IN UPPER CASE MADE MY IDEAS CORRECT THEN TOO. Fortunately, I've since read a book or two. I recommend it. Maybe start with some Dr. Seuss.

[@therealbs2000]

I love this idea that if you win an intellectual battle with someone who defends the existence of God, you disprove the existence of God. It's so hubristic, it just has to be human

[@morticiag]

Do you Believe that NOTHING created you ?

[@Mike_Regan]

​@@morticiagOur parents created us.

[@morticiag]

@@Mike_Regan So you ACKNOWLEDGE that you were CREATED, Right? Your LOGIC tells you that Everything is CREATED .

[@fnordiumendures138]

Not if the God in question is defined as: "All powerful, all knowing & all in on having a direct relationship with every single human." Because a dumbass who is right CAN beat a smart guy who is wrong in a debate. And we have good reason to believe that this is doubly true if the dumbass had the help of and all knowing, all powerful being.

[@morticiag]

@@fnordiumendures138 So, are you calling yourself the Dum'bass who evolved from your 🦧🦧 ancestors called Lucy (short for Lucifer)?

[@rachellesawyer6523]

At first I was interested enough to buy Jordan Peterson"s 1st book now I find he tends to spew word salad with little to no substance on most occasions and seems to be pre-occupied with his own sense of importance and brand

[@davidmccoy6888]

We evolved to be moral, and to understand ourselves and the world through stories. We have an instinct for story-and those stories helped us as hunter gatherers to survive. That’s why our earliest stories are morality tales, heroic narratives, and origin myths. The old stories are failing because they were based on magic; we need to build new stories based on reason. When a god believer says that without a belief in god we would all be murderers, they are projecting; humans naturally cooperate-it takes religion to tell you to kill over differences in belief.

[@johnbrion4565]

Like temples of reason during the French Revolution? That turned out real well. Without God and objective truth there is no foundation on which to build a just society. It’s completely my will against yours. Also people take for granted how great things are in the west compared to most human history. To me this is evidence of the truth of Christ as the west was built upon Judeo Christian principles.

[@colinross3755]

@@johnbrion4565bollocks - if you don’t know why and how humans can create moral standards then you are the problem. Morality from a god is still subjective ffs, objective morality doesn’t exist. God’s morality is subjective by definition.

[@johnbrion4565]

@@colinross3755 how can humans create an objective moral standard? If God is real then by definition there is an objective moral standard as it would be set by God.

[@colinross3755]

@@johnbrion4565 I never said humans can create an objective moral standard - read what I said. We can create moral standards from a rational consideration of the impacts and effects on people and society arising from behaviours which is underpinned by objective reasoning of those impacts and effects. The more we understand psychologically, sociologically, physiologically for example the better we can refine those standards to better reflect outcomes for people. At the heart of it we place human wellbeing. No one is suggesting we get it right first time but secular morality has already surpassed biblical morality. How come you or I can make the bible morality better in 2 minutes. I’ve thought of one revision that would have improved the lives of so many for a long time - if you haven’t that says more about you than me. ‘If god is real’ - there it is in a nutshell. Objective morality is without influence of personal feelings or opinions. Subjective is with influence of personal feelings or opinions. Gods morality is his personal take ie his feelings and opinions which makes it, by definition, subjective. You don’t get to change the accepted meanings of words to suit your argument, that’s called special pleading which is a fallacy.

[@johnbrion4565]

@@colinross3755 ok so you admit you nor any other human can create an objective moral standard and therein lies the problem. It is just your view of what is right and fair and best for all and Hitler and Stalin, etc. had a view much different from yours. I challenge you to offer up a better moral system than what Christ preached. I’ve thought and reflected much on Christ and to me his system does seem to be objectively true, timeless and universal and oh what and amazing gift God has given us if only you can begin to see. It seems you have a hard time conceptualizing God. God is not a competitive being inside the universe. God is the very act of being itself. Who imparts existence and sustains all creation.

[@kdub6593]

The conversation was mostly over my head; however, I appreciate the topic .

[@timothyglassbrook4886]

I feel like that was the case with most people based on the comments I always read in regards to the conversation. Kudos to you for being willing to admit it 👍 admirable

[@Aburaishi]

The conversation flow of "Atheism is bad because without religion you can't live ethically", "But I am an atheist and I live ethically", "Then you aren't really an atheist", is so frustratingly (and laughably) common. It's one of the simplest examples of circular reasoning imaginable, completely and blatantly flawed, to the extent that I really can't respect the mind of anyone who trots it around like a prize hog at a fair. There are myriad reasons to doubt Peterson's personal ideology (and, yes, even his body of research!), but this is almost certainly the most blatant.

[@grahvis]

Sounds like flat earther reasoning. An actual example. Equatorial telescope mounts work The Earth is flat Therefore, equatorial telescope mounts work on a flat earth

[@timothyglassbrook4886]

I think his reasoning is something to the effect that morality is inherently religious, and that by virtue or that, pure atheism has no morality. So in your example I think what he would say is that you don't believe in a god, or a specific dogma, but the fact that you believe in any system of moral good and evil, or the intrinsic worth of life or something like that, is for you the same thing as a religion, because it's essentially a faith based argument. To believe that good and evil exists is still belief, even if we don't slap a label on it. I think that's more what his argument is.

