I'm curious as to your point here. I watched your full video and agree with you. In fact, I came to this conclusion some years ago. But I'm curious as to what *you're* trying to accomplish with the video.
@@rquaidproJP is extremely annoying. He intentionally wants to be hard to pin point when debating god, but is clear he doesn't believe that god is as matter of fact real. Or to be clear, it's as real as money is to a physicist. He went through a bunch of videos of JP that I would never have gone through and brings a conclusion to a question to which he tends to be particularly misleading. And yes, I do belive he is intellectually dishonest.
exactly. I love how people concluded this or that ideological point about him only for him not to fit the predetermined pattern, making the same people complain about it. it also happens with negative points too.
JP is definitely an atheist but he's being very careful to not upset his conservative audience since a lot of them have helped his career as a public speaker, writer and podcaster.
its funny how leftists always accuse "conservatives" of grifting when it's the exact opposite. Your side are the grifters. Your side has no morals, so why wouldn't they be grifting?
Well, first we need to define “penis,” and then we need to define “wash.” Is “to wash” an act of moral righteousness? Releasing impurities? Or is it an act of pleasure and selfishness? You see, Jesus used to wash the feet of people. What exactly did he do by “wash”? Perhaps we need to ask Jesus to wash our-
That should be it bro. But I've also heared moms that love god over their own children, and... also the case of my mother who has actually said that (she is a good mother and I love her over anything though), but I mean, people really put beliefs over their very own blood and family. I will continue trying to open her narrow view
True. But it can be difficult to follow that If a parent has drug issues etc., It’s Unfortunate. God is simply the Existence of Love. Everyone Believes Love exists. Atheists Unnecessarily Overcomplicate it. It’s a Shame
For the life of me, as a Christian, I simply cannot understand this Christian infatuation with Peterson. He says so much without saying anything at all. It’s astounding.
A TH-cam skit series parodying Jordan Peterson overcomplicating every little thing would be funny, like how Lil Windex parodies Eminem uncontrollably rhyming about everyday life
Whenever I listen to Jordan Peterson for some reason this quote always pops in mind: “If you can’t explain it simply then you do not understand it well enough.”
Yes but sometimes to explain it simply requires a dumbing down or a broken piece of the information that is not possible or ruins it. Sometimes I use fancy words Bcz other words don’t quite fit what I’m trying to mention. Some people understand things and it’s elements better. To make the other person understand it is a different thing. Again u have ur own internal monologue and thoughts. And then u got the communication and language. They aren’t the same. So yes. One can understand something. But not explain it well
JP reminds me of "San Manuel Bueno Martir" by Miguel de Unamuno. A priest who doesn't believe in God but preaches him because he thinks its better for society to have a deity to believe in.
"It's better for society" on nothing. So you're saying these are literally people who don't believe in god but pray god?? Pure stupidity, that makes no sense.
for better or worse that is also the 18th century definition for Deism, what many of the founding fathers in the US were, they understood the cultural value of the Abrahamic religions.
The branch of epistemology he bases his knowledge and what he considers a source of absolute and eternal truth is inconsistent with that of an atheist who tend to be naturalists, empiricists and rationally illiterate.
Saying this is atheism is an insult to everyone who isn’t an atheist. It’s like saying you don’t believe jahova is God therefore you are the same as an atheist who also disagrees with me.
@@にこ-c7l No, I accept various categories of religions and worldviews, so I don't think calling Peterson an atheist offends the religious. He is redefining the God of the Bible as some sort of fiction. So he is not a Christian, but he also doesn't fit into any other religious category either for three reasons: (1) He doesn't even believe that the god he has invented, has existence outside of humanity. (2) Other religions don't want to define their religion around incorrect ideas of Christianity, (3) A lot of people have such mind-dependent fictional gods, even atheists. They are a form of idol that doesn't fit into any formal religion. So as an atheist, he's just not in the mainstream of today's atheists who criticize Christianity while enjoying the fruit of its culture. He is more like an old-fashioned atheist who, over the last several hundred years in the West, were friendly to Christianity due to an appreciation of the culture Christianity produces.
@@philosophyforum4668 A lot of people think fiction is the opposite or truth. He said believes in God but just not from materialist perspective. Idealism and rationalism is the opposite of atheism and there is also no empirical proof for jungian theory. Edit: my brain is too small to write something coherent and comprehensive.
Nah, man. He's a Christian, he just doesn't believe in it in the way most christians do. He's a theist, he just doesn't believe in God in the way most theists do. He's not an atheist, he just articulate his belief in God in the way that atheists do So... Uhh...
JP isn't any one religion. Maybe it's him overthinking, but I think everyone would rather him just pick one instead of stealing from all of them. He says he believes in God, but doesn't hold to the Bible, doesn't hold to the Qu'ran, doesn't hold to the [insert holy book here], and then calls divinity fictional. Everything he says sounds smart, but his religious fluidity helps exactly no one.
