"Asking for evidence for god is an illegal move" If god gave us the ability to ask for evidence, and since asking for evidence is a prerequisite for coming to the truth, how can he ask of us to not do the same for his existence? And if rationality should not be applied on him, then why do we try to logically explain his decisions? His actions would be nonsensical to us, but instead we seem to only want to apply logic wherever it makes god look good.
that still implies that god is a rational, thinking being. Its possible to understand god as not conscious like we are, more as an intrinsic force. many different ways to interpret it, but its just easiest to argue against the typical Abrahamic view because most Christians dont explain it very well to begin with, if they understand it at all.
@@zaclovesschool2273 Saying you understand it better than others implies you have ways of proving to me that the others are wrong, no? And I mean prove, not theorize.
@@MarioTsota I'm not saying I understand all of it better than others, I'm just saying there are many ways to understand complex texts like the Bible, and some end up missing the initial ideas behind it due to not understanding the structure of the text itself. That it's made of different types of writing, some poetry, some narrative, some in descriptive passages, etc. And therefore needs to be carefully read. But if people don't do that, or believe completely in the words of someone who doesn't bother to think for himself, then I'd argue people set themselves up for misunderstanding. I like the way Jordan interprets it personally, maybe many others would say it's blasphemous or whatever...but I enjoy the way he thinks about it. Unless you mean for me to prove the existence of God or angels or whatever, then sorry I can't do that without either an essay or a long honest talk, but even then it's still a belief I have and it's not even in the way most western people would think of God. So unless you were wanting to explore the spiritual stuff already, not much I say would convince you. I can say that my views align ~the God of Spinoza, but I've explored things like Nondual Saivist Tantra, western esotericism (arguably born from mostly left current Tantra), but am also someone who loves learning science, and I don't see conflict between the sciences and spirituality. Though depends, if you believe the world is 6000 years old that's rough. Also to note, again I've not read the Bible myself so I'm not an expert, I've just taken courses on it's composition and history.
@@zaclovesschool2273 That's good and all but arguing that I or others are wrong because you "believe" something to be true, doesn't disprove our theory. Either use logic 100% or don't use it at all. There is no inbetween where feelings should take precedent when it comes to arguments. Either you can prove your claims or let me believe what I want and don't argue with me based on feelings.
@@MarioTsota I'm still unsure what claims you want me to prove. I already explained why I can't give you empirical evidence for God, though if I were to, I would point to all things in the natural world and cosmos which are so ordered and follow laws of the universe, or to the origin of our universe still being such a contentious subject. The problem is that you're essentially asking me to prove the existence of love in the human heart with hard logic (and by the way, a person can argue a logical concept without hard evidence, it's called reasoning in the realm of ideas). If you're referring to my comments about people misreading the Torah or the Bible, then that's another story, I didn't use my feelings or beliefs for that. But my point on beliefs is that whether you choose to believe in something is up to you and what evidence you choose to see as lining up with that belief. We believe in scientific theories because of the evidence they provide not only for their theory, but also the evidence used against that theory. But while the study of the divine can be undertaken with a scientific spirit, it does not have defined parameters aside from the laws we already understand, and yet there are many we don't. Abstract ideas are inherently harder to explain in a defined way than observations of a material phenomenon. I'm not arguing that God is supernatural. I'm arguing that we embody that force called God through everything all the time, but especially through our ability to be conscious in the first place. It's essentially the all pervasive consciousness working through biological machinery to interact with itself. That's my understanding so far, but I was a hardline atheist for about a decade so I understand the skeptic view as well. I've just found it to be stale at a certain point because it blankets all of these potential experiences with an air of cynicism or skeptical judgement. But again, it's about personal experience and belief just like anything is. Just depends on how you wish to look at things.
@roshinvarghese6879 You think maybe his argument is that too much points in that direction in psychology, meaning, instinct, etc. Therefore there is a transcendent conscious principle that orders these things, and ordered them in such a way that conscious beings must align with him to properly function, and in effect his only issue is either he presents it withinthe argument he found compelling, or that he can't make the last leap to say he knows for sure that this being is 100% portrayed correctly in the Bible, but rather that his conviction is close enough to what would be recognizable as the true deity, that he concludes that it must be the most accurate reflection, but given that his reasoning grants the difference between faith and knowledge, he only argues it in so far as he can make a strong argument rather than forcing the last leap of faith on a person? Maybe you should just let people come along at their own speed, which is either what he's letting others do, or the journey he himself is on. Just because he won't say definitely that he knows what God is while making in argument that there is one doesn't mean you know his own private convictions beyond what he feels he can argue with sufficient certainty to argue publicly.
@@roshinvarghese6879I think he is already Catholic. While he is hitting Truth, Bishop Barron is simultaneously hitting the Beauty front drawing people to the church. I could be wrong but it seems that way. It might be intentional he is using the abstract language to bridge the gap because he goes in and out of direct language consistent with our theology. To play devils advocate I get tired of our Catholic brothers and sisters painting him as “dangerous” because that seems to be trendy at the moment, it’s a Protestant mindset. Know and find comfort in truth and to your point yes correct him with the correct order of delivering truth.
@sweatincowboy4692 I pray he does find faith, but tremendous damage can be done if he keeps preaching Christ's teachings in a materialistic framework. Islam, Mormonism, New Agers, JP, etc. appropriate Christ's sublime moral teachings but conveniently disregard His claims of divinity, heaven, hell, the resurrection, etc.
"explain his thinking further" or, more accurately, expose that Peterson has nothing. Worse, he not only has nothing but insults those who refuse to be convinced by fairy tales and mysticism. Disappointing.
Sam Harris has yet to explain just what the foundation for his moral structure is. From what I can see he doesnt have one, which is why in his writing, his redefinitions for traditionally morally language (good as he redefines it is now the advancement of conscious beings and bad is absolute suffering) are self contradictory and subjective, versus definitive and objective. His redefinitions permit the very religous violence he so often decries.
@@joshuastanko2886 Indeed, he doesn't need a foundation for his moral structure, that's what theism is for. Even a theist moral foundation is subjective and contradictory, as you get to choose which theism you follow, and once you have chosen you get to pretend it has no contradictions.
@@CarmenVerandaThats what I dont get. If he doesnt have a foundation then its a belief rooted in nothing. Therefore there is no truth, its all subjective, in which case terrible things are not in fact terrible, and there is no morality. As far theism goes, yes different denominations have different beliefs regarding traditions, rituals, and prayers. But the foundation is the same (assuming we're talking about a judeo christian God).
@@joshuastanko2886 Yes, there is no absolute truth or morality without a God. Indeed the journalist Peter Hitchens became a theist for that reason alone. But that doesn't mean there is no morality. I have a morality, which I thought of myself. The only price is that it is subjective, but I knew that anyway as an atheist. And why, of the hundreds of gods throughout history, would we only talk about the Abrahamic God? Chinese gods for example are nearer humans, they make mistakes and do bad things occasionally.
@@CarmenVeranda Well I have to say I do deeply respect the consistency in your position. Its been a rather enlightening exchange thus far. As for speaking only to an Abrahamic God it makes sense to me because we're speaking largley about morality, and the Abrahamic God is not intepreted to have human failings (meaning He practices immorality just as humans do) like the Chinese Gods or the Greek Gods but rather he is a divine creator who is perfectly moral. As a Christian myself that is my foundation for moral belief. Additionally we live in a Westernized country whose laws and society were also foundationally built upon the abrahamic faith, so its certainly relevant. I suppose though if there is no truth or objective framework to have as a foundation and by your own admission what you see to be moral or immoral is indeed subjective, then that would necessarily mean that all perspectives on morality are equally correct. That there is no true way of determining if a thing is wrong. Is that a correct intepretation of your position thus far?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
@@onionsans I agree. But I'm sure the original poster was thinking of a group being the majority or insane. I was just curious who they were thinking of.
"no good argument for atheism" is a non sequitor. Atheism is not an argument...it is simply not accepting a claim. You say you have a magic coin in your pocket that is invisible. I say "I dont believe you". How daft a 3rd party observer would have to be to lean in and say "what is your argument for not believing that?"
@@Hobohunter23 As much as we would like to blame his behavior on his literal brain damage, he was like this before he suffered that. The truth he is just pandering.
@@m11_m11 come on! you can't say that. It makes you look close minded. I like the "change my mind" slogan because of its intellectual integrity. I agree he is partially following the money. But I do think he has another, more noble purpose. Jordan seems to think people are weak, stupid, superstitious and manipulable and will *inevitably* to Communism and/or Islam without American-Christianism.
To live as God's people, not possible. I'm sure they would let you, as they reverse the analytic and don't make any sense; they are using them in the atmosphere. To believe in God is some hard theory on the creation of the universe. New atheism is simply what it is, becoming who you are through the emergence of God's people. To live as God's people as a proper function in being is the job, you didn't get that job did you, but you did, for 8 years and you kicked my dirt. Yes you did.
@CameronRabie this is why, in christian theology, hell and the lake of fire are also referred to as "the second death". Because no matter how good or bad you are, no matter whether you're saved or not, you will pass from this life through death to the other side. So the verse saying, "the wages of sin is death" *could* be referring to physical death (as in, some sins will lead to death) but can also be understood as the final death. The second death. The eternal death. A death that, once passed through, is the end, rather than a doorway into what lies next.
@@WarPoet-In-Training Yes, this first death is just relocation. Its the true death in the lake of fire that people need to worry about. The wages of sin is death, easily applies to both the body and the soul. As both were corrupted. When Jesus came, he did not come to save the body, he saved US, our souls, and filled those who believed with the Holy Spirit. We are protected from the second death and do not have to fear it, it has no power over us. Neither do we fear the first death, since it brings us to our Lord, our long awaited reunion. But while we are alive, we have work to do, which the Lord has ordained for us to do.
@@WarPoet-In-Training yes. the 'wages of sin is death'. It is not referring to physical death, but spiritual death. The physical things around us, the planets, the stars, are all temporary. Spirit is eternal. Physically, we all die once. If you happen to be a believer in Jesus the Christ, then you'll be with Him in Heaven for eternity. If you are not a believer, then you'll be subjected to the second death - the spiritual death. Revelation 21:8 - _But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death.”_
"It's an illegal chess move." Not even a minute later... "It's no game." This, fellow people, is a decent demonstration of why i can't take him seriously.
@@nawunny Bigfoot isn't a supernatural being, second, you cannot, since they cannot exist without other supernatural beings which created them, implying a god also what even was your point?
plenty of good arguments for the divine, however one might come to understand it. many different ways of understanding it, but atheism seems to be the dismissal of all of it simply on the basis that it does not manifest before our eyes in ways we expect it to. I dont need a divine force to appear as an angelic being in this physical world and tell me "hey, im real!" its something we understand through experience of our own consciousness. If we choose to call it different things, thats fine too.
No every Athiest makes the claim of "there are other possible explanations for the beginning of the universe" if they are all somehow falsified then Athiest position is false although I don't see that happening
Still a BS argument. Nice try christians. (If I can even call this nutcase a Christian) Why isn't the solar plexus conscious?? Well, why isn't it conscious under YOUR VIEW of "spirit from God"?? It seems like "the spirit of God" can cause something to be conscious only when there is a SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity. Why can't this magical spirit cause anything else to be conscious?? Why isn't your palms conscious? Why aren't your kidneys conscious? Why isn't you solar plexus conscious ? Why isn't a rock or a table or a chair conscious ?? It seems like your all powerful God's spirit can work ONLY under very specific orientation and working of the nervous system. Hmmm WEIRD. OR the simpler answer is that consciousness is the result of a SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity.
BS argument. Nice try Christians. (If I can even call this nutcase a Christian). Why isn't you Solar Plexus conscious?? Well let me turn it around and ask you why isn't your solar plexus conscious in YOUR view of "spirit from God"?? Seems like this magical "spirit of God" requires SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity to work......Weird. Why isn't your palms conscious? Why aren't your kidneys conscious ?? Why isn't a rock conscious?? If it is a result of the spirit of an all powerful God. The simpler answer is that consciousness is a result of a specific type of neural activity.
@@garrinbarrett5782 Until I am presented with a definition god that is backed with evidence and doesn't contain logical inconsistencies I have zero reason to believe in 'god'.
@@garrinbarrett5782 In the context of this video and topic god would be the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe and is the source of all moral authority.
@@leob3447here’s my argument brother. the biological eco-system we all live in is HYPER advanced. And as Petersen stated, 10:12, there’s nothing random in the working mechanics of the world. “each action will cause an equal or opposite reaction” This /\ is a scientific fact. Energy cannot generate from nothing, the earth, and biological eco-system given any research clearly shows an intricate, highly accurate, self maintaining DESIGN to the build. Scientifically, there could not have been a big bang. Someone must of built all this. Once u realize there is a God, you have to figure out which one. You can do this research on your own, because it doesn’t take a lot of research to realize that the God of the hebrews is clearly the most powerful God and being in existence. Why? God is the only being intelligent enough to have invented the perfect biological self maintaining eco-system. A system so perfect it could repair, evolve, and maintain its self infinitely. This is what us humans were supposed to be. This is what God means when he said we’re made in his image. Meaning no more death. Time is defined by a beginning(birth) and end (death) so God and anyone living as designed has no understanding or acknowledgement of it. This will be heaven. Us humans living how we were supposed to from the start. NOT DYING God is someone you will meet if you believe in Christ, and what God did for you thru him. Having faith in Christ, is continuing up the hill with my cross even though I will not see God for a long time. Trusting in his creation, his son, and living accordingly. Christianity has nothing to do with evidence. anyways, there’s the gospel for ya
As an atheist, I agree with Dr. Peterson when he says there is no good argument for atheism! The thing is though, I don't need to have an argument for atheism. Atheism is the default position. If you believe in the existence of God, you adopt the burden of proof. It is not up to me to disprove God.
Really? I think if you applied your discerning thinking skills to the matter you could come up with a few options: enhanced scientific and technological advancement, potentially a more harmonious civil and social society, a more rational legal system, etc.
so are you saying you believe that by avoiding the burden of proof, you effectively find a loophole? im a little confused. either way, i believe your thought process is a little shallow. all this bible stuff could be fake, along with Islam and paganism and any concept of a supernatural being, and there really could be nothing beyond the physical. however, were you to not believe in something beyond the material, and something really is beyond the material, you would be wrong. by this logic, you lose nothing other than some of your time and effort by believing in something, but you take a chance at losing everything by believing in nothing at all. if you value that time and effort of believing in something over a potential eternity in a great place beyond the physical, then that is up to you to decide for yourself, but if you are merely going off logic, you are standing in the shallow end of the theological pool. reconsider. look at all religions and what they offer. I have personally, and the one that makes the most logical and historical sense is Christianity. Jesus saves. look in the Bible, and if you look closely enough you will find it.
The good arguments for atheism are the thousands of arguments against theism and the fact that one makes better decisions if one is not misled by some baseless fairy tales.