[@grahvis]

@@timothyglassbrook4886 . Whereas in reality, morality is an evolved survival trait in any group of social animals.

[@timothyglassbrook4886]

@@grahvis empathy is an evolved trait, but I find it difficult to find any group of animals that don't resort to the same types of wars and murders that humans always have. The evolution is insufficient so far

[@grahvis]

@@timothyglassbrook4886 . One social group may be at odds with another for some reason, but generally they don't attack each other within the group.

[@Jinmarui]

I think Peterson was just telling on himself, projecting his own faults on the rest of humanity. He can't even hypothetically deny god because he fears the consequence that comes with it. He is too deeply inured to theistic belief to debate it honestly.

[@radscorpion8]

HE WENT NUTS

[@jenna2431]

The chairs seem like they are horrifically uncomfortable.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

To understand Peterson you need to understand Jung's complicated relationship with religion as a symbolic representation of our own existence and the truth of the universe, and his ideas of God. Peterson is follows Jung like a Christian follows the Bible.

[@raxino774]

Peterson still doesn't have a yes/no answer on God's existence

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@@raxino774 He is a narcissist and the last thing he wants is to upset the Christian Right who give him so much approval.

[@vjmtz]

Peterson is a failed psychologist who profitted on writing books to incite stupidity as if it was intellectualism, who then went on to grift those who are gullible for money so he can lecture them on how right they are in magical thinking, anti-wokeism, and pro-sexism for more money - making him appear to them as if he's some sort of expert or intellectual himself on things like religion or science - he is not, not has he ever said anything remotely comprehensible to even the basics of standards. You could ask this guy if he likes drinking water, and you'll get a 15 min speech that says absolutely nothing, but sounds like it said everything else except yes or no. The worse part is you'll see comments on here or anywhere else from his followers as if somehow this guy is a genius and by that logic they are as well with the very common "see, about time we see a nice refreshing honest and respectful discussion between intellectual people" failing to see Peterson isn't one of them.

[@StuartHamilton-r9v]

We are actually too close to the collapse of Christendom in popular culture to properly understand the affects of a foundationally atheistic culture. One could argue even Communist China, now a few generations into their social experiment, has yet to successfully purge religion altogether from the cultural and moral attitudes of its populace. For an American born before the 1990's to say he's an atheist, only means he doesn't believe in God. It doesn't mean he is free from cultural attitudes that are informed by Judeo-Christian values. There is no clear dividing line between what you believe is true philosophically (eg. "There is no God") & how you morally act based on the way you were raised raised & the influences you absorbed from a fundamentally religious culture. I believe Jordan Peterson associates the profound relativism that our culture is currently going through as a sort of pre-cursor to the chaos of a culture truly based upon atheism. If there is NO God, there is no design proper to humanity (that's especially true with technological advancement), which means there is no particular behavior that is right or wrong for humans to fit that design--there is no "real" good, evil, right or wrong behavior, there is just what you can successfully do or not do within the confines of the society in which you live. That seems fundamentally sound. I would say Peterson can't imagine a situation in which a culture fundamentally influenced by the idea there is no design, purpose, or meaning to humanity other than what we make up individually for ourselves or collectively is one that will survive. I agree.

[@vanguard9067]

Yep, that’s what atheist means - seeing no evidence there is a god. The rest of your comment expands beyond/outside of that.

[@StuartHamilton-r9v]

I would argue, from Peterson's normal line of logic--Judeo-Christian theism brought about the greatest culture for world-wide human flourishing...which should at least be considered a possible piece of "evidence" theism may be correct. Conversely, if Atheism, as a foundation for culture, leads to the dissolution of that same culture, it should be taken into account as an argument against secular-atheism being true enough to human experience to move humanity forward. Also from Peterson's normal line of logic, atheists often want to have their cake and eat it too, defending they are "definitely atheists", but the values they want to inculcate in their ideal secular society seem based on the cultural template of the Judeo-Christian worldview they grew up with in western culture. For example, there is no intrinsic reason from an atheistic perspective to inculcate values such as inclusion, diversity, or care for the least of humanity (especially across tribal lines) if there is no intrinsic value to human life in the mode that the Judeo-Christian ethic suggests. In Atheism, tribalism and barbarity would seem to be the default moral position because it would presumably bring about the greatest competition and adaptation within human evolution. But that's the opposite of what most atheists want. This is an inconsistency.@@vanguard9067

[@vanguard9067]

@@StuartHamilton-r9v I appreciate the summary. I wonder what atheists coming from let’s say a Hindu, or Shinto, or animist upbringing hold as core values. I have some thinking and research to do. Thank you.