I honestly always thought he was an atheist, but knew he would lose such a large portion of his fan base if he admitted it so he played the part anyway. 🤷🏻♀️ I dunno. Just my thoughts on it, I could be wrong.
What do you mean "Jordan", what do you mean "Peterson",... 😄 But yeah, I also saw him dissecting this sentence too. He does have a point, but if this is, how you start a conversation, you won't get very far.
Peterson is agnostic. Whenever asked about existence of God, his first response is "Well, I'm afraid he might.". This is not something which neither theist nor atheist says.
You forget that you can be an agnostic believer or an agnostic atheist. You can lack belief in something while admitting it's possible for you to be wrong so some fear of it can still exist since you're honest enough to accept the possibility of being wrong.
@@katiebarber407 To me "convinced" is the wrong word to use as that suggests you are far more "convinced" than anyone who is agnostic should be. I'm an agnostic atheist but I would never use the word convinced to describe how I feel about it.
JP is literally trying to play both sides & it's kind of funny because of the bowl of "tossed word salad" that he presents in every debate/conversation.
He sure does waffle a lot. He kinda sounds like what would happen if you picked out a bunch of philosophy books at random, stuck them all in a blender, then poured it all out onto the table.
@@nilsteegen33 Typical fanboy response, no one dares criticize Professor Wordsalad. Peterson is a cranky old transphobe who is just smart enough to make dumb people think he's a genius.
Exactly! That's why I've always loved his work. While he may not be the best at formal debate; his insight, knowledge, and wisdom are certainly still quite uniquely valuable.
I think you may be right in this instance. But based on everything I've heard from him, it seems pretty clear that he does not believe that a god actually exists.
Lol, why do I always find the "he is not saying...", "he meant...", "u misunderstood..." comments under JP videos? It's almost as if...nobody, including himself, knows what he is talking ab.
Incredibly helpful! Please make more finance videos like these. It’s really interesting to see the behind the scenes of what you pay, interest, benefits of financing/buying in cash. Keep up the great work Yianni!
I think this is the truth. He's not convinced either way. He hasn't ruled out either possibility. He has conceptualised and analysed both belief systems and concluded that Christianity is superior to atheism. Not the least because atheism often leads to nihilism. He's somewhat agnostic, but instead of sitting on the fence, he's trying to be a Christian. You might think that he's a fake Christian, but a lot of Christians struggle with their faith and I don't see a good reason why he would be categorically different from them.
@@erikblomqvist8325 Most atheists aren't nihilists. It is true that most nihilists are atheists, though. So, JP doesn't want people at large to identify as atheist because that leads to a few extremists. I have some bad news about theism then...
@@piecrumbs9951 I don't agree with your assertion. Nihilism isn't extremism. Nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism. It underpins hedonism, because if life has no meaning, why wouldn't you seek pleasure and avoid pain as much as you can? These belief systems don't help you get through hard times and aren't healthy for the individual, nor society. The individual needs a higher purpose to preserve and society needs individuals to make sacrifices for eachother and society as a whole.
@@erikblomqvist8325 "Nihilism isn't extremism." If you take extremism to mean the unusual or unordinary position, then it is extremism wether or not it is logical because most atheists wouldn't call themselves nihilists. Beliefs that were once extreme are sometimes adopted by the majority and become the norm, and vice versa. There are, like with anything, multiple definitions of nihilism. If nihilism is simply the rejection of objective truth, meaning, or morality, then it would seem to logically follow (although Sam Harris and his ilk exist, and as I'm sure you know they argue for objective morality). I would argue it also follows from theism. There's no non-circular reason why a God's meaning or morality is any more "objective" than our own, as Plato outlined in Euthyphro. In fact, if I found out there was a God who had a particular purpose in mind for me that conflicted with what I already considered to be my purpose, I would still persue my own. If I found out there was a God who endorsed murder as pious, I would still condemn murder because my conscience won't allow me to do otherwise. If nihilism is the assertion that there is absolutely no meaning at all, and that knowledge is impossible to obtain, then this doesn't seem to follow logically. As I said, we can prescribe our own meaning and purpose, and that meaning is just as real as any God's meaning or purpose. It also seems pretty clear we can use the scientific method to acheive knowledge, and we can and have implemented this knowledge into our lives to extraordinary effect. So I reject this nihilism. Life does have meaning: our meaning. If I want to persue pleasure and avoid pain, I will do so for no other reason than because I want to. That's certainly good enough for me. I don't see why I need any reason other than that. Obviously I don't, because I, along with millions of others, do seek pleasure and avoid pain despite there not being any "objective" reason to in our view. I see that as a crushing blow to your assertion that "the individual needs a higher purpose to preserve" and I see the fact that largely secular societies in Europe have found enormous success and prosperity as a crushing blow to your assertion that society at large needs these beliefs. Clearly, atheism is no barrier to living a happy life.