There is no default. There is either a cause that caused the construct of space, time and matter or no cause that brought them up. Possibly being agnostic as in not really knowing of either is the default
@@creed3500 Even if a creator is granted, a Christian still has pretty much all of their work ahead of them to argue that the creator of the universe also cares about on what day of the weeks humans work, in which positions they have intercourse and with whom, etc. How inflated must one's self-importance be to think that the creator of the universe pays attention to one?
@@gerardjones7881 I've never met an atheist with anguish that there isn't evidence for God. There is profound evidence of God. One has to close their eyes to the very fabric and nature of the universe to not see evidence of a Creator, and ignore the most basic underpinnings of humanity to not see an uncreated superior morality woven into the fabric of humanity. No, there is no anguish over a lack of proof - perhaps grief that we do not wake up in this world with a schematic of history and a presentation of God in the format and clarity we can find in a legal contract and a textbook. Grief, perhaps, at the demonic betrayal of those who falsely pretend to carry God's name and authority and yet reject both His holiness and His love in their hearts. But, no, not once in human history has an atheist grieved the absence of evidence of God. Except perhaps a man who sees only darkness, who rages at the absence of light because he refuses to open his eyes.
Atheism does not require a good argument, much to the chagrin of those addicted to arguments. Atheism is simply an acknowledgement of the absence of belief.
It requires an argument if and only if it's an assertion or denial of some proposition. If it's neither, then what you're calling "atheism" doesn't rise to the level of a disagreement with theism, since disagreement requires the assertion or denial of some proposition.
Are you going to post the full podcast here in CZcams? I know it is available in Locals, but Locals is unavailable here in Brazil... They didn't accept our government censorship so they were removed from our country and now I can't access the full episode 😅
Friedrich Nietzsche : "The belief in authority is the source of conscience; which is therefore not the voice of God in the heart of man, but the voice of some men in man."
@@ericdavis1660 You claim there is a god, you don´t have any evidence for that claim, I reject your claim. That doesn´t say that I have no idea and I don´t need to claim that it doesn´t exist as I withhold belief untill it´s been proven and am willing to change my mind if evidence is presented. I have zero confidence in such evidence ever being provided as people have been trying to prove gods existing for a long time and they still just provide bad arguments, logical fallacies and ignorant nonsense so I´ll stick to not accepting claims about such silly nonsense and will continue to watch gods being led off to the scrapheap of bad ideas one by one untill hopefully one day mankind will move past such silly superstition.
It isn't the rejection of a claim, otherwise atheism wouldn't be trendy. It's a claim. In debate the minority has the burden of proof. Most of the world (especially the west) holds to religion. It's the common stance. If they claim, they have a reason, as people actually study what they believe. They've done so (in Christianity at least) for over 2000 years. More often than not they provide those reasons. If you reject, it helps to have a reason. If not, you're the odd one. There IS no good argument to reject God, let alone his existence. By definition. If you do so at least don't go around saying there's no reason to believe in God without giving your own reason. That's mindless.
There’s a big difference between believing in God-as-a-metaphor-for-higher-purpose and believing in God-as-actual-magic-sky-man and I don’t think he did a good job separating out those two things. I absolutely believe (for instance) that if I sit around eating cake all day instead of accomplishing something, I’ll be punished with a sense of disappointment for not achieving the potential I could have. But that’s a far cry from accepting there’s literally some conscious being up in space clucking his tongue at me.
This is an excellent example of a very smart person whose mental faculties completely turn to bread pudding In the face of religious claims. There is no rational justification for believing in magic. There never will be.
Especially not on a planet teeming with alternatives to Christianity. According to his own "logic", Peterson makes illegal chess moves against Islam, Buddhism, etc. Let's not make the mistake that he is advocating the belief in any deity. He is specifically enamoured by the Jesus-variant of all religions; a religion that is not only obviously based on others that came before it but also evolved in order to compete with what other religions had to offer. The trinity nonsense was not unforced, it was a hack to establish a living god on earth. Peterson is like a child who likes Christmas too much in order to relinquish belief in Santa Clause.
He redefines everything in his own way, but his definitions are fluid and almost no one else adheres to them. He literally may as well be having a chat with himself. But he claims to know what God is, pretty arrogant for someone who can't answer a simple question without redefining every other word
Best argument for atheism? There doesn’t need to be an argument defending atheism until someone can make a good argument defending the idea that it’s more likely that any god exists than it is that no god exists. Until then, I don’t need any argument or reason for why I’m an atheist. This man doesn’t seem to understand the basics of burden of proof.
Being atheist is the default position. You’re not born with a belief in a god, and the particular god you may then develop a belief in is pretty much dependent on geographical location and wether or not the people who raise you have said belief.
@@ZelgiusK Why would something without a beginning not need a cause but something with a beginning need one? Not to mention that if “God” existed at the beginning of time, then he began to exist because there would not have been any earlier time when he existed before that.
Peterson adheres strictly to the scientific method in all of his other areas of study; psychology, sociology, etc. follow the data and see where it leads. And then in the area of religious belief he just throws that out the window. Very strange.
I thought he had something when he suggested the bible is metaphorically true. However, this stuff sucks. Joker is metaphorically true. Joker did not exist. However, that doesn't mean if you cross mentally loners with a society that treats them like trash, you won't end up like Murray Franklin or Thomas Wayne.
When delving into different fields of study some rules won't apply. I don't understand how atheists only want to use one ruleset to discern the reality around them. Even when I was a child, I knew that reality was so much more than what is observed measured and repeated.
You exactly pointed out your issue. You rigidly demand scientific evidence to believe everything, and that's what makes you think you're one of the smart ones.
@@Wow-hr1gl God created gravity and can be seen everywhere in His creation. ROMANS 1: 20 For the invisable things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eterna lpower and God head; so that they are without excuse. 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise , they became fools. This directly addresses you from the Creator thousands of years before you were even born.🤔🤐
He's not coming around to Christianity. You can forget it. The Bible is wrong. God is real and so is Jesus. But professing faith in the Bible alone does not guarantee you a ticket to Heaven.
@@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia do you need faith to say “i don’t know how the universe was created”? Stay in your hubris of thinking you have the answers to everything
@@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia You're the one that believes that if you're a Christian... God says words and out of literally nothing,everything is created Atheism doesn't even talk about creation LMAO
@@jonde-cent4897 No. But that's not what you believe. Atheists always say "I lack a belief in God," but then turn around and say "God doesn't exist." Like if you knew. At that point it becomes a belief. And the irony of you saying that I know it all is that atheists think they know it all. That's why they call religious people "dumb" and "uneducated." Which is funny cause most atheists are white, and most religious people are brown people, and most of them are women. Talk about sexist and racist.
Let me add something more on conscious: everything we do on earth is recorded in our conscious, and one day, when we die, we will see what we have done throughout our entire lives in front of Jesus with big screen.so be careful with your actions on earth!
There's a great argument for atheism; there's no evidence for a God and the claim is an extraordinary one. I don't believe in your God the same way you don't believe in the Roman Gods.
" There is no evidence ", how can that be true if you can't even define the word evidence? Answering this question might help get you there. Would the evidence that convinces you that God exists have to be sufficient enough to convince everyone on the planet, or would it be sufficient enough if it only convinced you?
@@ronaldorivera4674 evidence has a definition. A body of facts or information indicating a belief is true. Evidence that a God exists such as a sighting, verifiable facts which support his existence, heck even narratives which don't conflict with each other. But why do you believe in your God and not the Roman gods or the God of Islam or any other gods?
@@billystanton1522 You can't define it without first answering the question I asked, would everyone on the planet have to be convinced by the evidence before you accept it as evidence? or would everyone on the planet have to be convinced because you were?, or would the evidence be sufficient enough if you were the only one convinced by it?. It's not that difficult to address if you're honest, but I already know for you to hold that view that " there's no evidence", you can't, if you did, you would give the word meaning and a definition.
@@ronaldorivera4674 I not only defined the term, but I answered the question. How other people interpret evidence is irrelevant. If you can present a God whose nature isn't a contradiction and show me any evidence of that God, I'd more likely to accept that God. It could a physical image of that God, it could be a message given to us directly from God, it could be material from God, it could be any number of things which gives credence to the claims of your God. Again what is it that leads you to believe in your God and not any other God? The answer is simple; geography. You believe in your God because that's what the people in the time and place believe in. If you were born in a different time or place, you'd believe in a different God without any evidence leading you to that belief. The only people who believe in any God believe in that God because of the influence of other people. No one gathers a bunch of evidence and uses inductive reasoning to objectively formulate a belief in a God.
This is what I meant, you can't address my question "directly" because if you did your claim would hold no weight. I'll try asking again, maybe you don't understand the question. "Would the evidence that convinces you have to convince everyone else", that's one way of asking the question, now I'm going to ask the same question differently in hopes that you can understand it. The same question asked a different way, "Would the evidence have to convince everyone else before you were convinced by it?" Here's a third way of asking the same question, or "would the evidence be sufficient enough if you were the only one convinced by it?". No need to dance around, it's a very simple question ( a direct question ).
Because it is not worth arguing for. It’s an absurd ideology. Life randomly popped into existence? Then it randomly evolved to complex multicellular forms? Then it randomly developed to a life form with rational wills? Evolution can only make sense if it was guided. DNA is code and code requires a programmer (and that’s only ONE argument for God)
Not now, but it will in the judgement. And the law of God is written on our hearts. The only way to be saved from God's righteous judgement against our sinful lives is Jesus Christ.
I appreciate your willingness to help atheists and to bring them to what you believe to be the correct path and heaven. Since the video didn't really supply it here's an argument for atheism. Every conversation that I had with someone of Christian faith goes somewhat similarly. Personal experiences with God, promise of Paradise, Answers to where we come from and morality comes from. That's all fine and I enjoy these conversations. But here's my issue. There's not one piece of concrete evidence that a Christian can supply to support their faith, that a Muslim or a Buddhist can't. And that matters. Because the leap of faith is necessary. Real evidence is not sufficient to imply the existence of the Christian god. How can a loving good God expect me and others to worship him on lack of evidence? I would really be open to see some. A standard of evidence that would fall outside of justifying faith in other religions, say.
Because he refuses to make clear the other side...if the Bible stories are TRUTH to him it doesn't matter nor does it seem right to him to say otherwise even if you could prove they were all made up. The message to him is true truth of the way life is and should be lived to him it doesn't matter.
He could make more money doing other things if he's so calculating and dishonest. He once said that he spent the first half of his life living more or less as an atheist so now he is spending the second half of his life repenting by slipping preaching into his speeches about psychology. If you don't believe in God or believe Jordan's arguments that's fine but I believe that Dr Peterson is sincere.
@@NotAffiliated I think he is sincere, but I also think that he would not be doing any of this if it did not pay his bills. And he may be even more "sincere" in his positions exactly because it pays the bills for his extravagant jackets. "He could make more money doing other things if he's so calculating and dishonest." How do you know that, and like what?
@@Eigelstein Nobody has the luxury to do anything other than what pays their bills. If you rob people for a living your a bum. If you heal people for a living then you are a good man. I'm tired of people suggesting that J.P. is "doing it for the money" when he has been a dedicated healer and shrink his entire life. Every once in a while people strike it big because they are exceptional. J.P. is more wise and insightful than everybody else so he's on top. That's the natural order of things. People just like to try to tear him down because they don't like his message. Some people would rather bitch about their dirty room than just clean it.
What happens to criminals when they break the law, they no doubt get sent to prison. Same when we break God's laws, we all deserve hell because we've all failed to keep his laws. However, God is offering us a presidential parden if you will, we can either accept the conditions of the parden, or we can face the full weight of God's justice on ourselves. That's not a choice under duress, that's a willful choice of your own choosing, it's not forced on you in any way. Christ has plans to flulorish you, not to cause you to parish. But if you don't want him then that's what hell is, eternity without him.
@@korvonfrancis6552 The equivalence is a little different. How about unlike judiciary system God by definition can do anything, therefore God can also be held accountable for not getting rid of the root cause of evilness? I honestly think the answer to this would be "God has a plan". Which is really nothing to argue against we probably would have to circle back to whether or not a God exists.
@@HockeyRiveNord But the same is happening with Atheism 🤣💀Atheist are so darn hypocrite that they claim that if you believe you are a fool , Join us have no belief and you are smart 🤣
@HockeyRiveNord you live in a world bound by rules... break the laws of physic and see what happens... it's simple. you are free to break those laws but don't cry when you see the repercussions.
There can't be any arguments for atheism. I'm an atheist because I haven't found convincing arguments supported by evidence for the existence of any god. Unless provided with such, I'll remain unconvinced. This isn't about proving there's no god, it's about the lack of good reasons to believe in one. In that case, the 'I don't know' position is the most rational. I don't need to pick a side on every single claim.
@@StageWatcherPersonally, I'm just me 😊 If pressed, I'd definitely call myself an agnostic-atheist because it's the most honest position I can hold. I'm agnostic in the sense that I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can KNOW that there isn't "some" entity out there that would qualify as a God. I'm atheist because I don't believe that this entity has been demonstrated convincingly.
@StageWatcher Here we go again. The word "atheist" is an imported word and comes from the Greek "atheos" which literally means "without god". That perfectly fits anybody who doesn't believe in a god. Agnostic is another word with a different meaning - without knowledge. We are all agnostics, because none of us really knows, even the theists. It's really frustrating when so many people don't even bother learning the meaning of words they use.
While this line of reasoning is well and good at present, it surely won't stand up against the judgement of God. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." And if you want evidence for the existence of God, seek it. The prophecies of the books of the Bible are testament to the truth of God's Word. The historicity of Christ is better documented than Caesar's. The scientific evidence of intelligent creation, and the scientific veracity of the Bible can easily be found. Ultimately though, if you want to know the truth, ask. Jesus said, "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him."
I liked the "ordinary guy asking dumb questions" approach. Sometimes the "dumb" questions are the most pertinent ones. And they're sometimes precisely the ones that academics strategically avoid. "But my wife exists." It's a good point. It's a very good point.
In that analogy, imagine a guy who is being given ALL the signals that a woman loves him dearly and he’s too clueless to see it. (Or he thinks he’s too good for her or something) She may as well not exist to him. THAT’S atheism imo.
@@swish007 Well, if the the only sign of her was stuff written in a book and nobody has ever seen, communicated with, or knows where she lives or how to contact her, then yeh, she might as well not exist.
I'd argue there's FAR more evidence for God's existence than there is that the girl (in the scenario I mentioned) was actually into you. but neither she nor God really exist to someone who is clueless
@@johnhoey7717 I don't rely on faith, that would be foolish. Based on having reviewed all popular arguments I could find and finding them lacking any evidence. Oh, I'm open to being wrong, but so far religion is batting 0. I also don't believe in UFOs or psychics.