[@StuartHamilton-r9v]

I'm not sure what analogies there would be to the Judeo-Christian ethic in Shinto or Animist religions, although some aspects of Hinduism would be compatible. None of those faiths informed the Western culture as such. My commentary was specific to Peterson's dialogue with this one atheist, and atheists like him who grew up in Western culture and consequently assume those values into their vision of a purely secular world. @@vanguard9067

[@warrendoyle2875]

I'm mostly an Atheist except on Lottery night 😂, I want to be an Atheist that lives in the western Christian world, unfortunately most of civilisation still needs an imaginary friend who sets out rules to which they live, just be thankful that their imaginary friend has mostly chilled out and pray or hope it stays that way

[@isabellawoods8718]

Hardly imaginary when you examine the amazing life of Jesus, and examine the lives of those who convert to Christianity, and their testimony of how God (who is real for intellectuals too, btw (see C.S. Lewis)) has made a difference to them.

[@Triple_J.1]

Jesus founded a death cult. He was also sent here and slaughtered as "the perfect sacrifice" to appease his fathers anger at the world he himself created with a propensity to sin. And let the devil loose onto it among men.

[@Zaprozhan]

@@isabellawoods8718 CS Lewis is the most entertaining and eloquent apologist that ever lived. He was still wrong.

[@stephenm9999]

You will never convince a faith-based believer with rationality. It is pure emotion and self-identity. On the other hand all these "debaters" need each other to make a living.

[@johneastwood3039]

Why is it so important to you that people don't believe in God?

[@sharkaspree8148]

@@johneastwood3039 It is important enought to them that I do

[@johneastwood3039]

@@sharkaspree8148 I don't give a damn what you do or don't believe. Whatever makes you happy.

[@sharkaspree8148]

@@johneastwood3039 yet here you are, giving a damn, nice try but you don’t act how you say you do

[@johneastwood3039]

@@sharkaspree8148 I asked why it was so important to him that people don't believe in God. "Nice try but" that's hardly evidence that I give a damn what people believe.

[@komshobu2]

Other then his area of expertise, I can't understand how can anyone take Peterson seriously. Especially on religion. He survived some really tough times in his life. Him and his wife, and I'm genuinely glad that they are all ok now. But that's the reason why he became religious fanatic and nobody should listen to him when he talks about religion. Smart person like him, to talk such nonsense sbout his imaginary friend is truly baffling. He basically dismiss modern medicine and think that god saved him and his family

[@spiderfur]

When Jordan Peterson says everyone is religious (even atheists), I think he is saying that all decent people act on a set of principles that we hold true based on our faith in those principles. Anyone who behaves according to a moral code of conduct, accepts that morality on faith. One can logically deduce why a moral code is good, but it is an act of faith that we should be good in the first place.

[@shawn4888]

That's not what he said, but nice try.

[@brianharper1611]

Not if you don't care about the should. I act "good" because I desire to (it feels nice) and will enforce that on others because I desire for others to act good because it benefits me. I say "you should act good if you desire a specific outcome" but if you don't care about the outcome I care about then do whatever you want. The people on my side are just going to try and stop you because you are getting in the way of our desired outcome.

[@anomietoponymie2140]

A set of principles one holds true on faith are called "axioms" and the truths there are called "axiomatic truths." For instance, the idea that all people are equal, or equal in dignity and value, etc.

[@PolarVortex888]

Well, c’mon just call out JP as being the grifter he really is. Don’t dance around with this façade of respect and wondering what JP thinks because that really just lowers everyone’s intelligence. JP has some mental health issues and is a highly functional grifter. Enough said.

[@sphinx1017]

Religiosity is a response to phobias that a lot of people have. The phobias of being alone through life and of course death.

[@hotsauce1646]

It's a part of it . But it's a structure to keep people in line . Even with it's horrible history it does it's job well

[@302indian]

“If that ain’t love it will have to do until the real thing comes along”. For the musically illiterate that is a line from an old but beautiful song. Maybe you can see the point.

[@Triple_J.1]

Religion is just a primitive form of philosophy. When you don't know the germ theory of medicine, then the answer for your ailment is god is unhappy with you. Therefore you just have done something to anger him. When you don't have physics. And lightning bolts strike your cow. Or your father. Or some guy down the road in a field. Then clearly god had it in for that fool. If You don't understand weather, air density, vapor pressure. Humidity and Dew point. Then it rains a foot of water out of the clouds. Then clearly god let loose the floodgates of heaven.

[@wyskass861]

Exactly. And why the correlation with conservatives. Which are also driven by fear of the unknown and to seek a structure even if it has to be imagined as a fantasy against evidence

[@r13hd22]

10:23 starts to quantify the value of people 10:50 says any time we start to quantify the value of people... That, is why you are no different than Peterson or anyone else. Those that proclaim atheism are as bad as religious people as they are as locked in behind their own bias and are as cognitive dissonant as the other.

[@Aponysomewhere8042]

Dillahunty says he is confused and more than a little irritated. Situation normal

[@weizenobstmusli8232]

It depends on what you understand by the term "normal". 😂

[@Aponysomewhere8042]

😆

[@RichardEnglander]

Intelligence differences between population groups are important because some insist that differences in outcomes *must* be due to discrimination (a term which includes all the claimed 'structural' issues as well as direct discrimination). If they drop that claim then the topic disappears.