@@erikblomqvist8325 Also, I should add that I do think there is an objective reason that I persue pleasure and avoid pain. Because I want to. Just like it is objectively true when I say "I like Star Wars" but subjective when I say "Star Wars is good." People may disagree that Star Wars is good, but they can't disagree that I like Star Wars. If I were to say "you ought to persue pleasure and avoid pain," that is subjective. If somebody wanted to be a masochist, I can't objectively tell them they ought not be one. But if I were to say "I want to persue pleasure and avoid pain," that is objectively the case. I do objectively want to, but not for any objective reason.
@@APaleDot yes, because God is way beyond our underatanding. That's why I find it funny that people go against religion because God was a "mass murderer". So you are judgding God on what others a few million years ago had characterized him as in their fiction?
@@Ignasimp I think that's missing the point. Criticizing God as a mass murderer is not judging God, since atheists don't believe a God exists. It would be quite foolish to judge the morality of something which doesn't exist. Rather they are judging those people who characterized him that way and asking why you would see yourself as continuous with that tradition.
@@APaleDot Atheists actually just simplify everything. Pay attention to how an atheist mocks God. Invisible Man in the clouds with a beard. So they are not engaging with the topic as if God is more than human, they just assume he is a human, and humans are best off not killing.
@@Pangora2 Are you suggesting that something being "more" than human would justify it committing genocide? Wouldn't we hold it to a _higher_ moral standard if it was more than human?
He doesn't like the label, but he doesn't believe God is real, so he's an atheist by its actual definition. What he himself calls atheist bears no resemblance to the term as it's used by regular people.
Nice job. This is something I've been failing to persuade my fellow Christians of for a while. Not sure if this will come off as a compliment, but as a Christian, I'm a big fan of your work. It's hard when the debate involves an atheist that is blind to their own presuppositions. This is what happens nearly every time. While you, actually present Christianity honestly, then argue for the validity of alternative presuppositions. An actual conversation then becomes possible. A breath of fresh air. I hope your disposition rubs off on the rest of the non believers. I hear you talk, and it's like listening to the pre converted me. I would still be in your camp if I had been left alone to continue philosophizing to find the truth. But, glory to God, I was snatched up out of my disbelief by a direct, observable, and impossible collection of supernatural occurrence, and miracles. If God is real, if he wants relationship with man, then we should be able experience him outside of our minds. I have. Every Christian I know has. One can only prove God to be reasonable, or possible through logic. But, in the end, the Bible says, "taste and see", for a reason. Because taste is something discovered by experience, not by calculations. You can prove a donut isn't poisonous, declare it will taste good, and break down it's chemical composition, but to taste it, you have to take a bite. Now, I understand this isn't proof or anything. I had explanations for how miracles could be possible without God before I believed, so I'm sure you do too. I used to say "God ain't real, but prayer works". Hard to say that when face to face with such power. It would be the equivalent of a flat earther, looking back at earth, standing on the moon. They have a million explanations for how those images from NASA came to be, but when the exact same image enters into their own two eyes, it would be hard to deny. Easy to say "he's lying or his eyes lied to him", harder to say your own eyes are lying.
Christians didn't arrive at their belief by way of philosophy, and science. Instead, the philosophical, and scientific defenses of Christianity came from people trying to explain what the heck just happened to them. We didn't search out and find God, but God came down and found us.
In this clip, before 'God is the ultimate fictional character', it is said 'In the biblical corpus'. That was left out, and the meaning changes noticeably when doing so
@@BBanzajno, just that apparently nobody understands anything… Taxes? Don’t get them. Pornstars? Thought that was a show about selling stuff. High level mathematics? Nah 5+5 is all you’ll need. Quantum mechanics? Pretty sure quantum break is a movie, duh. Literally anything complicated.
@@brianwhite9288 I can't tell whether this is a religious response, Mr. burning bush, or if you are trying to say, that you are an atheist. But in any case "me too" is probably good enough for an answer.
well, what do you mean by "answer"? is that any broad response to a given call? or is it a relevant and timely reply to a specific line of questioning? because then, we'd have to take a very close look at the credibility of the interrogator's position because i happen to think that's very important to the outcome of the conversation blah blah blah
I believe he once answered "I act as if God does exist and I'm terrified that he might". That's hard to get across well in an interview when a million eyes are on you at all times. It's a statement that's extremely vulnerable to mischaracterisation, so best to avoid it entirely, especially when you're ruling out lying for yourself.
@@Aetherian1 one of the issues with his responses on anything but particularly in regards to religion is he doesn't ever answer yes or no and none of his answer are concise. Q- are you christian A- it depends on what you mean by christian Q- do you believe in Jesus and god as defined in the bible A- to properly discuss this we would need days to devote to this question. (Also would probably say something about the metaphorical substrate and the hero's journey) He never answers anything.