@@johnhoey7717being a grammar/punctuation Nazi about someone speed typing with thumbs on a phone with auto complete as a dodge for your lack of a substantive rebuttal isn't the score you think it is 😉
As an atheist, I am _so_ glad Jordan Peterson is no longer an atheist. I mean, we have no pope, no priests, no dogma, no magic book, and _no required beliefs, whatsoever,_ so it really doesn't make the slightest difference to me what some other atheist thinks. Nonetheless, I'm happy. You guys can _have_ him!
Our not understanding of something (as a premise for God) = God of the Gaps. 3:03 "Belief in God [doesn't require evidence]. It's commitment." Now I'd call that an illegal chess move, myself... I love JP, but we part ways on this very subject rather quickly.
JP is like a fairy tale. Some of his quotes are applicable to real life but it's written as fantasy, because he writes for an audience that believes in fantasies and desperately wants to have worldview validated.
Atheism is the default position. The best “argument” for atheism is that there doesn’t need to be one. You aren’t positing anything as an atheist. I need a reason to believe a god exists, and so far there aren’t any good ones being presented besides “we don’t know how X came to be, therefore god”
Yes. I knke my mum exists and trust between my mum and I has been built over many years. I know kids of alcoholics who have unreliable mums don't trust their mums.
Před 3 měsíci+1
@@TheReaper569 that is such a bad argument. I trust my mom because she has cared for me and always been there for me. God has never shown that he cared for me or been there for me.
1 you have no proof. Your moms past does not predict her future. 2 you have no proof. Did you expect god to come down and hand you whatever it is that you seek?, doesn't work that Way boy.
Před 3 měsíci
@@TheReaper569you have no proof to trust in god bud
I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what he said. Dr. Peterson was stating that atheism is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of existence and the order and construction of the universe.
We can only reach for understanding not understand it. For example, there is a best understanding of things we call theory. Big bang theory currently shaking because of new evidence from the James Web telescope.
@@valentinaselektrikas Not fully, of course. That’s impossible. But, there are underpinnings and components and systems and factors and ingredients and forces at play that can begin to paint a profound picture of design and structure and rules and intentionality. Laws and the field do science as a whole exists purely because of the supposition that order exists and questions can be answered.
Wow. It is a chore getting through this interview. Jordan is just hysterical and incoherent. His certainty and fanatical belief in nonsense is chilling. I deeply hope I am never so arrogant as to not even consider opposing views, as he is. A real shame for someone with such intellect to be so utterly lacking in integrity.
The trouble is that Jordan's understanding of God is so fundamentally different from that of most religious people, including whether they be at the top or the bottom. You can metaphor religion and God into meaning potential, moral standards, and the spirit of adventure if you want. But most believers honestly believe that if you got in a time machine and went back you would see Mohammed splitting the moon on winged horse, or Moses flooding the Nile with blood, or seeing Christ rise from the dead after witnessing him being crucified. The Petersonion view of religion is so elastic that even according to JP himself, even a self-describing atheist is a believer (see vid with Matt Dillahunty). Frankly, I don't think atheists are the confused ones. I think JP simply doesn't understand what it means to be an atheist. Edit: Atheists also don't assume to know what's happening at the quantum level. The difference is that we don't jump to conclusions just because it might make people better.
I think Jordan's problem is he's beginning to assume that atheists are rejecting the metaphors and morals of religion Although we do reject many of the stories. There's still the general metaphors and morals. It's when you start getting into the magic associated with religion that we have problems
@@302indian I don't believe in god. And I definitively don't believe in "anything". Your argument is not persuasive unless you are only preaching to the choir.
@@sadsongs7731 He means the other sheep like himself. And he's not wrong. Most atheists just wind up clinging to some other kind of loopy dogma, like the woke cult. Free thinking atheists are really hard to find. It takes a certain amount of mental/emotional stamina to refuse to give up one's faculty of reason when surrounded by believers. I've had the most luck in Japan, but their culture is a whole other nut to crack as an outsider.
I’m an atheist and I can acknowledge that there are good arguments for Christianity. Saying there’s NO good argument for atheism is extremely disingenuous considering what we know today. Following on from this, JP then has the gall to strawman the ultimate rationale for atheism as “materialistic determinism”… give me a break. On the other hand, I have many reasons for why I don’t believe the God of the Bible exists: The God of the Bible doesn’t exist due to the scientific inaccuracies, logical fallacies, geo-historical discrepancies, canonical contradictions, moral inconsistencies, mythological similarities, man-made changes, theological presuppositions, disputed canonisation, polytheistic origins, failed prophecy, literary forgeries, dependancy on decades-old oral testimonials and the fact that the books of the Bible are written by various, fallible authors. This isn’t evidence against “A” generic God/Creator, but it does provide significant evidence against the specific God within the Bible. The one who has a personal, emotional relationship with an evolved species of primate in one area of one planet, among billions of galaxies, each containing billions of planets (within the observable Universe alone) and cares what days of the week you work on. What a quack.
No. There's a process in faith. Seeing creation. Seeing truth, beauty, and goodness. Seeing miracles. Seeing evil and sin. Making sense of all of it....and concluding there is a God of order who makes it all make sense. But then there's faith to receive Christ. The leap of faith from seeing, contemplating, logic, etc, to choosing to believe in the things you can't see. The spiritual realm. Logic then faith.
@@id9504 you seek evidence but claim its not proof, so you are lying but don't see your lie. claiming theres no evidence is like the fish asking wheres water.
@@gerardjones7881 Ugh... the fish asking "what's water" is the most obnoxious metaphor. If a fish had the ability, it would measure its surroundings and very quickly discover what water is. We are not fish. We have the cognitive ability to use tools and measure reality. If something is "real," it should have a measurable, predictable impact on the real world. Every religious claim fails this test. They are all unfalsifiable. "God will make XYZ happen. If XYZ doesn't happen, he's not ready for it to or he's 'testing' you" and other bullshit like that. No way to prove it wrong. Religious people LOVE this. It allows them to spout claims confidently without any accountability. Nobody will ever be able to prove them wrong, so they assert claims with total confidence to boost their own egos. Just like JP is doing here.
I feel sorry for the host trying to be civil in the face of JP's rampant irritability. I feel more sorry for all the people who are unable to distinguish this from smartness, and especially those predisposed to being persuaded by the kind of venom that he's practically spitting.
@@jaybee9269 which bit is wisdom though? He outwardly dismisses what amounts to the scientific method: evidence, materialism and determinism - all the things that directly led to the technology to enable him to broadcast his objections to the world at the touch of a button... simply because things look a little bit more complicated at the quantum level. And as we've all seen countless times before, here comes the Jesus smuggling - the "God of the gaps" to fill in the ever decreasing realm of things we don't yet fully understand: instead of "illegally" trying to prove what's real, just commit yourself to a tale because you have an instinct to act socially (conscience), and religious tales often condone acting how we already were. He mistakes correlation with causation - the classic religious error (along with confirmation bias). "And you think well that's not God, well have it your way, like y'know, you're playing games". The game playing is making the jump from the verifiable and falsifiable to all the religious mysticism, for literally no reason than to make it match up with the story you were taught as a kid because you it to be true, which is where the confirmation bias comes in. Perhaps he's saying it in a way that sounds like wisdom to you, but pick it apart and it most fundamentally isn't.
@@Nyghl0 >> The aggregate is wisdom. And he doesn’t dismiss evidence; if anything his academic corpus is intensely evidence based. It’s his conclusions in conversation that are often inductive. But inductive logic is valid. I wish I’d had Jordan as a therapist. I know Jordan’s religious philosophy is like nailing Jello to a tree for some very bright and callow young people. But he wants the best for us, after all. I can’t help but wish I’d seen Jordan debate the late Christopher Hitchens.
@@jaybee9269 2:57 "Evidence, euargh. Like I said, it's an illegal game move". He literally dismissed evidence in this very video, I wasn't simply falsely accusing him - everything I've said has been backed by evidence or reason. Given his academic background, don't you find it odd that he is quite happy to go along with scientific method, except when it comes to God, when suddenly it's all nonsense? Religious logic is abductive, which is an invalid form of reasoning, it's not inductive. I've no doubt that he means well and does want the best for us, he probably would have made a good therapist for you - I reckon he does believe every single word he says. That's what gives him the conviction in his delivery - same as Hitchens. I'm unsure how well the dynamic between them would have gone though. They both have/had high levels of disagreeableness, Hitchens probably moreso. He tended to run down his opponents like a ruthless but calm and collected juggernaut - I think he exhibited psychopathic traits similarly to his brother, whereas Jordan still retains instincts of a listener underneath his relative aggression. Combine that with their different approaches - Hitchens would moralise politically, but Peterson is much more postmodern with his treatment of truth. Similar to your nebulous "the aggregate is wisdom", he seems to view truth as an emergent quality of action and customs, reasoning something along the lines that the bible "must mean something" given its historical pole position in western literature. It doesn't really mean anything, but it sorta "seems like it should" - and he places this as more true than things you can actually prove to be true. Perhaps Hitchens could have adapted to this, but mostly I think they would have been talking past each other like every other debater of note does with him.
When an author writes a book, he has an end in view before it is written, and all of the characters in the novel have a purpose which is gradually unveiled by their interactions. Sometimes the interactions of the characters change the understanding of those involved and help to bring about the envisioned end. “Let us make mankind in our image, according to our likeness” (Gen 1:26).
Jordan peterson is so clueless philosophically on this topic. Why is he seen as an authority on this matter? You dont need to accept materialistic determinism to be an Atheist, such a ridiculous comment. Theres so many wrong things with this away from using words in unconventional ways
No that is the the conclusion of someone who doesn't trust themselves to hold themselves accountable for there actions without an outside force independent of themselves to judge their actions.
The problem with Cain's sacrifices wasn't that they weren't the best he had. The problem was he didn't sacrifice because of love and fear of the Lord. They were prideful. He expected because he was first born that his sacrifice was sufficient and deserving of reward. He expected God to accept his sacrifice because of his lineage.
@@johndoh795It wasn't because of Cain's lineage that he expected God to accept his offering, he and Abel were from the same parents, it was because he wanted to earn it through his works, whereas Abel understood that it's only by grace. Cain started the religion of works, trying to bribe God.
@@ronaldorivera4674That doesn't really make sense. If Cain wanted to earn God's favor by works then he would've given the best he had in order to "bribe" God.
@@jon6car Well let's take a look at what scriptures say he brought, Genesis 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. Verse 4: And Abel, he " also" brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offerings. I think the key word here particularly is " Also", which to me indicates that he also brought what Cain brought, which was the "firstlings" of his flock and the "fat thereof" meaning the first, best, and fattest of his offerings to sacrifice to the Lord. To me this seems pretty clear, that it wasn't because Cain's offering wasn't good enough but because his heart was leaning on his own self righteousness and not on God. Righteous Abel brought a sacrifice to atone for his sin not to be rewarded. I have to point out that if it was because of his lineage, that doesn't make sense because Abel and Cain had the same parents. Either way I'm sure there are many many ways people interpret this passage, regardless, may the triune God open our hearts and reveal the truth to us, filling us with his spirit, edifying us daily and conforming us into the image of his Son.
Everything asserts something, theism asserts God, atheism asserts nothing. If it’s a belief then it’s asserting a world view. Also atheism is the lack of belief in gods. So you don’t even have the definition right. You can’t assert a world view then say you don’t have to defend it, that’s logically inconsistent with how every other belief system has to defend itself. If you rule a nation and don’t prepare defenses then it falls. If you get into a fight and don’t defend yourself you get beat up. If you fail to defend your worldview then it will crumble.
@@brandonunderwood7668 It is more correct to say that atheism is the position that there is no evidence for any God(s). Which incidentally is not a belief but is a true statement.
@@Andre_XX That’s actually not a true statement. Evidence and conclusions are based on evaluation, people could point to the logical evidence that something can’t come from nothing and qualify that as a true statement and deduce that as evidence for God as the following conclusion would be something would have to come from a bigger something and qualify that thing as God with other logical conclusions. That’s just one logical route to take to qualify evidence for God. Also you’re wrong about atheism being the position that there’s no evidence for God. It has nothing to do with evidence, maybe that’s a common belief among atheists but that’s not how definitions work. Atheism is, infact “ a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods” according to marriam-webster. Or “To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.” According to atheism org. But to be honest logically there’s already agnosticism which fills the void of uncertainty when describing belief systems. My point being atheists fallaciously describe their belief system in a way where it’s both asserting itself true and asserting its not a belief at the same time without realizing any truth claims are beliefs. If you evaluate a lack of evidence then even that evaluation is a belief. All opinions or truth claims are beliefs. Even day to day things you do, you’re operating without 100% guarantee about how things will go. As humans belief is the foundation of thought. Basically what do you belief and why and how will that compel you forward. You believe it’s a fact that atheism is true based on a definition you made up. You believe there is no evidence of God (which is paramount of saying that there is no god). Do you even know how to define evidence? I could go on but ill leave you with this. If there’s a painting wouldn’t you assume a painter, if there’s a house wouldn’t you assume a carpenter, if there’s a rocketship wouldn’t you assume engineers? So if there’s creation why wouldn’t you assume a creator? There’s plenty of evidence of God it just depends on how your belief system qualifies that evidence. At the end of the day people often just believe what they want to believe then build their defenses.
@@brandonunderwood7668 Unfortunately your position is typical of those who have been indoctrinated with the God meme. You say "the logical evidence that something can’t come from nothing", and yet you make a glaring exception when you exclude your very own God from this sweeping statement! The universe operates on Quantum principles, which are anything but logical! Even in a vacuum virtual particles spontaneously appear and disappear. The nothing from which the universe arose would have been a lot more nothing than a mere vacuum. Unfortunately we have no access to such a nothing (no time, no space and not even any physical laws) to investigate its properties. "At the end of the day people often just believe what they want to believe then build their defenses." Agreed. This is especially evident among the religious.
@@brandonunderwood7668 Dang, my reply has vanished. I think I am being censored... I am not going to try to repeat it all. I will try a summary: 1. "the logical evidence that something can’t come from nothing". Your God is obviously an exception! The universe operates on Quantum physics. It is not logical if you study it. 2. The nothing from which the universe arose is an absence of space and time. It is not the same thing as a vacuum. We can't test what this nothing is capable of because we have no access to any of it. And I will add: 3. Your evidence for god is merely assertions. Assertions are not evidence. 4. God was created my man. There is plenty of evidence than man is exceptionally good at inventing gods.
Alex O'Connor did. "If I took a Panasonic video camera... And places it in front of Joseph's tomb.... Would it show Jesus walking out? Peterson: Yeah...but what does that mean? 😂😅😅
Well of course not. The best/only arguments for not being convinced that a deity exists, is the lack of good arguments that a deity _does_ exist. Also, even after all these years and all these talks, I _still_ don't understand Peterson's position on whether or not a god exists or does not exist. It's almost like he doesn't want to lose the favor of all the conservatives/people on the right that do believe in a god, yet at the same time seems to recognize that the arguments for a deity existing all fall short, so(like he often does on all sorts of issues), he delves into metaphor, and imprecise language to the point that nobody knows what the hell he's talking about.