[@bosatsu76]

You don't think it's because of educational opportunity differences between the groups? That is perfectly in line with discrimination, red lining, separate but equal, etc... Homo Sapiens are intellectually unchanged for 300,000 years or so... No smarter, no dumber... Just more informed and practiced... Africans 100k years ago are the reason we occupy nearly every square inch of planet Earth. They began it, which means they had to envision it and have the courage to implement it.

[@duxnihilo]

I agree. As soon as racists drop their unfounded claims of "racial differences in intelligence", we can begin rectifying the discrimination that has been going on for ages.

[@bewing77]

In ofher words, if we just accept the racist suggestion, the topic disappears. I mean, sure, that’s true for any subject, and the flip side is: if racists just stopped insisting that intelligence differences between population groups are due to inherent characteristics, the topic disappears. Now, of course, you’re strawmaning the claim you oppose into something much more banal than what it is: people don’t generally suggest differences in outcome must be due to targeted discrimination, rather that they are due to systematic injustices that have been engrained into society over centuries due to a plethora of complex and interacting factors. Dumbing down the view you oppose is a pretty common but very transparent argumentation tactic. So, disregarding your tautology and focusing on the actual debate, it exists because there exists different ideas on the truth of the topic. One side abandoning their claim as a way to end the debate is a ridiculous notion, especially since there exists very little support in research for the idea that inequalities exist due to inherent characteristics. Now, someone may try to make some cowardly stance and say that they’re not saying inequality is inherent but that it’s not due to injustice either; the problem with this is of course that if a population group do experience systematically worse outcomes, those are the two available explanation models: they either fail due to being inferior or they fail due to being hindered by external factors. As it turns out, when you scratch the surface, almost all people who make this “none-commit” really do believe some people arw just 8nferior, but are to cowardly to admit to their racism.

[@RichardEnglander]

@@bewing77 right, so I've edited, I figured it was obvious that 'discrimination' included all types such as 'structural' ones. You wrote an awful lot, but at no point offered any data or reasoning to prove that all the population groups have equal distributions of cognitive abilities. You claim it is 'racist' to think that all population groups aren't identical in this way, I don't agree. It isn't 'racist' to think that all population groups are equally tall or obese or blessed with more fast-twitch muscle fibres or whatever else. We KNOW that humans have evolved and we KNOW that population groups vary in all different ways, we KNOW that our brains are evolved too, and we KNOW that evolutionary selection pressures aren't the same in all places. We KNOW that over time separated population groups will develop differences. So, what makes you claim that all these population groups can have all these accepted variances yet ONLY in the case of the brain are they all identical? Present your reasoning and evidence. Then you can explain how I'm racist for thinking that on a population level 'oriental' Asians have a higher average cognitive ability than White Europeans? I'm a White European, am I being being racist to myself? You also need to not make strawmen, see I don't claim that there are 'inferior' races, I think that on a population level there are differences but these are different but overlapping distributions, for example I don't think that all Asians are smarter than all Whites, these population level differences can't be used to determine the qualities of INDIVIDUALS and individuals MUST be taken on their own individual merits. You have made many assumptions about my views and you have them wrong.

[@jackrussell1232]

Nothing "happened" with JP. He was always stupid.

[@mana3735]

It all comes down to whether you were infected with the god lie as a toddler. Parents and such drumming into a child's head that they must believe in this god or bad shit will happen. For many atheists that had it done to them (me included), that superstition still remains in tiny forms somewhere in the back of the mind. But for children that don't have it forced into their brains, they never suffer from all that nonsense.

[@KakaCarrotCakeVideos]

God isn't a object of faith, religion or belief, it is just so happens that the knowledge of God wasn't explained appropriately for later generations. There are many Christians themselves that also think like you but they can't tell what they really believe, it is really sad.

[@mana3735]

It's a lie.@@KakaCarrotCakeVideos

[@andishawjfac]

Douglas Murray lacking any sort of self awareness when he say "very conservative people tend to have very rigid beliefs". You mean, like you, Douglas? What a tool.

[@Mebzy]

I would love to see another talk between Matt and Jordan. I think Matt has had some time to find a way to better critique Jordan and I think Jordan has had some time to develop his ideas.

[@adifferentangle7064]

I think it would remain baseless.. Because Matt does not have a base beyond the debate. He exists primarily to trigger his opponents and could not cope with being psycho-analysed on film.

[@mykotron]

Peterson has spiraled into lunacy and has given so much fodder for Matt to chew on since. “Hospitals are a net negative on human life”, “ medicine kills more people than it saves” and much more. I’d love to see Peterson make another attempt. But he won’t.

[@gking407]

Peterson has “developed” into an internet troll with aspirations to become a singer 😂

[@GameTimeWhy]

​@@adifferentangle7064right because Matt requires evidence for belief whereas Jordan doesn't have the ability to convey what he means without resorting to "it would takes weeks of discussion to define what i mean".

[@carmenmccauley1235]

I dont think Jordan should be charging ppl to hear his undeveloped ideas.