The most successful grifter can convince your audience (especially when they have opposing views or beliefs) that you are on their side of an argument.
I think Alex is one of the few modern atheists that could have a valuable exchange with JP. When Matt Dillahunty debated him, i had the feeling Matt was relying on his experience debating dumb american creationists and wasn't really interacting with JP's more intetersting ideas. Given JP also gave some amount of bullshit for Matt to easily debunk but i think we lost the opportunity to really get to the bottom of things which Alex might aime for with his more subtle approach.
Sitting beside a devout christian who's agreeing with him! I share the same belief as you and I believe he goes to this length for the right, and also because he often states, "do not lie".. So he definitely must perform mental gymnastics on this for his audience and also his own values.
I'm still half convinced he's a closet believer, but if not I'm surprised he managed to say "god is the ultimate fictional character", I'm sure he doesn't wanna upset his fans lmao.
nah. his hesitation to firmly plant his feet tells me he doesn't believe at all, but doesn't want to offend that demo of his supporters. he can't openly speak about it from a completely detached positon. he's fake, is compromised, has secular stakes and interests... false prophet lol
It's the most strategic position to take considering his background. If he goes full blown Christian he would have to give up psychology. If he continues to look like he could accept Jesus at any moment, he gets to keep the attention of a certain demographic that will continue to pray for his salvation. I'm not religious but from what I understand, a Christian isn't supposed to play those kinds of games.
@@olive4naito well, someone could argue he isn't playing a game, that he's having spiritual battles and needs further support. he's so close! let's all get behind him because if he comes over to this side, it would be a huge win!
@kryptonite3175 See? It's 100% working. I swear he's not upsetting a single theist lol. It's kind of a big deal. He'd probably be a political genius. I've always heard him use the word "machiavellian" in a negative sense, but imo he's a great example of one. He also does it without ever actually lying, he only goes for non-answers, but somehow it doesn't come through as a "sin of omission" to believers. I think there's a big lesson here on how to cleverly bypass the tribalism of some groups of people.
@@tacitozetticci9308 i'm not convinced he got here completely intentionally. but being an atheist who pushes for traditional values based on anthropology and utility would not gain much traction among most conservatives, who'll dismiss you based on the pedigree of your ideas before they consider their validity. he'd still gain a following, of course, but not at the level that he's currently embraced. even left and right politicians typically have to pay lip service to "the almighty." it seems like he's painted himself into a corner and each serious probe into his faith pins him tighter against the wall. so long as he's able to bite his lip each time and not make any explicit admission of disbelief, the most ardent of his followers are willing to turn a blind eye, since they need as many credible and capable mouthpieces as they can find for their position. despite all that, gallup polls are reporting lower interest in religion in america over time
To really understand jordan, you should read some Jung. About what should be at top, peterson uses our guilty conscience as proof that we all have inherent divine values. It just took humanity a lot of time to find it. From unconscious animals to polytheism to abrahamic religion is humanity's journey in choosing different divine values and finally settling on one.
the problem with Jung though is that he himself was very influenced by the heretical "Christian" group called "Gnostics." Voegeling argues pretty conclusively that all ideologies (Nazism, feminism, communism. etc) are just modern forms of Gnosticism.
You're missing the point entirely. If your "god" only exists in human minds, you don't believe in God. You certainly don't believe in Christianity or Islam or any popular religion.
"If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire the philosopher And that is why as a chaos mage I worship The G-man from Half-Life 👍
Not the full Voltaire quote from his letter to the Prince of Prussia. As it is usually cut off. “If God did not exist, He would have to be invented. But all nature cries aloud that he does exist: that there is a supreme intelligence, an immense power, an admirable order, and everything teaches us our own dependence on it.” There's a reason Voltaire was a deist, and in fact was very dismissive of atheism. I'll use a different quote from him. "It is absolutely necessary that the idea of a Supreme Being shall be deeply engraved in people's minds. Atheism is a pernicious monster that, if it is not so deadly as fanaticism, it is nearly always fatal to virtue"
@@Kelsper Thank you for the full quote. I prefer to use the peices I like, but I'll never pass on an opportunity to learn something. I myself am an Omnist, I used to be an Atheist. I like that part of the quote because my faith is invented, I don't deny that. 👍
@@max_the_mantis5173 I only mention the full quote because it's usually quoted by atheists who don't know the full context. So I'll apologise for assuming that, I have no beef with you. I'm a Deist myself so you may understand how I can be a little picky that not many seem to know the full context of that quote is kind of the *opposite* point of what atheists quoting it are implying. :)
@@Kelsper Intreguing stuff. My father was an Atheist, he was also a very painful, and fake man, that's part of why I am not an Atheist as an adult is because of the biases his teachings put on to my heart. Now that I have some semblance of autonomy over my own life, I love learning about all the things he wouldn't talk about do to his own truama with a certain monotheistic faith. Personally I am polythiestic, I'm an Omnist, but I made up my own faith which I call Corism. I have found that weather my favorite gods are real or not doesn't really matter to me anymore, because what they teach me has a real affect on my life, I could be worshipping the concepts under any other name, but it's the concept itself thats key. I joke that a video game character is my God but really he's closer to my own shadow, a thing that once explored brought out certain concepts Knowledge, and Death, although the names I know that form by is Azreal because it was the name given to me in a special dream. So naturally as a budding wizard I focus on the effects of the stories and gods instead of trying to grasp the reality of it, because when I searched for those kinds of answers that is part of what lead me into a particularly nasty Psychosis. Not at all an uncommon thing for someone like me, but also not something I recommend or wish to repeat. 💛
Thank you!!! I've been grappling with this for ages! He clearly doesn't believe what religious people tend to believe: the literal existence of a creator of the universe that is conscious and hears our prayers. Yet he calls those of that sat so religious because we believe in a value hierarchy! He is indeed an atheist!