It's a stupid question. The absence of theism does not need to be argued for. Theism needs to be argued for, and there is no good argument for theism; never has been, never will be.
@@elijah5791 nah, he is to far gone. Selfperception has left him, until something happens that really sho2s the stupidity of much of what he says. Syncoohants not goona do it
@@gustavoaraujo3587 What happened at Fatima? Something we haven't explained. Let me repeat - something we have not explained. That means it is not explained, not "fill in whatever explanation you like and pretend it's the truth."
As if that would be a thing a random person could do. Also that implies that angels and demons are physical beings that manifest in a way we experience like we do with rocks and computers, etc. Also implies that you are asking for evidence from the Abrahamic faith specifically, and a fundamentalist view that takes the words of the bible completely literally. There are many different ways to interpret the concept of god, a being in heaven looking down and judging is just one. Its the easiest one to argue against and is not the one I would argue for since the texts are not often literal.
@@zaclovesschool2273 still a matter of evidence, not about what x religious book says. Why would I even pay attention to the bible or quran in the first place?
Was jordan peterson always this lunatic and fanatic religious person? i swear i remember him not being as fanatic as he is nowadays, i used to take him seriously, nowadays, i'm afraid he might come up with an argument to the existence of the Easter Bunny.
The first time I encountered Peterson was way back when Canada (or some province) was considering passing a law that would punish businesses for intentionally calling people by their non-preferred pronouns. (Sorry if my facts are a little off.) He said this amounted to "compelled speech", which I thought was an interesting argument. Even if I didn't fully agree with it, he was fully coherent. Now, every time I hear him, it just sounds like word salad.
@@davidbell2547 No rational atheists claims that "god" does not exist. Any rational person has to be agnostic about the existence of entities who's very definition defy existence or non-existence proofs. For instance, you cannot prove that garden fairies do not exist if I claim that they cease all activity and turn invisible, the moment you try to establish their existence. Atheism is just the refusal to accept religious claims on the basis of bad evidence. Here's an example for true circular reasoning: "In order to believe, you have to believe.". Apparently, the absence of any evidence to belief is by design, so that you can truly "belief", purely based on faith as opposed to being convinced. This is nothing else but telling someone "In order to be belief X, you have to belief X". I'm sure Peterson could read some "wisdom" into that, but it is just circularity in its purest form.
Okay, so you can give direct evidence for evolution? I have looked at the fossil record or rather studies of the fossil record since no normal person is allowed to directly view except through pictures and I can tell you, the way I saw it without the dogma of evolutionist thought, I couldn't for the life of me see the "evidence" for evolution. All we can say without a doubt from looking at fossils is that something was alive and now it's dead. Evolutionists or better yet modern darwinist atheists look at things from the assumed position that everything on earth came from a single cell that evolved into everything else. Ask a child who hasn't learned evolutionist scripture what a fossil can tell them, many would likely say that's it's a dead thing, a rock or I don't know. In the end there's no concrete evidence for evolution only belief. How many science articles I've read and the honest scientist will tell you they believe or from what they can tell so not actual facts basically.
We expect discussion on Theoretical and Practical Spiritual science and philosophy of Abrahmic Religions on the basis ( Religious literature ) Sadhan Marg , Sadhan Padhati , experiences , cosiousness , physical-mental-spiritual changes in human body , Mukti for Self realisation , iternal spiritual awareness , peaceful life . Towards the Truth . * On above subject we expect discussion with Chinmaya Mission Vedanta NewYork Sarvapriyanand Papaji *
He says belief is substantiated by actions and therefore he shows his knowing of Gods existence thru his actions. Unlike most Christians who think it’s just by saying a few words. His point is that you’re gambling with eternity so you don’t just get off that easy.
@@danieltransvant3933 of course he doesn't say he doesn't believe. But he refers to God as "commitment" here. In other places he uses other nebulous terms for god that don't mean anything close to a god that people pray to or assume exists. I don't understand him because what he says simply doesn't make sense or is so ambiguous as to be meaningless.
Let's say you arrive at belief in God, OK - which God? You need to do some logical accounting to make that choice. You can't just throw logic out of it.
@@meb280 they’re space unicorns you blasphemer! And they’re all knowing and all powerful - so of course it can create anything. Says so in the space unicorn bible.
@@739jepMuch more logical to think everything came into being out of nothing. Don't need intelligence to create order, design, complexity and information. Why, I'll bet there is no 'person' behind this response of yours, it's likely a parrot randomly pecking at a keyboard. Polly want a cracker?
Sorry. I gave this 5 minutes, 59 seconds of my short and precious life that I can never get back. He is insufferably and proudly smug and extremely disrespectful. Pints pushed back with patience and reason but Peterson isn't listening and is clearly not interested in dialogue.
he used to be very different before his health related issues. I find him almost insufferable now but back then he was insanely respectful. It's mostly just sad.
@@mrjayz94 usually he does that with things like God since it's hard to explain without symbolism or metaphor, in the same way abstract art is difficult to explain. But yeah it gets a bit much when he breaks down every single word lol
@@zaclovesschool2273 It’s crazy man…. Have you seen his recent interview with Alex O’Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) when he discusses belief in God? Everyone knows he’s just trying to keep his right-wing Christian audience without saying outright that he believes or doesn’t believe the Christian God exists.
@@mrjayz94 no but I saw Alex's video deconstructing Peterson's beliefs. I thought it was a pretty well thought out video, but it still failed to understand the actuality of Jordan's beliefs. He attacked his vagueness and whatnot which I can understand, but as I already said these are difficult ideas to communicate effectively in language alone. It's like trying to explain the importance of love or prove that your joy at something you're super passionate about exists. Idk if he's shelling out to his right wing audience, but personally I think he's just been wrestling (as he would say) with these ideas for a long time and is still trying to figure out the best way to express them without being dishonest to himself. I understand the struggle since I love and appreciate scientific study, but also love and appreciate esotericism and spiritual ideas so it can sometimes be difficult to communicate clearly between those two lines of thinking in a way that everyone will understand. Course explaining things in a way everyone will understand is a problem in any field, especially science given how complex the language can get. Same thing with symbolism, requires a decent amount of creative thought and working with the material to find good ways to explain it in other communicative mediums.
Ha, what an incredibly stupid assertion on Peterson's behalf. Jordan's whole argument hinges on an equivocation fallacy. Of course there’s no good argument for Atheism (w/ Jordan Peterson) when Peterson simply redefines theism as useful fiction, likewise atheism with a non-belief in the utility of stories.
I pray for the day when Jordan finally professes his faith in Christ. Keep praying for him everyone. We're ready for him to marry the psychoanalytical and the literal together.
When's he coming back btw? It's been 2,000 years. Ever think that your religion is just as false as all of the other 4,000+ religions throughout history?
@@themanufan8 Yeah if you dig a big hole of confirmation bias, you’ll find anything you want to find at the bottom. That’s why there have been over 4,000 different religions throughout history, each with followers who were just as committed as you are now.
The best argument for atheism is simply that nothing like a God exists and we should be glad it doesn't because it would be way closer to the Cixin Liu or Carlos Castaneda universe than that of the Bible (even that universe is pretty damn terrifying). Also notice the Bible says almost nothing about all the other plants and animals just here on the planet we live on. It is a cartography of the human mind and its evolution and not any objective account of anything outside or beyond that.
"Asking for evidence for god is an illegal move" If god gave us the ability to ask for evidence, and since asking for evidence is a prerequisite for coming to the truth, how can he ask of us to not do the same for his existence? And if rationality should not be applied on him, then why do we try to logically explain his decisions? His actions would be nonsensical to us, but instead we seem to only want to apply logic wherever it makes god look good.
that still implies that god is a rational, thinking being. Its possible to understand god as not conscious like we are, more as an intrinsic force. many different ways to interpret it, but its just easiest to argue against the typical Abrahamic view because most Christians dont explain it very well to begin with, if they understand it at all.
@@zaclovesschool2273 Saying you understand it better than others implies you have ways of proving to me that the others are wrong, no? And I mean prove, not theorize.
@@MarioTsota I'm not saying I understand all of it better than others, I'm just saying there are many ways to understand complex texts like the Bible, and some end up missing the initial ideas behind it due to not understanding the structure of the text itself. That it's made of different types of writing, some poetry, some narrative, some in descriptive passages, etc. And therefore needs to be carefully read. But if people don't do that, or believe completely in the words of someone who doesn't bother to think for himself, then I'd argue people set themselves up for misunderstanding. I like the way Jordan interprets it personally, maybe many others would say it's blasphemous or whatever...but I enjoy the way he thinks about it. Unless you mean for me to prove the existence of God or angels or whatever, then sorry I can't do that without either an essay or a long honest talk, but even then it's still a belief I have and it's not even in the way most western people would think of God. So unless you were wanting to explore the spiritual stuff already, not much I say would convince you. I can say that my views align ~the God of Spinoza, but I've explored things like Nondual Saivist Tantra, western esotericism (arguably born from mostly left current Tantra), but am also someone who loves learning science, and I don't see conflict between the sciences and spirituality. Though depends, if you believe the world is 6000 years old that's rough. Also to note, again I've not read the Bible myself so I'm not an expert, I've just taken courses on it's composition and history.
@@zaclovesschool2273 That's good and all but arguing that I or others are wrong because you "believe" something to be true, doesn't disprove our theory. Either use logic 100% or don't use it at all. There is no inbetween where feelings should take precedent when it comes to arguments. Either you can prove your claims or let me believe what I want and don't argue with me based on feelings.
@@MarioTsota I'm still unsure what claims you want me to prove. I already explained why I can't give you empirical evidence for God, though if I were to, I would point to all things in the natural world and cosmos which are so ordered and follow laws of the universe, or to the origin of our universe still being such a contentious subject. The problem is that you're essentially asking me to prove the existence of love in the human heart with hard logic (and by the way, a person can argue a logical concept without hard evidence, it's called reasoning in the realm of ideas). If you're referring to my comments about people misreading the Torah or the Bible, then that's another story, I didn't use my feelings or beliefs for that. But my point on beliefs is that whether you choose to believe in something is up to you and what evidence you choose to see as lining up with that belief. We believe in scientific theories because of the evidence they provide not only for their theory, but also the evidence used against that theory. But while the study of the divine can be undertaken with a scientific spirit, it does not have defined parameters aside from the laws we already understand, and yet there are many we don't. Abstract ideas are inherently harder to explain in a defined way than observations of a material phenomenon. I'm not arguing that God is supernatural. I'm arguing that we embody that force called God through everything all the time, but especially through our ability to be conscious in the first place. It's essentially the all pervasive consciousness working through biological machinery to interact with itself. That's my understanding so far, but I was a hardline atheist for about a decade so I understand the skeptic view as well. I've just found it to be stale at a certain point because it blankets all of these potential experiences with an air of cynicism or skeptical judgement. But again, it's about personal experience and belief just like anything is. Just depends on how you wish to look at things.
“Created in the image of God means you wrestle with potential”
Jordan B. Peterson
I love JP but he keeps putting God as an EXAMPLE of the highest good. He is THE highest being and must be worshiped. God is not just a philosophy.
@roshinvarghese6879 You think maybe his argument is that too much points in that direction in psychology, meaning, instinct, etc. Therefore there is a transcendent conscious principle that orders these things, and ordered them in such a way that conscious beings must align with him to properly function, and in effect his only issue is either he presents it withinthe argument he found compelling, or that he can't make the last leap to say he knows for sure that this being is 100% portrayed correctly in the Bible, but rather that his conviction is close enough to what would be recognizable as the true deity, that he concludes that it must be the most accurate reflection, but given that his reasoning grants the difference between faith and knowledge, he only argues it in so far as he can make a strong argument rather than forcing the last leap of faith on a person? Maybe you should just let people come along at their own speed, which is either what he's letting others do, or the journey he himself is on. Just because he won't say definitely that he knows what God is while making in argument that there is one doesn't mean you know his own private convictions beyond what he feels he can argue with sufficient certainty to argue publicly.
@@roshinvarghese6879I think he is already Catholic. While he is hitting Truth, Bishop Barron is simultaneously hitting the Beauty front drawing people to the church. I could be wrong but it seems that way. It might be intentional he is using the abstract language to bridge the gap because he goes in and out of direct language consistent with our theology. To play devils advocate I get tired of our Catholic brothers and sisters painting him as “dangerous” because that seems to be trendy at the moment, it’s a Protestant mindset. Know and find comfort in truth and to your point yes correct him with the correct order of delivering truth.
Typical JP psychologizing word salad. The truth is that JP is as much of a materialist as Marx or Freud
@sweatincowboy4692 I pray he does find faith, but tremendous damage can be done if he keeps preaching Christ's teachings in a materialistic framework. Islam, Mormonism, New Agers, JP, etc. appropriate Christ's sublime moral teachings but conveniently disregard His claims of divinity, heaven, hell, the resurrection, etc.
Pints does a great job pushing back, not in a destructive way. But in a way that invites Peterson to explain his thinking further. This is great.
"explain his thinking further" or, more accurately, expose that Peterson has nothing. Worse, he not only has nothing but insults those who refuse to be convinced by fairy tales and mysticism. Disappointing.
I think Pints was trying super hard not to laugh or sigh after the third round of nonsense.
True, unfortunately, Peterson doesn't follow at the same level
Surprised he didn’t start with “Well that depends what you mean by argument. And what do you mean by atheism. It’s complicated.”
Which Jordan completely failed to do
"A sugar daddy gifting me a theme park if I stop masterbating" is probably the funniest thing Ive heard in months
George Costanza!!
*masturbating
Might be the best line I’ve ever heard in a JP convo, and I’ve listened to many. 😂
*masturbation
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
If there is no good argument for atheism, how come Sam Harris wipes the floor with Peterson every debate they have?
Sam Harris has yet to explain just what the foundation for his moral structure is. From what I can see he doesnt have one, which is why in his writing, his redefinitions for traditionally morally language (good as he redefines it is now the advancement of conscious beings and bad is absolute suffering) are self contradictory and subjective, versus definitive and objective. His redefinitions permit the very religous violence he so often decries.
@@joshuastanko2886 Indeed, he doesn't need a foundation for his moral structure, that's what theism is for. Even a theist moral foundation is subjective and contradictory, as you get to choose which theism you follow, and once you have chosen you get to pretend it has no contradictions.
@@CarmenVerandaThats what I dont get. If he doesnt have a foundation then its a belief rooted in nothing. Therefore there is no truth, its all subjective, in which case terrible things are not in fact terrible, and there is no morality. As far theism goes, yes different denominations have different beliefs regarding traditions, rituals, and prayers. But the foundation is the same (assuming we're talking about a judeo christian God).