[@lawsonharrison6927]

Im kinda shocked but also glad that Matts circle allowed him to even speak with Douglas. Ok so an hour after I made this comment I looked into how the ACA was doing lately and now it all makes sense. I was curious about this after his debate with Destiny but seeing as how deranged the ACA has become Im glad Matt is doing his own thing.

[@sf6199]

That's because all woke liberals secretly LOVE n@zis

[@ztarzcream]

This was 5 years ago. I think his circle had a meltdown and fell apart later. Now he's in another circle.

[@lawsonharrison6927]

@ztarzcream yeah true. I watched his video on when he left or rather was exiled a year or so back and gave my two cents in the comments.

[@Laneous14]

@@ztarzcream So you're saying that Matt aligned himself with bad people, said that they were correct, then when his den of snakes bit him he grifted on elsewhere? Gotcha. Better listen to this guy!

[@lawsonharrison6927]

@@Laneous14 I wouldnt call them "bad people", I dont know what exactly it was that he said that caused them to "bite back" and I never said we should listen to him or not.

[@TheKrighter]

"Everybody believes in God whether they admit it or not". What a lazy intellectual cheat code.

[@nickdial8528]

There's no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole. 😉

[@homosepian1234]

Great talk Gents

[@lesterross1]

Just curious. Am I the only one who, when I see Jordan Petersons name in a clip title, will never open it. Just a waste of time and braincells listening to his snobbish love affair with himself. PS, Didn't watch this one either, just wondering if It's just me.

[@muddywitch9016]

Peterson does not claim to have worked out what is or is not god. And I like that, because that leaves room to learn something new. Matt and Co. have drawn a line under the whole subject and so reject the possibility for further exploration of the subject.

[@LeeZaslofsky]

Peterson is old enough to have come to some conclusion about the existence of God, and the definition of God. "God" is not an obscure term. Does he accept God as defined by the religion in which he was brought up? How about the religion of so many of his admirers, right wing "Christianity". Does he agree with their definition?

[@paulywauly6063]

@@LeeZaslofsky NO he doesn't .. and their is no simple and singular definition of Christianity anyhow

[@muddywitch9016]

@@LeeZaslofsky Well, I’m about the same age as Peterson and the older I get, the less I think I know! As for the actual definition of god, the ‘fridge magnet’ definition many ask for would satisfy only a child but that is insufficient for me to answer honestly.

[@alexandremuise8889]

I've never met a New Atheist with an open mind. They are NEVER wrong about anything and they already KNOW EVERYTHING.

[@muddywitch9016]

@@alexandremuise8889 Even though Matt is always stating he is open to new evidence I doubt if that would actually happen. However Matt has never struck me as someone who would be truly open to the prospect.

[@ProSanityMan-gr7sq]

These poor atheist I had a time for years when I got in my 20s that I was pretty much convinced there wasn’t a God there’s a couple of documentaries that have a great argument that are very convincing. But the older you get and some real struggle in your life is what it takes to actually see him work and know that he’s really real. These guys about how much struggled for a long long time.

[@bernierasmusson9257]

You're unlikely to be convincing if you can't be coherent.

[@LeeZaslofsky]

I'm an atheist. I go on the assumption that there's no God, though I may be mistaken. God doesn't seem to mind.

[@paulywauly6063]

Good for you ... I totally see your point

[@sams8502]

The first debate JP and Matt or even with Sam Harris for that matter is him working ideas out. It’s a much easier role to play the skeptic in a debate. Nobody has an all encompassing theory or ideology that can explain everything. These ideas have to work itself out just as technology, math and science has over time.

[@CD-pq1yv]

All religions have an all encompassing theory that explains everything. That’s the basic problem with them.

[@sams8502]

@@CD-pq1yv That’s not JP argument or mine, so your comment has no relevance.

[@Tropdop]

Douglas was 100% in Jordan’s corner and just being polite.

[@sardendibs]

Yes, but not just polite. Murray is also afraid of receiving the same treatment and being humiliated. Like Peterson, Murray is an intellectually shaky grifter masquerading his shortcomings with fuzzy rhetoric, arrogance and far-fetched references.

[@byrnemeister2008]

@@sardendibsYep, grifters of the world unite.

[@vickymitchell9095]

OMG, not everyone is religious! I get so sick of this. Jordan believes most people who are saying they don’t believe in God do not ACT as if they do. How hard is this to understand??

[@LeeZaslofsky]

I am an atheist. Do I act as if I am a believer? Not the last time I looked.

[@paulywauly6063]

@@LeeZaslofsky perhaps you do ????

[@timothyglassbrook4886]

​@@LeeZaslofskydo you have a moral code you ascribe to? Because that's belief. Whether or not you slap a god onto it or a dogma behind it, morality is religious by nature. That's more the point he makes

[@timothyglassbrook4886]

Reading comments that bash Peterson I'm generally led to believe that none of them understand what he's saying.