Not quite I think. Jordan believes that religions characterize the divine place using fictional stories. The difference is that Atheists do not think that a divine place exists, but rather entirely invented by humans as part of natural and evolutionary means. Jordan on the other hand believes the divine place actually exists and that it is responsible for why the value hierarchies and religions evolved in the first place. So in essence, Atheists think it's a human invention whereas Jordan believes it is a human discovery.
Well how does that explain Jordan’s inability to answer the question “if humans ceased to exist would god continue to exist?” If it were the case that Jordan believed that a divine place actually existed outside of human metaphor, then he would easily be able to answer the question as yes. But no, Jordan can’t answer the question, as seen in his debate with Matt Dillahunty.
He calls that place "divine as a matter of definition", but that's a word game. He chooses the word divine because it calls to religious imagery, but there's nothing about it that requires religion. He could've called it "your top ten values" if he wanted. He's obfuscating the truth on purpose.
No, JP _never_ says that the divine place _actually_ exists. What he says is that it is _by definition_ the most important thing. And, being _important_ it is _true._ Here is the sleight of hand: true does not mean _actually_ existing. It just means that, since as an idea God is affecting people's lives, he exists in our heart. Since divinity is _defined_ as the most important thing, and important things are those affecting reality the most, and something that affects reality exists, God exists. As much as Achilles and Ulysses, or the Brother Karamazov: they exist as they affect our lives and thinking process. This is what JP means as "existing". By this definition of existing, he is right that everyone believes in God's existence: who could deny the relevance in society of the concept of God? But no where JP said that he actually believes its existence.
That is your interpretation of what he said, but it’s the most uncharitable to the words he’s using. You have to disregard what almost all of he’s actually saying in order to replace it with something completely different that would make more sense. It’s much more likely he’s an atheist cosplaying as a Christian for social capital.
When John Rich asked Peterson if he would turn his life over to the Lord, he said 'I already did that, long time ago'. So there is a contradiction in what he says.
What's your point? Philosophers have always torn each other to shreds. I'd love for you to name something Jordan has made that no one should dare criticize it
@Rebypox real philosophers have mountains of their own work behind them to earn the right to tear apart the work of others. This guy is in his early 20s at most and already seems to know everything.
That’s because religion is such a complex thing to unravel when talking about how the universe truly works at least from a Christian point of view. He did a series with the daily wire that looks at the Bible. Look it up it’s called Exodus.
@@NorthmanEdits No. It's because he very cautiously is trying to not offend his biggest fan camp. Any person with this kind of education would very easily be able to formulate a straight thought. For example: Bottom line: No!... but here is the implication etc.
Glad that Alex came forward to correct himself saying he misunderstood Petersons view/explanation here and that he can understand it now. That central confusion for Alex was the use of the term/phrase “fictional character”, but through further examination he recently corrected himself in their new convo! Very fun to watch lol
JP is a bullshitter by saying everything you hear him saying & not saying it at the same time. He bullshitted his way through that convo by using very precise & unnecessary convoluted language to say & not say what you hear him saying. If this doesn’t make sense, it explains JP in very precise, repetitive & convoluted language.
@@controversial1994 JP speaks finely… I think you may be the one having issues… much like the OP Perhaps complicated issues and matter require a bit more complicated wording…
@@seonggkim Confusing ‘complicated’ with ‘convoluted’ & ‘highfalutin’ tells me you probably didn’t understand what JP said. Get a dictionary & maybe you may have something intelligible & worthwhile to say. Until such time…
@@controversial1994 again, you are rigid as a rock. Go study language and come back when you truly understand how language works. Perhaps the idea of a “greater semantic range” has no meaning to you. That’s okay.