@@joshuastanko2886 Yes, there is no absolute truth or morality without a God. Indeed the journalist Peter Hitchens became a theist for that reason alone. But that doesn't mean there is no morality. I have a morality, which I thought of myself. The only price is that it is subjective, but I knew that anyway as an atheist. And why, of the hundreds of gods throughout history, would we only talk about the Abrahamic God? Chinese gods for example are nearer humans, they make mistakes and do bad things occasionally.
@@CarmenVeranda Well I have to say I do deeply respect the consistency in your position. Its been a rather enlightening exchange thus far. As for speaking only to an Abrahamic God it makes sense to me because we're speaking largley about morality, and the Abrahamic God is not intepreted to have human failings (meaning He practices immorality just as humans do) like the Chinese Gods or the Greek Gods but rather he is a divine creator who is perfectly moral. As a Christian myself that is my foundation for moral belief. Additionally we live in a Westernized country whose laws and society were also foundationally built upon the abrahamic faith, so its certainly relevant. I suppose though if there is no truth or objective framework to have as a foundation and by your own admission what you see to be moral or immoral is indeed subjective, then that would necessarily mean that all perspectives on morality are equally correct. That there is no true way of determining if a thing is wrong. Is that a correct intepretation of your position thus far?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Dead on! Thank you!!
I love our beautiful wise Ancients.
Who is the majority?
@@trucidusrex2242 Quotes are usually general, so the majority could be anyone. The quote just says to resist conformity
@@onionsans I agree. But I'm sure the original poster was thinking of a group being the majority or insane. I was just curious who they were thinking of.
"no good argument for atheism" is a non sequitor. Atheism is not an argument...it is simply not accepting a claim.
You say you have a magic coin in your pocket that is invisible. I say "I dont believe you".
How daft a 3rd party observer would have to be to lean in and say "what is your argument for not believing that?"
I think the benzos fried his brain. unfortunately.
@@Hobohunter23 As much as we would like to blame his behavior on his literal brain damage, he was like this before he suffered that.
The truth he is just pandering.
@@sadsongs7731he moved all the way from being a psychologist in canada to a televangelist in america. he’s just following the money. change my mind.
@@m11_m11 come on! you can't say that. It makes you look close minded. I like the "change my mind" slogan because of its intellectual integrity.
I agree he is partially following the money. But I do think he has another, more noble purpose. Jordan seems to think people are weak, stupid, superstitious and manipulable and will *inevitably* to Communism and/or Islam without American-Christianism.
@@m11_m11 it's still dishonest. Even with good intentions.
I don't think Peterson even knows what atheism is
@@nakkadu he doesn't, you do.
@@alanoliveira5340 yes I do 👍🏻
To live as God's people, not possible. I'm sure they would let you, as they reverse the analytic and don't make any sense; they are using them in the atmosphere. To believe in God is some hard theory on the creation of the universe. New atheism is simply what it is, becoming who you are through the emergence of God's people. To live as God's people as a proper function in being is the job, you didn't get that job did you, but you did, for 8 years and you kicked my dirt. Yes you did.
Becoming who you are through the emergence of God's people
@@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine what?
Jordan Peterson is the type of guy to piss you on the leg and tell you it's raining.
“The price for Life is Death”
"The wages of Sin is Death."
@CameronRabie this is why, in christian theology, hell and the lake of fire are also referred to as "the second death". Because no matter how good or bad you are, no matter whether you're saved or not, you will pass from this life through death to the other side. So the verse saying, "the wages of sin is death" *could* be referring to physical death (as in, some sins will lead to death) but can also be understood as the final death. The second death. The eternal death. A death that, once passed through, is the end, rather than a doorway into what lies next.
@@WarPoet-In-Training Yes, this first death is just relocation. Its the true death in the lake of fire that people need to worry about. The wages of sin is death, easily applies to both the body and the soul. As both were corrupted. When Jesus came, he did not come to save the body, he saved US, our souls, and filled those who believed with the Holy Spirit. We are protected from the second death and do not have to fear it, it has no power over us. Neither do we fear the first death, since it brings us to our Lord, our long awaited reunion. But while we are alive, we have work to do, which the Lord has ordained for us to do.
@@WarPoet-In-Training yes. the 'wages of sin is death'. It is not referring to physical death, but spiritual death. The physical things around us, the planets, the stars, are all temporary. Spirit is eternal. Physically, we all die once. If you happen to be a believer in Jesus the Christ, then you'll be with Him in Heaven for eternity. If you are not a believer, then you'll be subjected to the second death - the spiritual death.
Revelation 21:8 - _But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death.”_
Its useless, in the surface Peterson words seem kinda dumb and Not easily understandable but he is right💯
Matt. Really well done. I definitely like your approach.
Agreed!!!
I guess he is doing it like Aquinas would? Setting up counter-arguments, but for his guests.
"It's an illegal chess move."
Not even a minute later...
"It's no game."
This, fellow people, is a decent demonstration of why i can't take him seriously.
*@firefkt4f4*
Why isn't it serious?
It's just the same thing, said in another way: "You just can't pose that question!"
Peterson has gone from frustration to confusion to delusion. What a character arc!
Atheism doesnt need an argument. Its our default state. The burden of proof always lies on the one making a positive assertion.
Atheism assumes naturalistic determinism, and therefore is not the neutral position.
@@onionsansno, not all atheist think like that. The only common denominator is the lack of beliefs in any gods. Your argument is not valid.
@@nawunny "lack of belief in any god(s)" ...which inversely requires believing in naturalistic determinism. use your brain bud.
@@onionsans it does not, you can believe super natural beings like bigfoot and unicorn without god.
@@nawunny Bigfoot isn't a supernatural being, second, you cannot, since they cannot exist without other supernatural beings which created them, implying a god
also what even was your point?
Jordan Peterson hasn't convinced me one bit with his word salad.....not one bit
Congrats? You shouldn’t be convinced of god because of a podcast. How shallow would that be.
Atheism does not need arguments. If Theism had good arguments, Atheism would not be a thing or would not be popular.
exactly. it’s literally just “i don’t believe your claim.”
plenty of good arguments for the divine, however one might come to understand it. many different ways of understanding it, but atheism seems to be the dismissal of all of it simply on the basis that it does not manifest before our eyes in ways we expect it to. I dont need a divine force to appear as an angelic being in this physical world and tell me "hey, im real!" its something we understand through experience of our own consciousness. If we choose to call it different things, thats fine too.
@@zaclovesschool2273 Good arguments such as?
No every Athiest makes the claim of "there are other possible explanations for the beginning of the universe" if they are all somehow falsified then Athiest position is false although I don't see that happening
you guys are killing me with these teasers. I'll have to join the locals at some point!
"Why isn't your solar plexus conscious" said with such a force has got to be the funniest thing I heard in ages
He’s spitting though
Let him cook! 👩🍳👩🍳👩🍳
Still a BS argument.
Nice try christians. (If I can even call this nutcase a Christian)
Why isn't the solar plexus conscious??
Well, why isn't it conscious under YOUR VIEW of "spirit from God"??
It seems like "the spirit of God" can cause something to be conscious only when there is a SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity.
Why can't this magical spirit cause anything else to be conscious?? Why isn't your palms conscious? Why aren't your kidneys conscious? Why isn't you solar plexus conscious ? Why isn't a rock or a table or a chair conscious ??
It seems like your all powerful God's spirit can work ONLY under very specific orientation and working of the nervous system. Hmmm WEIRD.
OR the simpler answer is that consciousness is the result of a SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity.
BS argument.
Nice try Christians. (If I can even call this nutcase a Christian).
Why isn't you Solar Plexus conscious??
Well let me turn it around and ask you why isn't your solar plexus conscious in YOUR view of "spirit from God"??
Seems like this magical "spirit of God" requires SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity to work......Weird.
Why isn't your palms conscious? Why aren't your kidneys conscious ?? Why isn't a rock conscious?? If it is a result of the spirit of an all powerful God.
The simpler answer is that consciousness is a result of a specific type of neural activity.
It might be. He doesn't know that
Jordan Peterson claiming there is no good argument for atheism when he can't even define god in an intelligible manner is pretty darn hilarious.
Would you care to give it a shot?
@@garrinbarrett5782 Until I am presented with a definition god that is backed with evidence and doesn't contain logical inconsistencies I have zero reason to believe in 'god'.
I didn't ask if you believe in God. I asked you to define god.
@@garrinbarrett5782 In the context of this video and topic god would be the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe and is the source of all moral authority.
@@leob3447here’s my argument brother.
the biological eco-system we all live in is HYPER advanced. And as Petersen stated, 10:12, there’s nothing random in the working mechanics of the world.
“each action will cause an equal or opposite reaction”
This /\ is a scientific fact.
Energy cannot generate from nothing, the earth, and biological eco-system given any research clearly shows an intricate, highly accurate, self maintaining DESIGN to the build.
Scientifically, there could not have been a big bang. Someone must of built all this.
Once u realize there is a God, you have to figure out which one.
You can do this research on your own, because it doesn’t take a lot of research to realize that the God of the hebrews is clearly the most powerful God and being in existence. Why?
God is the only being intelligent enough to have invented the perfect biological self maintaining eco-system. A system so perfect it could repair, evolve, and maintain its self infinitely.
This is what us humans were supposed to be. This is what God means when he said we’re made in his image.
Meaning no more death.
Time is defined by a beginning(birth) and end (death)
so God and anyone living as designed has no understanding or acknowledgement of it.
This will be heaven. Us humans living how we were supposed to from the start. NOT DYING
God is someone you will meet if you believe in Christ, and what God did for you thru him.
Having faith in Christ, is continuing up the hill with my cross even though I will not see God for a long time. Trusting in his creation, his son, and living accordingly.
Christianity has nothing to do with evidence.
anyways, there’s the gospel for ya
This interviewer makes so much more sense than Peterson who is just shouting cliches at him
And what’s that cliche?
As an atheist, I agree with Dr. Peterson when he says there is no good argument for atheism!
The thing is though, I don't need to have an argument for atheism. Atheism is the default position. If you believe in the existence of God, you adopt the burden of proof. It is not up to me to disprove God.
Really? I think if you applied your discerning thinking skills to the matter you could come up with a few options: enhanced scientific and technological advancement, potentially a more harmonious civil and social society, a more rational legal system, etc.
so are you saying you believe that by avoiding the burden of proof, you effectively find a loophole? im a little confused.
either way, i believe your thought process is a little shallow. all this bible stuff could be fake, along with Islam and paganism and any concept of a supernatural being, and there really could be nothing beyond the physical. however, were you to not believe in something beyond the material, and something really is beyond the material, you would be wrong. by this logic, you lose nothing other than some of your time and effort by believing in something, but you take a chance at losing everything by believing in nothing at all. if you value that time and effort of believing in something over a potential eternity in a great place beyond the physical, then that is up to you to decide for yourself, but if you are merely going off logic, you are standing in the shallow end of the theological pool. reconsider. look at all religions and what they offer. I have personally, and the one that makes the most logical and historical sense is Christianity. Jesus saves. look in the Bible, and if you look closely enough you will find it.
The good arguments for atheism are the thousands of arguments against theism and the fact that one makes better decisions if one is not misled by some baseless fairy tales.
There is no default. There is either a cause that caused the construct of space, time and matter or no cause that brought them up. Possibly being agnostic as in not really knowing of either is the default
@@creed3500 Even if a creator is granted, a Christian still has pretty much all of their work ahead of them to argue that the creator of the universe also cares about on what day of the weeks humans work, in which positions they have intercourse and with whom, etc. How inflated must one's self-importance be to think that the creator of the universe pays attention to one?
"Evidence.. meh..!" lmao
the defiance of the atheist is just their anguish at finding there is no proof for god.
@@gerardjones7881 I've never met an atheist with anguish that there isn't evidence for God. There is profound evidence of God. One has to close their eyes to the very fabric and nature of the universe to not see evidence of a Creator, and ignore the most basic underpinnings of humanity to not see an uncreated superior morality woven into the fabric of humanity. No, there is no anguish over a lack of proof - perhaps grief that we do not wake up in this world with a schematic of history and a presentation of God in the format and clarity we can find in a legal contract and a textbook. Grief, perhaps, at the demonic betrayal of those who falsely pretend to carry God's name and authority and yet reject both His holiness and His love in their hearts.
But, no, not once in human history has an atheist grieved the absence of evidence of God. Except perhaps a man who sees only darkness, who rages at the absence of light because he refuses to open his eyes.
@@gerardjones7881 I was relieved when I was convinced there is no hell I risk going to. God is a monster, it's a relief they aren't real
Atheism does not require a good argument, much to the chagrin of those addicted to arguments. Atheism is simply an acknowledgement of the absence of belief.
It requires an argument if and only if it's an assertion or denial of some proposition. If it's neither, then what you're calling "atheism" doesn't rise to the level of a disagreement with theism, since disagreement requires the assertion or denial of some proposition.
@@allenanderson4567 Precisely. Atheism does not imply anti-theism.
Absolutely loved every bit of this. Thank you Jordan.
What do you think Jordan thinks an atheist is. I am pretty sure 99 percent of his followers have no idea
@@markwilson2421Reddit is that way sir
Beautiful discourse and exchange!
Still vague language, lots of advanced words, word salad. Peterson is a shame to reason and science
I sometimes wonder if he underwent a trauma...
Its mind-boggling that a smart professor like Peterson cant understand the atheist viewpoint.
Are you going to post the full podcast here in CZcams?
I know it is available in Locals, but Locals is unavailable here in Brazil... They didn't accept our government censorship so they were removed from our country and now I can't access the full episode 😅
I think they said it would eventually be released here ;)
It already was released
It looks to be posted now 🙏🏽
Censorship in brazil? What a pitty news
The full thing is on CZcams
Friedrich Nietzsche : "The belief in authority is the source of conscience; which is therefore not the voice of God in the heart of man, but the voice of some men in man."
Every clip of this pod I’ve seen have been straight bangers
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
💯💯💯💯
Yes very funny
I saw Jordan Peterson in concert recently. The best part of the event was when his daughter said, she was born again.
And he responded: “YOU HAVE TO BE PRECISE” and the audience erupted in tears and a frenzy of applause.
Well praise God for that -- and good for Makahla!!! (or however she spells her name!)
What would Jordan Peterson say about that comma you used after the word "said?"
Does JP sing? Or do you mean "in concert" as in multiple versions of him agreeing with himself. Because either option is a scary thought.
Sounds like his daughter is as nutty as he is.
Atheism is the rejection of a claim. Saying "There's no good argument for atheism" is utterly nonsensical.
🤓☝🏻
Having no idea is a negation, not a rejection. So, making no affirmative claim is nihilism at rest, materialistic determinism the moment after.
JP is utterly nonsensical so it makes sense that he would say something so nonsensical.