[@LeeZaslofsky]

@@timothyglassbrook4886 Don't play that trick, please. I have beliefs about lots of things. I believe that the sun rises in the east; I believe that 2 + 2= 4, I believe that some day I will die, etc etc. I could "slap a god" onto those beliefs, but it would be pointless to do so. I base my morality on reason and logic as well as compassion and honesty (among other things). None of this has anything to do with the god, though my moral views, like others I hold, may have a history of being associated with god worship. Religious people like to pretend that everything is "really" religious and atheism is itself a religion and so everybody is really religious after all. That is nonsense, though it seems to reassure some religious people to believe it, as they believe lots of other nonsense because it is reassuring to them. It's a pathetic little trick, like so much of religion.

[@nigelwitgunn3406]

I started studying the Bible in 83 with the book of Revalation. Within the year I was keeping the seventh day Sabbath, Feasts and Dietary laws. More than 35 years later, I studied my way out the other side of the books. Some years after I was in a state of depression for a while and didn't know how to pull myself out. Then after watching Jordan Peterson defend free speach in my home country, by denouncing compelled speach, I hear him say this; ...clean up your room... Well, the switch in my head was almost audible, of course; get back to basics, "boom" mind blown I wanted to hear more. Then he starts his Bible commentary, without ever studying it, as reading is not study. This is a man of science? 1Thes. 5:21 says to prove ALL things, Mr. Peterson.

[@jerrylong6238]

Peterson is a total train wreck.

[@user-tu9ox4hj9g]

I also use to obey the Sabbath, feast days, and dietary law. I tell you the lord god of Israel is not who you think he is. Neither should you feel the need to love him. He surely does not love you.

[@nigelwitgunn3406]

@@user-tu9ox4hj9g yeah no worries m8, YHWH has no standing here.

[@oscarmudd6579]

The religious aren't looking to explain anything, they're looking for a way to defend (and misdirect attention from) their activities. Besides, Evangelicals are expected to say the "proper" opinion or the "proper" viewpoint and rarely what they really believe or think which is an unauthorized story. They really only want to get credit for morality.

[@NothingNowhere-vu5oq]

It seems to me that conformity is itself the morality. The safety of uniformity.

[@oscarmudd6579]

@@PallidusCarnifex Maybe but what you want to hear isn't what's true.

[@oscarmudd6579]

It requires no great stretch of the imagination to presuppose that no religious person wants to hear about truth while religion stands as an alternative to truth.

[@gtrdoc911]

Matt has the ability to clearly communicate what he is trying to say whilst Jordan has the opposite ability.

[@timothyglassbrook4886]

Yeah I feel like Jordan was not very clear in this conversation. Seems his thoughts went over most people's heads unfortunately

[@alanhill897]

Everything I've heard from Dillahunty suggests he is as dogmatically commited to his fundamental materialist worldview as anyone is to a traditional organized religion.

[@bernierasmusson9257]

Translation: "You think you're better than me?"

[@alanhill897]

@bernierasmusson9257 Please elaborate on what you mean by that. I'm not sure what, precisely, you are claiming to have translated there.

[@bernierasmusson9257]

@alanhill897 Also known as: "I think your ideology is a religion, too, so you're just as bad as me."

[@freddiejonesjones01]

An issue with the position that Truth is purely what is, is then how do we decide what should be?

[@gking407]

Have a discussion with your fellow humans, but that means valuing cooperation above tribalism which most of us are incapable of

[@dava00007]

Truth is a tool, we have the emotions, the rock does not have the emotions. Hence, the rock will not throw itself at a dangerous animal, you take it and throw it.

[@ztarzcream]

How else do you define truth?

[@freddiejonesjones01]

@@ztarzcream My point is that if you pretend that Truth is only what is objectively measurable then you run in to some very human problems. Yes, there are provable truths but in order to know what to do, especially in groups we need to agree on 'Truths' or 'Values' that cannot be measured or even defend in a purely scientific sense. Sometimes people will critic those that hold positions that clearly can't be objectively proven. Yet, in their own lives they will be unable to avoid adopting their own un-provable Truths. Whilst I don't completely agree with Jordans deep belief that the study of religion should be a primary focus in pursuit of deeper truths. It is necessary that we start somewhere.

[@immanuelcunt7296]

​@@gking407how do you determine what you should value in the first place

[@finnhoydal2028]

As a great admirer of Murrey and Dillahunty, I was especially glad to Matt in an inquisitive and non-aggressive manner. His combative manner on his shows can be a turnoff at times

[@michaelkaercher]

I liked Peterson. I did not share all his believes but he used to have a lot of interesting positions. But in the mean time he is more and more sliding to the extreme right.

[@monacaravetta]

I think he has discovered the money that one can make pandering to the extreme right.

[@Djscott2728]

Or has the left just slide off the scale and calls anyone right of Moa "far-right"?

[@Djscott2728]

​@@monacaravettaask Hasan and TYT about grifting for extremists...

[@kurtglathar5162]

@@Djscott2728 Many people have slid too far left, many people have slid too far right. But Peterson is in the latter category. It's not just "the left". I'm centrist and simply noticed Peterson has become more radical in his conservative leanings.

[@Djscott2728]

@@kurtglathar5162 how so?

[@hvalenti]

If Jordan must define God, then Dillahunty must define reality. Everyone seems to have their own definition of both. For me, God is higher, nonlocal consciousness, into which Stanford, Princeton, the CIA and other organizations have poured ample time and treasure. I'd bet Dillahunty would essentially call physics foundational reality. But the more our best minds delve into physics, reality starts to get as strange as claims regarding God. I think the God vs Reality question is a false dichotomy.