And Campbell's statement is utterly different than Peterson's "God is the highest value in the hierarchy of values." Values don't transcend all categories of thinking. Campbell wasn't saying that God represents or reflects our values at all.
I have been saying he is atheist for years already. He is ALWAYS most slippery when asked about it. I am convinced that JP is an atheist that doesn't believe the people in general have the capacity for morals and ethics without religion. But as a known figure, he can't say directly that God is fiction but other people should believe it. I agree with him actually. I think anyone that doesn't believe an atheist can have morals or ethics is someone protecting it, and THEY wouldn't have moral or ethics if not for their religion. JP usually shows himself in other instances as a follower of evolutionary psychology. He believes that if religions naturally emerged in ALL or MOST human societies, then they provide some evolutionary benefit. The God of gaps is the atavistic dread of the hunted.
Not quite. Although, this is a year old now. I have a feeling that you've surpassed this stage of late. You appear to be progressing to the next stage currently - a lengthy but exciting; then disturbing, and then amazing journey, indeed.
wishmakr I enjoy listening to him too. I like to be open minded and hear all the issues and problems he discusses. Unfortunately, he's now EVERYWHERE on my TH-cam. If anyone has recommendations for different intellectuals like Peterson, preferably unbiased and logical, please let me know! I'm okay with them leaning either way I just don't want to listen to a full blown leftist or right wing person who will make everything a fight between the other side.
@@desireandfire You’re terrible at lying. You aren’t looking for contrasting perspective, you want someone who already agrees with you so you can point to THEIR reasoning to absolve you of any need to think critically for yourself. You’re being passive and indirect about your desire for confirmation bias reinforcement. And Peterson? JORDAN Peterson? Logical? Unbiased? What delusional reality do you live in? Dude has built his entire career by creating bias confirming content for paranoid conspiracy theorists. Miss me with that pseudo-intellectual hippo shit 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@albuquerquehotspot7835 It does make sense, the idea is when a theist actually studies their religion it leads them to atheism because they would start to realize the issues and the flawed thinking, the more they have to think about it
@@Thornskade a key point of many religious beliefs is a human mind can’t make sense of its creator. That’s like saying a character in a video game could make sense of its creator. The human mind is so limited on spectrums unimaginable, such as our senses (the visible light spectrum for humans is very small), that the idea we could logically come to a concise correct conclusion of our creator is pure nonsense. There is not flawed issue here. Something created this. There is no other logical explanation. To think that something came from nothing is complete illogical nonsense.
Ok, let me rephrase this: "Only someone who can admit the existence of God, independent of his knowledge or lack of it, can realize that they deny the existence of God". Unless you're talking about the Devil, this doesn't really make sense.
When you truly study the religion you believe in, instead of merely praising and worshipping it. You will realise that it is all human and there is nothing divine about it. Think about it: Why does a God require faith when everything else requires truth. You may think that it is an exception but every other time truth trumps faith so why would the most powerful being in the cosmos prefer faith over truth.
I love Jordan Peterson and have followed him for years. He's definitely an atheist haha but I think he believes religion is important and doesn't want to push atheist beliefs on the majority of people who he believes need religion
Alex, I am stuck in a country that's 98% one religion and thr is no comfort, no room to breath. Listening to you is being able to breath. Thank you for being you.
Just thank god you don’t have two religions warring, like for example Gaza. Or no religion spurring a movement of disillusioned youth towards destroying the very country they were brought up in.
@@Mevlinous why must we always compare ourselves to the absolute worst thing in the world to endure our pain? minorities in my country are still lynched and bombed but thank god im not in gaza.. smh
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. Are you suggesting that you have difficulty understanding what Jordan is trying to convey? Because you seem proud of it, that’s why it’s confusing 🤣 .. the irony. …. Jordan is only difficult to understand if: you’re not listening. Or, you’ve got some TH-camr twisting his words.
I understood him perfectly? "The divine" is the ultimate transcendental value system we orient ourselves towards and strive for. I often feel the criticism "they use so many words but say nothing" is used by people who just dislike the speaker in question.
I agree with Feynman, but he was a physicist, a subject of rather objective nature. This topic is extremely subjective and in my opinion, impossible to "know". There is a clear difference.
@UpperclassHomosexual just because millions don’t understand, doesn’t mean he doesn’t make sense. He makes perfect sense to me, and when he doesn’t, I challenge his stances for myself. By no means is anyone advocating for unabated support of JP.
Because some of us feel compelled to call out the ludicrousness. The religious all fall into 2 categories; those that can't think critically and those that choose not to
@@miiguel3550 Where would an entity that can suspend the laws of physics, make planets, people and poodles and who would worry about Bob tugging Barry off come from?
@@miiguel3550 still seems more likely than a random sky daddy that has a contradictory book that well... Contradicts everything it claims to have happened.