@@ericdavis1660 You claim there is a god, you don´t have any evidence for that claim, I reject your claim. That doesn´t say that I have no idea and I don´t need to claim that it doesn´t exist as I withhold belief untill it´s been proven and am willing to change my mind if evidence is presented. I have zero confidence in such evidence ever being provided as people have been trying to prove gods existing for a long time and they still just provide bad arguments, logical fallacies and ignorant nonsense so I´ll stick to not accepting claims about such silly nonsense and will continue to watch gods being led off to the scrapheap of bad ideas one by one untill hopefully one day mankind will move past such silly superstition.
It isn't the rejection of a claim, otherwise atheism wouldn't be trendy. It's a claim.
In debate the minority has the burden of proof. Most of the world (especially the west) holds to religion. It's the common stance. If they claim, they have a reason, as people actually study what they believe. They've done so (in Christianity at least) for over 2000 years. More often than not they provide those reasons. If you reject, it helps to have a reason. If not, you're the odd one.
There IS no good argument to reject God, let alone his existence. By definition. If you do so at least don't go around saying there's no reason to believe in God without giving your own reason. That's mindless.
There’s a big difference between believing in God-as-a-metaphor-for-higher-purpose and believing in God-as-actual-magic-sky-man and I don’t think he did a good job separating out those two things. I absolutely believe (for instance) that if I sit around eating cake all day instead of accomplishing something, I’ll be punished with a sense of disappointment for not achieving the potential I could have. But that’s a far cry from accepting there’s literally some conscious being up in space clucking his tongue at me.
I think the reason you don’t believe he did a good job separating out those two things, is because you won't offer your best to God.
This is an excellent example of a very smart person whose mental faculties completely turn to bread pudding In the face of religious claims.
There is no rational justification for believing in magic. There never will be.
Especially not on a planet teeming with alternatives to Christianity. According to his own "logic", Peterson makes illegal chess moves against Islam, Buddhism, etc. Let's not make the mistake that he is advocating the belief in any deity. He is specifically enamoured by the Jesus-variant of all religions; a religion that is not only obviously based on others that came before it but also evolved in order to compete with what other religions had to offer. The trinity nonsense was not unforced, it was a hack to establish a living god on earth. Peterson is like a child who likes Christmas too much in order to relinquish belief in Santa Clause.
magic? what's magic? that's not at all what he is talking about.
@@zaclovesschool2273
It is precisely what he’s talking about. He is saying there are things that cannot be explained by physical law. That’s magic.
He redefines everything in his own way, but his definitions are fluid and almost no one else adheres to them. He literally may as well be having a chat with himself. But he claims to know what God is, pretty arrogant for someone who can't answer a simple question without redefining every other word
Hey, can give you an example of the redefining?
@@robertblackwell8611 I wonder what recently happened to him recently. He wasn't like this a few years ago.
Best argument for atheism? There doesn’t need to be an argument defending atheism until someone can make a good argument defending the idea that it’s more likely that any god exists than it is that no god exists. Until then, I don’t need any argument or reason for why I’m an atheist. This man doesn’t seem to understand the basics of burden of proof.
Being atheist is the default position. You’re not born with a belief in a god, and the particular god you may then develop a belief in is pretty much dependent on geographical location and wether or not the people who raise you have said belief.
Why are there things instead of nothing?
It is a good starting point.
@@ZelgiusK If a god could exist without a cause or creator, then I don’t see why the universe couldn’t exist without a cause or creator.
@@Homo_sAPEien universe has a beggining, why it begun?
@@ZelgiusK Why would something without a beginning not need a cause but something with a beginning need one? Not to mention that if “God” existed at the beginning of time, then he began to exist because there would not have been any earlier time when he existed before that.
Peterson adheres strictly to the scientific method in all of his other areas of study; psychology, sociology, etc. follow the data and see where it leads.
And then in the area of religious belief he just throws that out the window. Very strange.
It's a cope
I thought he had something when he suggested the bible is metaphorically true. However, this stuff sucks.
Joker is metaphorically true. Joker did not exist. However, that doesn't mean if you cross mentally loners with a society that treats them like trash, you won't end up like Murray Franklin or Thomas Wayne.
When delving into different fields of study some rules won't apply. I don't understand how atheists only want to use one ruleset to discern the reality around them. Even when I was a child, I knew that reality was so much more than what is observed measured and repeated.
When you see beauty and wonder and order and goodness in the universe but also evil, you start to wonder why about all of it.
You exactly pointed out your issue. You rigidly demand scientific evidence to believe everything, and that's what makes you think you're one of the smart ones.
Wouldn't the 100% lack of any supernatural evidence be considered a good argument?
Argue that against unseen gravity when you walk off a cliff.
What do you define as supernatural and how do you know that their is 100% lack of it?
@@seeingeye14 gravity is measurable god is no where
@@Wow-hr1gl God created gravity and can be seen everywhere in His creation. ROMANS 1: 20 For the invisable things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eterna lpower and God head; so that they are without excuse.
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise , they became fools.
This directly addresses you from the Creator thousands of years before you were even born.🤔🤐
@@seeingeye14 all of what you said literally means nothing you have no good measurable evidence for the existence of god today idc what you say
He's coming around! I am enjoying his journey. Sail on!
He's not coming around to Christianity. You can forget it. The Bible is wrong. God is real and so is Jesus. But professing faith in the Bible alone does not guarantee you a ticket to Heaven.
@@DestinyAwaits19
Nonsense.
You want him to believe a random anonymous Internet guy over an age long book of wisdom.
Sorry but we're not all idiots.
@@DestinyAwaits19what are you on about ???
Bible is wrong ? But Jesus and god is real.
That does not make ANY sense.
@segagenysis6918 please stop and attempt humility. What a narcissist!
Which one?
They’re not arguments FOR atheism. They’re arguments AGAINST theisms, and they’re all really, really strong.
Sure. Stay in your faith of "nothing created everything."
@@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia do you need faith to say “i don’t know how the universe was created”? Stay in your hubris of thinking you have the answers to everything
@@Anti-Alphabet_MafiaThis isn’t what I believe
@@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia
You're the one that believes that if you're a Christian...
God says words and out of literally nothing,everything is created
Atheism doesn't even talk about creation LMAO
@@jonde-cent4897 No. But that's not what you believe. Atheists always say "I lack a belief in God," but then turn around and say "God doesn't exist." Like if you knew. At that point it becomes a belief.
And the irony of you saying that I know it all is that atheists think they know it all. That's why they call religious people "dumb" and "uneducated." Which is funny cause most atheists are white, and most religious people are brown people, and most of them are women. Talk about sexist and racist.
damn that last statement about consciousness being the Spirit of God brooding on the face of the water was 👌
Agree and it’s so beatiful. First time I’ve heard it.
If consciousness is nonphysical, then why does general anesthesia work?
@@draedon_ because you affect it's container - the brain.
Thank you for saying. I didn't understand what they said in that last bit.
Let me add something more on conscious: everything we do on earth is recorded in our conscious, and one day, when we die, we will see what we have done throughout our entire lives in front of Jesus with big screen.so be careful with your actions on earth!
There's a great argument for atheism; there's no evidence for a God and the claim is an extraordinary one. I don't believe in your God the same way you don't believe in the Roman Gods.
" There is no evidence ", how can that be true if you can't even define the word evidence? Answering this question might help get you there.
Would the evidence that convinces you that God exists have to be sufficient enough to convince everyone on the planet, or would it be sufficient enough if it only convinced you?
@@ronaldorivera4674 evidence has a definition. A body of facts or information indicating a belief is true.
Evidence that a God exists such as a sighting, verifiable facts which support his existence, heck even narratives which don't conflict with each other. But why do you believe in your God and not the Roman gods or the God of Islam or any other gods?
@@billystanton1522 You can't define it without first answering the question I asked, would everyone on the planet have to be convinced by the evidence before you accept it as evidence? or would everyone on the planet have to be convinced because you were?, or would the evidence be sufficient enough if you were the only one convinced by it?. It's not that difficult to address if you're honest, but I already know for you to hold that view that " there's no evidence", you can't, if you did, you would give the word meaning and a definition.
@@ronaldorivera4674 I not only defined the term, but I answered the question. How other people interpret evidence is irrelevant. If you can present a God whose nature isn't a contradiction and show me any evidence of that God, I'd more likely to accept that God. It could a physical image of that God, it could be a message given to us directly from God, it could be material from God, it could be any number of things which gives credence to the claims of your God.
Again what is it that leads you to believe in your God and not any other God? The answer is simple; geography. You believe in your God because that's what the people in the time and place believe in. If you were born in a different time or place, you'd believe in a different God without any evidence leading you to that belief. The only people who believe in any God believe in that God because of the influence of other people. No one gathers a bunch of evidence and uses inductive reasoning to objectively formulate a belief in a God.
This is what I meant, you can't address my question "directly" because if you did your claim would hold no weight. I'll try asking again, maybe you don't understand the question.
"Would the evidence that convinces you have to convince everyone else", that's one way of asking the question, now I'm going to ask the same question differently in hopes that you can understand it. The same question asked a different way, "Would the evidence have to convince everyone else before you were convinced by it?" Here's a third way of asking the same question, or "would the evidence be sufficient enough if you were the only one convinced by it?".
No need to dance around, it's a very simple question ( a direct question ).
Religion makes the smartest people say the stupidest stuff LOL
Atheism is not a position that needs to be argued for…
Because it is not worth arguing for. It’s an absurd ideology. Life randomly popped into existence? Then it randomly evolved to complex multicellular forms? Then it randomly developed to a life form with rational wills? Evolution can only make sense if it was guided. DNA is code and code requires a programmer (and that’s only ONE argument for God)
Yeah I just thought it was common sense. I still think belief in a god is a mental illness no matter what fancy things the smart man says.
Not now, but it will in the judgement. And the law of God is written on our hearts. The only way to be saved from God's righteous judgement against our sinful lives is Jesus Christ.
I appreciate your willingness to help atheists and to bring them to what you believe to be the correct path and heaven.
Since the video didn't really supply it here's an argument for atheism.
Every conversation that I had with someone of Christian faith goes somewhat similarly. Personal experiences with God, promise of Paradise, Answers to where we come from and morality comes from. That's all fine and I enjoy these conversations.
But here's my issue. There's not one piece of concrete evidence that a Christian can supply to support their faith, that a Muslim or a Buddhist can't.
And that matters. Because the leap of faith is necessary. Real evidence is not sufficient to imply the existence of the Christian god.
How can a loving good God expect me and others to worship him on lack of evidence? I would really be open to see some. A standard of evidence that would fall outside of justifying faith in other religions, say.
@@Meyer-gp7nq You say "randomly" but if you throw in a 100 billion years anything will develop with that amount of time.
His arguments are weak. The conversations he had with Matt Dillahunty and Sam Harris really showcase this.
He is a postmodernist professor alright.
Maybe I'm simply not smart enough but Jordan Peterson is such an expert in obfuscating things.
Because he refuses to make clear the other side...if the Bible stories are TRUTH to him it doesn't matter nor does it seem right to him to say otherwise even if you could prove they were all made up. The message to him is true truth of the way life is and should be lived to him it doesn't matter.
The fact that you realize this means you are smarter than most people who follow him.
"Maybe I'm simply not smart enough..." No, you are one of the smart one who sees that Emperor Peterson is naked!
LOL Jordan talking about god is like Bill Clinton talking about getting blown in the oval office
goes from a Canadian psychologist to be a tele-evangelist in America
That’s where the money is
Yes it’s total baloney
He could make more money doing other things if he's so calculating and dishonest. He once said that he spent the first half of his life living more or less as an atheist so now he is spending the second half of his life repenting by slipping preaching into his speeches about psychology. If you don't believe in God or believe Jordan's arguments that's fine but I believe that Dr Peterson is sincere.
@@NotAffiliated I think he is sincere, but I also think that he would not be doing any of this if it did not pay his bills. And he may be even more "sincere" in his positions exactly because it pays the bills for his extravagant jackets. "He could make more money doing other things if he's so calculating and dishonest." How do you know that, and like what?
@@Eigelstein Nobody has the luxury to do anything other than what pays their bills. If you rob people for a living your a bum. If you heal people for a living then you are a good man. I'm tired of people suggesting that J.P. is "doing it for the money" when he has been a dedicated healer and shrink his entire life.
Every once in a while people strike it big because they are exceptional. J.P. is more wise and insightful than everybody else so he's on top. That's the natural order of things. People just like to try to tear him down because they don't like his message. Some people would rather bitch about their dirty room than just clean it.
To believe is not by forcing u to believe, it is to surrender all
But if you don't, you're damn... that is called 'under duress' 🤔
What happens to criminals when they break the law, they no doubt get sent to prison. Same when we break God's laws, we all deserve hell because we've all failed to keep his laws. However, God is offering us a presidential parden if you will, we can either accept the conditions of the parden, or we can face the full weight of God's justice on ourselves. That's not a choice under duress, that's a willful choice of your own choosing, it's not forced on you in any way. Christ has plans to flulorish you, not to cause you to parish. But if you don't want him then that's what hell is, eternity without him.
@@korvonfrancis6552 The equivalence is a little different. How about unlike judiciary system God by definition can do anything, therefore God can also be held accountable for not getting rid of the root cause of evilness? I honestly think the answer to this would be "God has a plan". Which is really nothing to argue against we probably would have to circle back to whether or not a God exists.
@@HockeyRiveNord But the same is happening with Atheism 🤣💀Atheist are so darn hypocrite that they claim that if you believe you are a fool , Join us have no belief and you are smart 🤣
@HockeyRiveNord you live in a world bound by rules... break the laws of physic and see what happens... it's simple. you are free to break those laws but don't cry when you see the repercussions.
There can't be any arguments for atheism. I'm an atheist because I haven't found convincing arguments supported by evidence for the existence of any god. Unless provided with such, I'll remain unconvinced. This isn't about proving there's no god, it's about the lack of good reasons to believe in one. In that case, the 'I don't know' position is the most rational. I don't need to pick a side on every single claim.
Except that by calling yourself an atheist instead of agnostic, you've picked a side on this claim.
@@StageWatcherPersonally, I'm just me 😊
If pressed, I'd definitely call myself an agnostic-atheist because it's the most honest position I can hold.
I'm agnostic in the sense that I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can KNOW that there isn't "some" entity out there that would qualify as a God.
I'm atheist because I don't believe that this entity has been demonstrated convincingly.
@StageWatcher Here we go again. The word "atheist" is an imported word and comes from the Greek "atheos" which literally means "without god". That perfectly fits anybody who doesn't believe in a god.
Agnostic is another word with a different meaning - without knowledge. We are all agnostics, because none of us really knows, even the theists.
It's really frustrating when so many people don't even bother learning the meaning of words they use.
While this line of reasoning is well and good at present, it surely won't stand up against the judgement of God. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
And if you want evidence for the existence of God, seek it. The prophecies of the books of the Bible are testament to the truth of God's Word. The historicity of Christ is better documented than Caesar's. The scientific evidence of intelligent creation, and the scientific veracity of the Bible can easily be found. Ultimately though, if you want to know the truth, ask. Jesus said, "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him."