[@martingatt94]

I bow down to this

[@WangMingGe]

Very insightful analysis.

[@colinross3755]

So where is god?

[@paulywauly6063]

@@colinross3755 that's what a materialist would ask .. God is not somewhere !!!!

[@colinross3755]

@@paulywauly6063 if he’s not somewhere how can he be anywhere. Your literally making things up to fit the attributes that you give him. You said before he’s non local but can’t say where yet I assume you think he is an intervening god and engages with people - how can he be non local but also local and how those terms mean anything that you even understand when you can’t even explain what they mean says loads

[@welshmouse]

I love Douglas, Matt and Jordan, and the only thing they're really talking about here is personal belief, which always strikes me as a strange thing for people to get into deep conversations about. I think Matt is right to be concerned when someone has a belief system that they believe compels them to act a certain, immoral way, and that's why I like his way of approaching religious extremism. But this is where the capital A Atheists tend to go down a weird rabbit hole, when they want to address someone's personal belief in god or spirituality, and try to make it make sense. It's like trying to understand the absolute truth of why someone likes certain music or food. Yes, it's all rooted in reality, but ultimately you can never treat it as a scientific issue to be dissected and argued. People believe what they believe, they like what they like. Understanding them is a noble goal, but trying to challenge them, when their beliefs are not being imposed on others, is just a bit childish, like the teenager who has to insist that the music he likes is the *right* music.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

What is “impersonal belief”?

[@welshmouse]

​@@MarcosElMalo2 I don't think it's anything. The opposite of personal belief would be objective fact. Facts are things worth arguing about. Things you personally believe generally aren't. It's great to talk about what food is healthy, what food is useful for body building, or even what those words mean and how to categorize things. But getting into an argument about which food tastes better is silly. It's personal. Subjective. It doesn't matter what someone else thinks, and no one benefits from trying to 'convince' someone otherwise.

[@ttthecat]

Personal religious belief does affect us directly. I would give an example from my country the United States, where the recent overturn of Roe v Wade occurred specifically because of an evangelical/Catholic religious impulse to take away a right that women have had for over 50 years. The members of the Supreme Court that upheld the overturn of Roe V Wade did so because they were indebted to evangelical Christians and catholics support them politically and financially (Clarence Thomas)or because of their own personal religious beliefs(Comey-Barett, Scalia, Kavanuagh etc) I believe the three of the Justices are staunchly Catholic. And now there, women who have to cross state lines in fear to get this procedure and doctors are so fearful being charged with a crime that they have nearly let women in their care die from sepsis. Religious people's vote, religious people's campaign dollars, religious people's protests(e.g. blocking woman from Planned Parenthoods) do have an impact. And they can even have an impact by simply not voting "Yes" for example for same sex marriage- which was long fight. ( We had political leaders, governors as well as presidents, that were initially very hesitant to embrace some same sex marriage because of the fear of the impact on their career by religious people voters and politicians.)Religious people and their beliefs do have an impact on the rest of society. There are many other ways to illustrate this but I thought this was a decent start.

[@Rolo-gn1nk]

​@ttthecat And theists clam these beliefs are based in facts. Those "facts" are what Matt challenges.

[@ttthecat]

That's well said! I'm still just learning or really. Just learning to break down how rhetoric works And it is so disturbing to hear a belief given so confidently, as facts with such circular reasoning it almost astonishes Me how people don't see how self deluding it is! I could never say anything with such confidence which I guess is why I doubt everything but at least I understand and have confidence in why I doubt things. 😅@Rolo-gn1nk

[@ChrisPyle]

“Truth is that which comports with Reality” I really like that!

[@johnbrion4565]

It’s really quite a foolish and arrogant thing to say when you think about it. What is reality? We all perceive the world through our own unique experience. How can we trust the reliability of our mind let alone others if the universe is the product of random chance? The reliability of the mind is the problem atheists can’t overcome.

[@AllThingsFilm1]

@@johnbrion4565 Now you're making a blanket statement when you assert that atheists can't overcome the problem of the reliability of the mind. Yes, we all have our own experiences of life. But, at some point, you have to come to an agreement about what aspects of reality we can agree on. We won't agree on everything about what reality IS. But, the laws we create to police each other's behavior are based on agreements that we DO have about reality. So, atheists don't have any more problems with reality than you have. To assert otherwise is dishonest.

[@ChrisPyle]

@@johnbrion4565 doesn’t that lend itself to the whole “my truth” nonsense? For example, if you’re hot and I’m cold, and it’s 65 degrees outside, it’d still 65

[@johnbrion4565]

@@AllThingsFilm1 I’m speaking about ultimate truth and reality here. I believe we can agree on things because I believe there is a God grounding all reality and that the universe was created ordered and structured and is knowable. True reality is how things exist to the mind of God. My point is that at the highest levels of philosophy and science, holding an atheistic worldview is a huge problem because there is nothing to ground reality in. How can one even claim the universe is knowable, that consciousness is real and that we can even begin to do something called science when this is all a product of random chance.