You're such an amazingly lazy thinker that you honestly seem to believe that being "influenced by Jung" means you're right about everything and nothing you say can ever be questioned. Literally everyone, who listened to Peterson for more than 20 seconds, knows he's influenced by Jung. That's no secret, you clown.
I feel like UFC has had a decent year In many ways. Yes the Apex slop has been the worst but 298, 299, 300 were all pretty significant events with really good fights. 302 main event was great, im excited for 304 and 305. I really only watch the ppvs now though. And its not my job to wind through gassed heavyweights with womens bantamweight headliners. Bless you Slacky
Thank you for unmasking him. He shouldn't fear being honest. I hope it's not a matter of being afraid of losing the amount of money that he gets from so many Christians. I myself am a Christian and I value the effort that he's put into fighting for values and free speech, but I want him to be blunt and straightforward in everything he says, not selectively.
"I've been saying that Peterson is an atheist for years" Your definition of what that word means is probably not his definition. JP is precise in language and tends to avoid self identification with such fuzzy language.
@@Kidd_SS313 "he tends to overcomplicate the most simplest ideas. " As do I 🙂 I despise binary thinking. If I am asked whether I like something; I question where is the threshold that converts a continuum into exactly two categories; yes, no. In my mind there's usually at least 3 categories; yes, don't care, and no. Well, actually there would be a "no opinion" which isn't a value but with some thought I might be able to categorize a thing. I love listening to Jordan Peterson because he is precise; and if there's nuance in the concept, it will become nuanced in language. The word "atheist" is one of those words with considerable nuance and vastly different meanings. So he will try to figure out what YOU mean by it, before saying whether it describes HIM.
@@AnimeReference "posit his own contrary definition" Contrary to what authority, exactly? Atheism isn't an "ism"; it has no properties of its own other than disbelief in a thing that also has no particular definition. Except of course, for many people atheism IS an "ism" with properties, dogmas, even preachers (Dawkins) and churches (the Seattle Atheist Church). In those cases they usually adopt "Humanism" as the religion. There's no "God" per se; but there IS advocates and prophets and preachers of Humanism. Even a Wiki page!
The comments on this video are so incredibly intelligent AND funny I regained hope in today's society. I wish I were friends with these guys in real life.
Jordan Peterson is a very risk-averse, cautious, and community-based emotional person who is actually cosplaying an analytical & logical person, that's why he likes to half-ass whatever he says or explains.
@@adrianjudedelacruz9536 I understan that JP says "and man made god in his image", that's fiction isn't it? exactlly the opposite the Bible says. I don't know if you are a christian or not, but if you are do you agree with JP or with the Bible? because it's impossible to agree with both.
@@Pados_music i am a Christian my man. And JP was indeed not a Christian back then. He was only interested in the psychological aspect of the Bible, as her daughter relates to us. But now he is coming closer and closer.
Good observation. Incidentally that is similar to how we Hindus view theistic ideas. As pre-existing psychological archetypes present in the mind. So platonic forms which are pre-programmed in the human mind for discovery. We call them "devatAs". This God is a state of consciousness that can be accessed by our efforts.
"good old Plato's concept of ideas without giving him credit for it" Attribution might be better. Plato is dead; no need to be giving him credit since he cannot use it.
The "higher" is the inner. It's an ever-expanding, infinite, collective consciousness that flows through everything. Religion is nothing more than mankind's failed attempt to understand this concept.
@@Forrest1989 that sounds very vague. What's the evidence for that "collective consciousness that flows through everything"? At first glance, it sounds like the perfect kind of philosophy to justify any atrocity for the sake of the "collective consciousness" or the "greater good".
@@naiyo87 that's your takeaway from this comment..? What an idiotic assumption to make from what I said. It's a collective consciousness, and it doesn't have a book or a prophet. It's called Pantheism, the belief that everything is one. When is the last time you've seen a Pantheist commit a horrible crime in the name of Source Consciousness?? By all means, tell me. I'll give you as much time as you need 😂 this consciousness is the energy that can be found everywhere, and in everything. I don't worship it, and I've never heard of one person that does. It doesn't ask for burnt offerings, for virgins to be thrown into volcanoes, and it certainly won't burn you for not believing in it. There are no churches, no tithing, no offerings, no good and evil, no extremism, and no prophets. It's being studied in quantum physics, but our understanding of energy and consciousness needs to be taken to a completely different level before it's seen as fact. It will get there, eventually, but the problem is people like you, who dismiss it, while knowing literally nothing about it. How can something be studied if no one is ballsy enough to study it? When you get laughed out of the laboratory for bringing it up, or lose your funding because you were brave enough to study it, despite what your peers say, there's not much to be done, now is there? People like you have already decided that no such consciousness exists, so you move onto something else. Remind me, isn't science supposed to be non-biased..? The way that I see it is that Pantheism works well with science. I believe in both micro and macro evolution, the big bang, and that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. The only thing that I would like to expand upon here is that I believe that biological evolution is the physical embodiment of this expansion of consciousness. I believe that good and evil are subjective terms that mean little to nothing, and that religion is a mechanism of control. We decide what is good or bad to do through evolution, and I believe that creationism isn't science. Even Richard Dawkins called Pantheism a "sexed up version of atheism," because unlike you, he had done enough research on the subject to know that we don't view this philosophy in a religious way, whatsoever.