If God exists (we'll say the God of the Bible, given the channel we're on), what kind of evidence would you expect to find?
There are no good arguments for Jordan Peterson.
To think I admired him one time. I feel deeply ashamed of that now.
I liked the "ordinary guy asking dumb questions" approach. Sometimes the "dumb" questions are the most pertinent ones. And they're sometimes precisely the ones that academics strategically avoid. "But my wife exists." It's a good point. It's a very good point.
In that analogy, imagine a guy who is being given ALL the signals that a woman loves him dearly and he’s too clueless to see it. (Or he thinks he’s too good for her or something) She may as well not exist to him. THAT’S atheism imo.
@@swish007 Well, if the the only sign of her was stuff written in a book and nobody has ever seen, communicated with, or knows where she lives or how to contact her, then yeh, she might as well not exist.
I'd argue there's FAR more evidence for God's existence than there is that the girl (in the scenario I mentioned) was actually into you. but neither she nor God really exist to someone who is clueless
@@swish007With the difference that god's writings are closer to the ones of a crazy stalker.
He's a keeper!
@@swish007 How FAR is zero?
Praise jeebus.
there is no good evidence for religion, there title fixed.
And you’re sure of that? With what evidence, other than your “faith?”
@@johnhoey7717 I don't rely on faith, that would be foolish. Based on having reviewed all popular arguments I could find and finding them lacking any evidence. Oh, I'm open to being wrong, but so far religion is batting 0. I also don't believe in UFOs or psychics.
@@johnhoey7717 skeptics don't need evidence, just to be able to refute evidence, and no relying on faith would be foolish
English grammar much?
@@johnhoey7717being a grammar/punctuation Nazi about someone speed typing with thumbs on a phone with auto complete as a dodge for your lack of a substantive rebuttal isn't the score you think it is 😉
As an atheist, I am _so_ glad Jordan Peterson is no longer an atheist. I mean, we have no pope, no priests, no dogma, no magic book, and _no required beliefs, whatsoever,_ so it really doesn't make the slightest difference to me what some other atheist thinks. Nonetheless, I'm happy. You guys can _have_ him!
What do you mean by “there”? What do you mean by “isn’t ”? What do you mean by “a”?
What do you mean by “good”? What do you mean by “argument”?
What do you mean by "what"?
🤣
Our not understanding of something (as a premise for God) = God of the Gaps.
3:03 "Belief in God [doesn't require evidence]. It's commitment."
Now I'd call that an illegal chess move, myself...
I love JP, but we part ways on this very subject rather quickly.
JP is like a fairy tale. Some of his quotes are applicable to real life but it's written as fantasy, because he writes for an audience that believes in fantasies and desperately wants to have worldview validated.
Atheism is the default position. The best “argument” for atheism is that there doesn’t need to be one. You aren’t positing anything as an atheist. I need a reason to believe a god exists, and so far there aren’t any good ones being presented besides “we don’t know how X came to be, therefore god”
Except that it isnt.
Do you have a reason you trust your wife or mom?
Yes. I knke my mum exists and trust between my mum and I has been built over many years. I know kids of alcoholics who have unreliable mums don't trust their mums.
@@TheReaper569 that is such a bad argument. I trust my mom because she has cared for me and always been there for me. God has never shown that he cared for me or been there for me.
1 you have no proof. Your moms past does not predict her future.
2 you have no proof. Did you expect god to come down and hand you whatever it is that you seek?, doesn't work that Way boy.
@@TheReaper569you have no proof to trust in god bud
When you acknowledge that you don't know anything it's an illegal chess move for Peterson, but it's the foundation for a philosopher.
I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what he said. Dr. Peterson was stating that atheism is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of existence and the order and construction of the universe.
@@vipe650r Hi. No one understands the universe that's for sure.
We can only reach for understanding not understand it. For example, there is a best understanding of things we call theory. Big bang theory currently shaking because of new evidence from the James Web telescope.
@@valentinaselektrikas Not fully, of course. That’s impossible. But, there are underpinnings and components and systems and factors and ingredients and forces at play that can begin to paint a profound picture of design and structure and rules and intentionality. Laws and the field do science as a whole exists purely because of the supposition that order exists and questions can be answered.
"This is an all in enterprise" ought be on a billboard in front of a Church somewhere in Middle America.
Wow. It is a chore getting through this interview. Jordan is just hysterical and incoherent. His certainty and fanatical belief in nonsense is chilling. I deeply hope I am never so arrogant as to not even consider opposing views, as he is. A real shame for someone with such intellect to be so utterly lacking in integrity.
well why don't you wanna be arrogant? is it something bad? If yes, why?
The trouble is that Jordan's understanding of God is so fundamentally different from that of most religious people, including whether they be at the top or the bottom.
You can metaphor religion and God into meaning potential, moral standards, and the spirit of adventure if you want. But most believers honestly believe that if you got in a time machine and went back you would see Mohammed splitting the moon on winged horse, or Moses flooding the Nile with blood, or seeing Christ rise from the dead after witnessing him being crucified.
The Petersonion view of religion is so elastic that even according to JP himself, even a self-describing atheist is a believer (see vid with Matt Dillahunty).
Frankly, I don't think atheists are the confused ones. I think JP simply doesn't understand what it means to be an atheist.
Edit: Atheists also don't assume to know what's happening at the quantum level. The difference is that we don't jump to conclusions just because it might make people better.
I think Jordan's problem is he's beginning to assume that atheists are rejecting the metaphors and morals of religion
Although we do reject many of the stories. There's still the general metaphors and morals. It's when you start getting into the magic associated with religion that we have problems
When you are a phd and dont know that atheism is lack of belief ...
Atheists believe in lots of things….just not God. Atheists love lots of things…just not God.
People who don’t believe in God will believe in anything.
@@302indian I don't believe in god. And I definitively don't believe in "anything". Your argument is not persuasive unless you are only preaching to the choir.
@@sadsongs7731 He means the other sheep like himself. And he's not wrong. Most atheists just wind up clinging to some other kind of loopy dogma, like the woke cult. Free thinking atheists are really hard to find. It takes a certain amount of mental/emotional stamina to refuse to give up one's faculty of reason when surrounded by believers. I've had the most luck in Japan, but their culture is a whole other nut to crack as an outsider.
@@302indian Projecting much are we?
I’m an atheist and I can acknowledge that there are good arguments for Christianity. Saying there’s NO good argument for atheism is extremely disingenuous considering what we know today. Following on from this, JP then has the gall to strawman the ultimate rationale for atheism as “materialistic determinism”… give me a break.
On the other hand, I have many reasons for why I don’t believe the God of the Bible exists:
The God of the Bible doesn’t exist due to the scientific inaccuracies, logical fallacies, geo-historical discrepancies, canonical contradictions, moral inconsistencies, mythological similarities, man-made changes, theological presuppositions, disputed canonisation, polytheistic origins, failed prophecy, literary forgeries, dependancy on decades-old oral testimonials and the fact that the books of the Bible are written by various, fallible authors. This isn’t evidence against “A” generic God/Creator, but it does provide significant evidence against the specific God within the Bible. The one who has a personal, emotional relationship with an evolved species of primate in one area of one planet, among billions of galaxies, each containing billions of planets (within the observable Universe alone) and cares what days of the week you work on.
What a quack.
Idk why I decided to watch Peterson be psuedoprofound for another 10 minutes of my life.
So I guess we shouldn’t require evidence before we believe in something?
No. There's a process in faith. Seeing creation. Seeing truth, beauty, and goodness. Seeing miracles. Seeing evil and sin. Making sense of all of it....and concluding there is a God of order who makes it all make sense. But then there's faith to receive Christ. The leap of faith from seeing, contemplating, logic, etc, to choosing to believe in the things you can't see. The spiritual realm. Logic then faith.
@@RCGWho Where's the evidence though? Stop hiding behind the word salad like your JP does.
@@id9504 you seek evidence but claim its not proof, so you are lying but don't see your lie.
claiming theres no evidence is like the fish asking wheres water.
@@gerardjones7881Just more word salad. Evidence, please
@@gerardjones7881 Ugh... the fish asking "what's water" is the most obnoxious metaphor. If a fish had the ability, it would measure its surroundings and very quickly discover what water is. We are not fish. We have the cognitive ability to use tools and measure reality. If something is "real," it should have a measurable, predictable impact on the real world.
Every religious claim fails this test. They are all unfalsifiable. "God will make XYZ happen. If XYZ doesn't happen, he's not ready for it to or he's 'testing' you" and other bullshit like that. No way to prove it wrong. Religious people LOVE this. It allows them to spout claims confidently without any accountability. Nobody will ever be able to prove them wrong, so they assert claims with total confidence to boost their own egos. Just like JP is doing here.
I feel sorry for the host trying to be civil in the face of JP's rampant irritability.
I feel more sorry for all the people who are unable to distinguish this from smartness, and especially those predisposed to being persuaded by the kind of venom that he's practically spitting.
Sketch
He’s disagreeable at worst, not bitchy, or irritable. And it’s wisdom, not smartness.
@@jaybee9269 which bit is wisdom though?
He outwardly dismisses what amounts to the scientific method: evidence, materialism and determinism - all the things that directly led to the technology to enable him to broadcast his objections to the world at the touch of a button... simply because things look a little bit more complicated at the quantum level. And as we've all seen countless times before, here comes the Jesus smuggling - the "God of the gaps" to fill in the ever decreasing realm of things we don't yet fully understand: instead of "illegally" trying to prove what's real, just commit yourself to a tale because you have an instinct to act socially (conscience), and religious tales often condone acting how we already were. He mistakes correlation with causation - the classic religious error (along with confirmation bias).
"And you think well that's not God, well have it your way, like y'know, you're playing games". The game playing is making the jump from the verifiable and falsifiable to all the religious mysticism, for literally no reason than to make it match up with the story you were taught as a kid because you it to be true, which is where the confirmation bias comes in. Perhaps he's saying it in a way that sounds like wisdom to you, but pick it apart and it most fundamentally isn't.
@@Nyghl0 >> The aggregate is wisdom. And he doesn’t dismiss evidence; if anything his academic corpus is intensely evidence based. It’s his conclusions in conversation that are often inductive. But inductive logic is valid. I wish I’d had Jordan as a therapist. I know Jordan’s religious philosophy is like nailing Jello to a tree for some very bright and callow young people. But he wants the best for us, after all. I can’t help but wish I’d seen Jordan debate the late Christopher Hitchens.
@@jaybee9269 2:57 "Evidence, euargh. Like I said, it's an illegal game move". He literally dismissed evidence in this very video, I wasn't simply falsely accusing him - everything I've said has been backed by evidence or reason. Given his academic background, don't you find it odd that he is quite happy to go along with scientific method, except when it comes to God, when suddenly it's all nonsense?
Religious logic is abductive, which is an invalid form of reasoning, it's not inductive. I've no doubt that he means well and does want the best for us, he probably would have made a good therapist for you - I reckon he does believe every single word he says. That's what gives him the conviction in his delivery - same as Hitchens. I'm unsure how well the dynamic between them would have gone though. They both have/had high levels of disagreeableness, Hitchens probably moreso. He tended to run down his opponents like a ruthless but calm and collected juggernaut - I think he exhibited psychopathic traits similarly to his brother, whereas Jordan still retains instincts of a listener underneath his relative aggression. Combine that with their different approaches - Hitchens would moralise politically, but Peterson is much more postmodern with his treatment of truth. Similar to your nebulous "the aggregate is wisdom", he seems to view truth as an emergent quality of action and customs, reasoning something along the lines that the bible "must mean something" given its historical pole position in western literature. It doesn't really mean anything, but it sorta "seems like it should" - and he places this as more true than things you can actually prove to be true. Perhaps Hitchens could have adapted to this, but mostly I think they would have been talking past each other like every other debater of note does with him.
When an author writes a book, he has an end in view before it is written, and all of the characters in the novel have a purpose which is gradually unveiled by their interactions. Sometimes the interactions of the characters change the understanding of those involved and help to bring about the envisioned end. “Let us make mankind in our image, according to our likeness” (Gen 1:26).
Jordan peterson is so clueless philosophically on this topic. Why is he seen as an authority on this matter? You dont need to accept materialistic determinism to be an Atheist, such a ridiculous comment. Theres so many wrong things with this away from using words in unconventional ways
Yup Peterson was shockingly bad here.
All gods, all religions, all "holy" books are the creations of mankind.
The deepest archetypal truths of mankind it's 6,000 years of experience. The Bible is a living thing not a book. God is the highest aim to be great.
And all humans are the creation of AI
Atheism is the understanding that you are the only moral authority in your life. There is no one who judges you but yourself in the end.
Which is a conclusion that is come to people that don’t want to answer for their failures
No that is the the conclusion of someone who doesn't trust themselves to hold themselves accountable for there actions without an outside force independent of themselves to judge their actions.
The problem with Cain's sacrifices wasn't that they weren't the best he had. The problem was he didn't sacrifice because of love and fear of the Lord. They were prideful. He expected because he was first born that his sacrifice was sufficient and deserving of reward. He expected God to accept his sacrifice because of his lineage.
Both can be true... because he felt entitled, he gave his second best to God.
@@shaulkramer7425 But it's still not the real reason why. Those who pray to God and boast of their lineage find no favor with him.
@@johndoh795It wasn't because of Cain's lineage that he expected God to accept his offering, he and Abel were from the same parents, it was because he wanted to earn it through his works, whereas Abel understood that it's only by grace. Cain started the religion of works, trying to bribe God.
@@ronaldorivera4674That doesn't really make sense. If Cain wanted to earn God's favor by works then he would've given the best he had in order to "bribe" God.
@@jon6car Well let's take a look at what scriptures say he brought, Genesis 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
Verse 4: And Abel, he " also" brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offerings.
I think the key word here particularly is " Also", which to me indicates that he also brought what Cain brought, which was the "firstlings" of his flock and the "fat thereof" meaning the first, best, and fattest of his offerings to sacrifice to the Lord.
To me this seems pretty clear, that it wasn't because Cain's offering wasn't good enough but because his heart was leaning on his own self righteousness and not on God. Righteous Abel brought a sacrifice to atone for his sin not to be rewarded.
I have to point out that if it was because of his lineage, that doesn't make sense because Abel and Cain had the same parents.
Either way I'm sure there are many many ways people interpret this passage, regardless, may the triune God open our hearts and reveal the truth to us, filling us with his spirit, edifying us daily and conforming us into the image of his Son.
Atheism doesn’t need an argument, because it’s not asserting anything. It’s just the lack of a belief in something other people believe.
Everything asserts something, theism asserts God, atheism asserts nothing. If it’s a belief then it’s asserting a world view. Also atheism is the lack of belief in gods. So you don’t even have the definition right. You can’t assert a world view then say you don’t have to defend it, that’s logically inconsistent with how every other belief system has to defend itself. If you rule a nation and don’t prepare defenses then it falls. If you get into a fight and don’t defend yourself you get beat up. If you fail to defend your worldview then it will crumble.