[@johnbrion4565]

@@ChrisPyle I don’t believe in “my truth”. My point is that the reliability of the mind is a huge problem for an atheistic worldview. On one hand they want to assume there is some objective knowable reality which can be studied. But then also claim our minds through which we know and study the world are the result of chance. So atheists rely on a tremendous amount of faith that the laws of physics are immutable and that our minds through which we observe the universe can even be trusted. Now in most people’s experience it seems we can know the universe and can do science and can trust our minds to a certain extent. This is why I think it’s much more reasonable to assume there is something like a mind which gave rise to the order and structure of the universe. And that true reality is how things relate to the mind of God. I agree we can do science and make objective observations, again because if God is real then the universe is ordered in a knowable way.

[@bigbanshi7903]

If you actually listen to what Douglas Murray says, he actually says nothing at all, there no substance at all just words strung together.

[@rl7012]

100%

[@serataylor772]

What I like about Matt Dillahunty is that he speaks on a natural, calm, clear way that comes across as very genuine. Most of the guys he does talks with are so full of fakeness and affectations that I can't take them seriously. Especially Jordan Peterson, who is a bully and a bullshitter.

[@johnkross7227]

Matt says himself truth is "that which comports with reality" so if he was being honest about Petersons philosophy he wouldn't be arguing because it all comports with reality perfectly. That's his whole point.

[@_Stargazer_.]

JP's philosophy comports with reality ? .. nope . Not much of what he says does.

[@johnkross7227]

For instance?

[@LeeZaslofsky]

"Comports with"? I just comported with a big piece of chocolate cake. Very comportable!

[@johnkross7227]

@@LeeZaslofsky hilarious, you must be a big hit with 8 yr olds.

[@tommyvictorbuch6960]

"20 percent of what Jordan Peterson says, doesn't make sense." - Sam Harris -

[@patrickatilano2014]

It's still good if it's just 20%. Not one person could make sense of everything.

[@discojoe3]

There shouldn't be a comma after "says".

[@benguensche]

lol sam harris definitely has some interesting quotes................

[@jthen8454]

"If covid were worse than it was, people would have taken it more seriously." -Sam Harris

[@gedonckers]

@@jthen8454 it is entirely true

[@gliblyaware]

Jordan Petersen's bleak view of humanity comes from within himself. He's a tortured, angry and scared man, and I suspect his body is attacking itself as a result. And while I agree with him a good number of things, he's always seemed bitter to me. He doesn't seem to be receiving life as a gift. Eat a damn apple already!

[@LeeZaslofsky]

You have hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head. But don't forget that his self expression has made him rich and famous. Maybe there are lots of people like him.

[@gliblyaware]

@LeeZaslofsky I have nothing against self expression and neither does the average wealthy onlyfans prostitute. I'm fine with both, but most of the latter seem like they're getting something out of it, including a few apples.

[@gliblyaware]

@LeeZaslofsky Has anyone told Peterson that apples have hierarchies? He might become obsessed! Look, I'm not looking to hurt the poor guy. Maybe we shouldn't say anything?

[@LeeZaslofsky]

I don't know what an "onlyfans prostitute"is, but I am moved by your willingness to grant them freedom of expression. I'm afraid I don't understand your reference to apples.

[@LeeZaslofsky]

One thing Peterson is NOT, is "poor". He has cashed in big time on the success of his books and I guess lecture fees etc. He hurts a lot of people with his "I am an intellectual" act. He misleads many college age guys into right wing political ideology -- of a very basic kind -- he incites hatred of transsexuals, he denounces gay couples who adopt children, he parrots fascistoid ideas about "hierarchy" and manhood, and he poses as a "public intellectual", based on nothing but his pathetic books on "cleaning your room" and "being a lobster". His influence in psychological circle is nil or below nil. Yes this is his sole "expertise".

[@ddewittfulton]

Peterson is very smart on a lot of topic, particular as pertains human psychology. And I also admire his stance against speech policing. But what I have noticed that is that many of Peterson's ideas, especially those related to religion, truth, and reality, are still in the gestation stage. He appears to be unable to form a cogent premise that can then be defended argumentatively. If you have to spend five weeks answering a direct question that doesn't make you Wittgenstein. I think he expects use to be impressed by the complexity of his intellectual struggles. And it wouldn't be a problem except that he uses these flimsy, half-baked, tortured notions about reality and then postulates actionable moral philosophies from them (or rather, trite pop-psy self-help books for angry Peter Pans). It is a pity because I find him very likable. I'm sure his classes are a hoot!

[@ludwigotto3557]

I quit smoking.No mystical experience,no god moment.Just the fear that the bone transplant in my jaw wouldnt take.Nothing more.

[@ronnied1172]

Good for you. That's a wise choice. Hope you keep at it. But what's your point though?

[@bryantrew6366]

He misrepresented Jordan’s position. He didn’t say you couldn’t quit without without a mystical experience, he said there’s no affective clinical treatment. Matt doesn’t prefer details, his schtick is low resolution concepts.