@@brandonunderwood7668 It is more correct to say that atheism is the position that there is no evidence for any God(s). Which incidentally is not a belief but is a true statement.
@@Andre_XX That’s actually not a true statement. Evidence and conclusions are based on evaluation, people could point to the logical evidence that something can’t come from nothing and qualify that as a true statement and deduce that as evidence for God as the following conclusion would be something would have to come from a bigger something and
qualify that thing as God with other logical conclusions. That’s just one logical route to take to qualify evidence for God. Also you’re wrong about atheism being the position that there’s no evidence for God. It has nothing to do with evidence, maybe that’s a common belief among atheists but that’s not how definitions work. Atheism is, infact “ a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods” according to marriam-webster. Or “To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.” According to atheism org. But to be honest logically there’s already agnosticism which fills the void of uncertainty when describing belief systems. My point being atheists fallaciously describe their belief system in a way where it’s both asserting itself true and asserting its not a belief at the same time without realizing any truth claims are beliefs. If you evaluate a lack of evidence then even that evaluation is a belief. All opinions or truth claims are beliefs.
Even day to day things you do, you’re operating without 100% guarantee about how things will go. As humans belief is the foundation of thought. Basically what do you belief and why and how will that compel you forward. You believe it’s a fact that atheism is true based on a definition you made up. You believe there is no evidence of God (which is paramount of saying that there is no god). Do you even know how to define evidence? I could go on but ill leave you with this.
If there’s a painting wouldn’t you assume a painter, if there’s a house wouldn’t you assume a carpenter, if there’s a rocketship wouldn’t you assume engineers? So if there’s creation why wouldn’t you assume a creator? There’s plenty of evidence of God it just depends on how your belief system qualifies that evidence. At the end of the day people often just believe what they want to believe then build their defenses.
@@brandonunderwood7668 Unfortunately your position is typical of those who have been indoctrinated with the God meme. You say "the logical evidence that something can’t come from nothing", and yet you make a glaring exception when you exclude your very own God from this sweeping statement! The universe operates on Quantum principles, which are anything but logical! Even in a vacuum virtual particles spontaneously appear and disappear. The nothing from which the universe arose would have been a lot more nothing than a mere vacuum. Unfortunately we have no access to such a nothing (no time, no space and not even any physical laws) to investigate its properties.
"At the end of the day people often just believe what they want to believe then build their defenses." Agreed. This is especially evident among the religious.
@@brandonunderwood7668 Dang, my reply has vanished. I think I am being censored... I am not going to try to repeat it all. I will try a summary:
1. "the logical evidence that something can’t come from nothing". Your God is obviously an exception! The universe operates on Quantum physics. It is not logical if you study it.
2. The nothing from which the universe arose is an absence of space and time. It is not the same thing as a vacuum. We can't test what this nothing is capable of because we have no access to any of it.
And I will add:
3. Your evidence for god is merely assertions. Assertions are not evidence.
4. God was created my man. There is plenty of evidence than man is exceptionally good at inventing gods.
Has anybody asked him something like "you're in Joseph's tomb on the first Easter Sunday, what do you literally see with your physical eyes?"
Alex O'Connor did.
"If I took a Panasonic video camera... And places it in front of Joseph's tomb....
Would it show Jesus walking out?
Peterson: Yeah...but what does that mean? 😂😅😅
@@supremeakuma yep, a month after I posted this someone actually managed to pin him down.
Well of course not. The best/only arguments for not being convinced that a deity exists, is the lack of good arguments that a deity _does_ exist.
Also, even after all these years and all these talks, I _still_ don't understand Peterson's position on whether or not a god exists or does not exist. It's almost like he doesn't want to lose the favor of all the conservatives/people on the right that do believe in a god, yet at the same time seems to recognize that the arguments for a deity existing all fall short, so(like he often does on all sorts of issues), he delves into metaphor, and imprecise language to the point that nobody knows what the hell he's talking about.
Just say you can’t keep up with him and go.
It's a stupid question. The absence of theism does not need to be argued for. Theism needs to be argued for, and there is no good argument for theism; never has been, never will be.
Losing more and more respect for jp. He knows no god exists, at least what everyone but him means by god
I’m sure he’s devastated.
@@elijah5791 nah, he is to far gone. Selfperception has left him, until something happens that really sho2s the stupidity of much of what he says. Syncoohants not goona do it
I don’t think he believe the Bible in the literal sense. But the idea of god are also not easy to grasp in the literal sense.
There is NO good arguments for the lack of belief in fairies ... Gotcha
Yeah I don't think there are good arguments to prove that something that can't be established to exist doesn't exist.
in deed have alot, look the miracle of Fatima. Jornals noticed the fact.
@@gustavoaraujo3587
What happened at Fatima? Something we haven't explained. Let me repeat - something we have not explained. That means it is not explained, not "fill in whatever explanation you like and pretend it's the truth."
No good argument for atheism, but agnostic is fine.
You are comparing a fairy against the fabric of reality itself. Nonsense comparison.
I don't believe in anything I have to believe in.
Every religion preaches truth yet provides none.
The change in jordans demeanor from jokingly laughing to intense thought at the very start of the video cracked me up 😂
Does JP remind anyone else of the farting preacher when he tilts his head back and closes his eyes like he's thinking of something profound?
Simple argument : Show me God or an Angel or a Demon and let us talk to them directly. You can't? therefore I have no reason to believe you
Occultists would disagree with you.
@Dylan_96_ nah, they're equally full of $***
As if that would be a thing a random person could do. Also that implies that angels and demons are physical beings that manifest in a way we experience like we do with rocks and computers, etc. Also implies that you are asking for evidence from the Abrahamic faith specifically, and a fundamentalist view that takes the words of the bible completely literally. There are many different ways to interpret the concept of god, a being in heaven looking down and judging is just one. Its the easiest one to argue against and is not the one I would argue for since the texts are not often literal.
@@zaclovesschool2273 still a matter of evidence, not about what x religious book says. Why would I even pay attention to the bible or quran in the first place?
Everything in life leaves a blatant trail of evidence of truth, but it is so blatant we never even pay attention it, and that is the magic of life
Was jordan peterson always this lunatic and fanatic religious person? i swear i remember him not being as fanatic as he is nowadays, i used to take him seriously, nowadays, i'm afraid he might come up with an argument to the existence of the Easter Bunny.
What I’m the world are you rambling about? Ffs just say you disagree already so f**king pretentious you are.
This all happened after his coma/drug experience as well as his wife's cancer recovery...
@@thinking-ape6483 Arm chair psychology is as cringe and bs as op’s comment.
@@thinking-ape6483 i think the benzos fried him, unfortunately.
The first time I encountered Peterson was way back when Canada (or some province) was considering passing a law that would punish businesses for intentionally calling people by their non-preferred pronouns. (Sorry if my facts are a little off.) He said this amounted to "compelled speech", which I thought was an interesting argument. Even if I didn't fully agree with it, he was fully coherent. Now, every time I hear him, it just sounds like word salad.
Asking for evidence is an illegal move lmfao ok mista!
You misunderstood.
It's circular reasoning to think that evidence proves God doesn't exist.
God must be outside of creation to be God
@@davidbell2547 No rational atheists claims that "god" does not exist. Any rational person has to be agnostic about the existence of entities who's very definition defy existence or non-existence proofs. For instance, you cannot prove that garden fairies do not exist if I claim that they cease all activity and turn invisible, the moment you try to establish their existence. Atheism is just the refusal to accept religious claims on the basis of bad evidence. Here's an example for true circular reasoning: "In order to believe, you have to believe.". Apparently, the absence of any evidence to belief is by design, so that you can truly "belief", purely based on faith as opposed to being convinced. This is nothing else but telling someone "In order to be belief X, you have to belief X". I'm sure Peterson could read some "wisdom" into that, but it is just circularity in its purest form.
Okay, so you can give direct evidence for evolution? I have looked at the fossil record or rather studies of the fossil record since no normal person is allowed to directly view except through pictures and I can tell you, the way I saw it without the dogma of evolutionist thought, I couldn't for the life of me see the "evidence" for evolution. All we can say without a doubt from looking at fossils is that something was alive and now it's dead. Evolutionists or better yet modern darwinist atheists look at things from the assumed position that everything on earth came from a single cell that evolved into everything else. Ask a child who hasn't learned evolutionist scripture what a fossil can tell them, many would likely say that's it's a dead thing, a rock or I don't know. In the end there's no concrete evidence for evolution only belief. How many science articles I've read and the honest scientist will tell you they believe or from what they can tell so not actual facts basically.
@@davidbell2547so you basically came up with a concept that you claim is true because you won’t accept any evidence that says otherwise
there's tons of evidence, despite the fact many would ignore that fact and continue asking for it as if they are blind.
We expect discussion on
Theoretical and Practical
Spiritual science and philosophy
of
Abrahmic Religions
on the basis
( Religious literature )
Sadhan Marg , Sadhan Padhati , experiences , cosiousness , physical-mental-spiritual changes in human body , Mukti
for
Self realisation , iternal spiritual awareness , peaceful life .
Towards the Truth .
*
On above subject we expect discussion with
Chinmaya Mission
Vedanta NewYork
Sarvapriyanand
Papaji
*
This is a far cry from "i don't believe God exists, but i live like he does." Praise God.
clearly there has been evolution in his views, right?
He says belief is substantiated by actions and therefore he shows his knowing of Gods existence thru his actions. Unlike most Christians who think it’s just by saying a few words. His point is that you’re gambling with eternity so you don’t just get off that easy.
But then he says that God is commitment, admitting that he doesn't believe in an actual god
He never said he doesnt believe but he explained what believe mean by saying he lives as if He does.Clearly you misunderstood
@@danieltransvant3933 of course he doesn't say he doesn't believe. But he refers to God as "commitment" here. In other places he uses other nebulous terms for god that don't mean anything close to a god that people pray to or assume exists. I don't understand him because what he says simply doesn't make sense or is so ambiguous as to be meaningless.
Dr. Word Salad is at it again
atheists cannot grasp simple english, though a child can.
because their ego will not allow it, so it scrambles the mind to keep them blind.
It's remarkable with what intellectual confidence Peterson can talk about something completely made up. I genuinely wish I could do that.
Let's say you arrive at belief in God, OK - which God? You need to do some logical accounting to make that choice. You can't just throw logic out of it.
What is the best argument for not believing in space unicorns?
There is no good argument for not believing in space unicorns ;) 😂
@@739jep It’s an illegal chess move!
What does a unicorn explain? Does it have the ability to create like intelligence does?
@@meb280 they’re space unicorns you blasphemer! And they’re all knowing and all powerful - so of course it can create anything. Says so in the space unicorn bible.
@@739jepMuch more logical to think everything came into being out of nothing. Don't need intelligence to create order, design, complexity and information. Why, I'll bet there is no 'person' behind this response of yours, it's likely a parrot randomly pecking at a keyboard. Polly want a cracker?
Sorry. I gave this 5 minutes, 59 seconds of my short and precious life that I can never get back. He is insufferably and proudly smug and extremely disrespectful. Pints pushed back with patience and reason but Peterson isn't listening and is clearly not interested in dialogue.
he used to be very different before his health related issues. I find him almost insufferable now but back then he was insanely respectful. It's mostly just sad.
Ironically, he's doing the exact opposite of what he preached in his 12 rules for life.
this is why you stay away from drugs
what
@@zaclovesschool2273 As JP would say; what do you mean by “what”?
@@mrjayz94 usually he does that with things like God since it's hard to explain without symbolism or metaphor, in the same way abstract art is difficult to explain. But yeah it gets a bit much when he breaks down every single word lol
@@zaclovesschool2273 It’s crazy man…. Have you seen his recent interview with Alex O’Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) when he discusses belief in God? Everyone knows he’s just trying to keep his right-wing Christian audience without saying outright that he believes or doesn’t believe the Christian God exists.
@@mrjayz94 no but I saw Alex's video deconstructing Peterson's beliefs. I thought it was a pretty well thought out video, but it still failed to understand the actuality of Jordan's beliefs. He attacked his vagueness and whatnot which I can understand, but as I already said these are difficult ideas to communicate effectively in language alone. It's like trying to explain the importance of love or prove that your joy at something you're super passionate about exists. Idk if he's shelling out to his right wing audience, but personally I think he's just been wrestling (as he would say) with these ideas for a long time and is still trying to figure out the best way to express them without being dishonest to himself. I understand the struggle since I love and appreciate scientific study, but also love and appreciate esotericism and spiritual ideas so it can sometimes be difficult to communicate clearly between those two lines of thinking in a way that everyone will understand. Course explaining things in a way everyone will understand is a problem in any field, especially science given how complex the language can get. Same thing with symbolism, requires a decent amount of creative thought and working with the material to find good ways to explain it in other communicative mediums.
Give me a good argument against the existence of fairies?
What?
Gotcha!
You just made an "illegal chess move"! Thou shall not attempt to escape the inevitability of fairies.
I found it insane that someone so smart like Peterson is a believer and not an atheist.
He's been contemplating the meaning of life and the universe for a long time. Plus the Holy Spirit is drawing him.
(He’s not actually that smart, just a pseudo-intellectual who uses big words to impress people)
Jordan Peterson the ultimate goal post mover!!!
Every person alive is an atheist when it comes to every other god but the one they believe in.
Perhaps one day I'll encounter a christian who understands what atheism means...
Ha, what an incredibly stupid assertion on Peterson's behalf. Jordan's whole argument hinges on an equivocation fallacy. Of course there’s no good argument for Atheism (w/ Jordan Peterson) when Peterson simply redefines theism as useful fiction, likewise atheism with a non-belief in the utility of stories.
I feel like if he had an opportunity to respond to this he’d smack you down
I pray for the day when Jordan finally professes his faith in Christ. Keep praying for him everyone. We're ready for him to marry the psychoanalytical and the literal together.
When's he coming back btw? It's been 2,000 years.
Ever think that your religion is just as false as all of the other 4,000+ religions throughout history?
@@donkler5476 not from my experience brotha... God speaks very clearly if you are opening to listen
Jesus is the only verifiable historical deity. @@donkler5476
@@donkler5476 "This one will get them for sure!!" 😂😂 🤡
@@themanufan8 Yeah if you dig a big hole of confirmation bias, you’ll find anything you want to find at the bottom.
That’s why there have been over 4,000 different religions throughout history, each with followers who were just as committed as you are now.
The best argument for atheism is simply that nothing like a God exists and we should be glad it doesn't because it would be way closer to the Cixin Liu or Carlos Castaneda universe than that of the Bible (even that universe is pretty damn terrifying). Also notice the Bible says almost nothing about all the other plants and animals just here on the planet we live on. It is a cartography of the human mind and its evolution and not any objective account of anything outside or beyond that.
All dogmas is evil, for by definition it insists that unquestioning ignorant obedience is a moral good.