After following JP for years even in pre-fame I can say that he is not putting on an act here. But yeah he’s like philosophically not too different from an atheist and I wish he’d accept that.
it's not a question of self-acceptance. it's a business and political strategy to straddle the fence, as not to ruffle the feathers of his closest allies
That's still pretty reductionist making God seem like “the spirit that you must emulate in order to thrive” (actual Peterson quote) instead of the source of all being as revealed in scripture. As a Christian I think Alex is right
I personally reject the divine or if not, I am my own divine I do things because they make me happy. I fall in love, because love makes me happy. I help others, because helping others makes me happy. I am an egoist I am my own reason. I am my own divine
What if being cruel to others makes me happy? In what sense would it be wrong for me to do that if I am my own divine and I can define what is good and bad based on what makes me happy?
@@moose7314 I don’t know, i’m not a moralist but I will say that my boyfriend is a sadist and an egoist too and I’m a little bit masochistic so I help him and he helps me reach happiness. I don’t try to define what is moral and what isn’t. Really? I think it’s all bullshit. And I’ll let other people to define their ethics for themselves.
@@moose7314 We all act that way already, don’t we? Take yourself, or this fictional sadist you reference. What sadistic pleasure does he deny himself, even though it’s entirely possible to indulge? I’m willing to bet he doesn’t torture animals/people because of the consequences to HIMSELF. Isn’t that how we all live? When we return a lost wallet, we do it because we get a kick out of being a good boy. Even if we do it for God, our brains are getting a little dopamine rush. “I’m doing something godly.” When have you ever really done something you didn’t want to do, which wasn’t for your own benefit in some way?
@@moose7314 If being cruel to others really makes you happy, you are infernal, a devil 😈, a danger to a moral, kind, loving society, should be recognized as such and be cast out, as allegedly "Satan" was cast out of heaven for rebellion. You need to be isolated and treated for your condition if any effective treatment is available -- although certain hallucinogenic drugs that could actually help are still banned worldwide by a bunch of effed-up governments.
@@jackduane5555 If you honestly think that Peterson is just "talking in word salad" than you didn't listen carefully at all. If you watch enough material of one person you gonna find something stupid with everyone, even "this" guy. Both of them have a certain view which in their head is the most objective way to look at things. To see who contests the other one's ideas the best you need a civil discussion. Emotions shouldn't play any role whatsoever.
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบรองชนะเลิศ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zPm8ClLVhoE/mqdefault.jpg)
Full video, “Deconstructing Jordan Peterson on Religion” is on my TH-cam channel. If you disagree with me, check out the rest of my presentation.
I'm curious as to your point here. I watched your full video and agree with you. In fact, I came to this conclusion some years ago. But I'm curious as to what *you're* trying to accomplish with the video.
@@rquaidpro He's a TH-camr. He makes a living speaking about trending topics.
Pin this!
What do you mean “full”? And what do you mean “video”?
@@rquaidproJP is extremely annoying.
He intentionally wants to be hard to pin point when debating god, but is clear he doesn't believe that god is as matter of fact real.
Or to be clear, it's as real as money is to a physicist.
He went through a bunch of videos of JP that I would never have gone through and brings a conclusion to a question to which he tends to be particularly misleading.
And yes, I do belive he is intellectually dishonest.
But what do you mean by “Jordan”? And what do you mean by “Peterson”?
What do you mean by “mean”???
*Starts crying*
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
What do you mean by “B”
wEll
Bro was so religious he came full circle and became an atheist💀
he never proclaimed that he was religious to begin with
exactly. I love how people concluded this or that ideological point about him only for him not to fit the predetermined pattern, making the same people complain about it. it also happens with negative points too.
Catch him any other day, he’s still a religionist. He has the ability to talk himself in and out of arguments.😂
Now he is enroute on the same circle
He just defends religion which most mainstream atheists don’t.
He literally says he's a "Christian" because it is "good for society," not because he believes it is true.
it depends of what you mean by true...
Peterson equates utility (goodness) with truth.
@@GottfriedLeibnizYT depends on what you mean by goodness.
What does that mean?
@@spritvio639 He's going along to get along, knowing there isn't evidence to support it as true.
JP is definitely an atheist but he's being very careful to not upset his conservative audience since a lot of them have helped his career as a public speaker, writer and podcaster.
Might be a recent change. He'd often talk about the disgusting nature of those without belief in a creator
He also needs to put food on his table too. It is his source of income.
its funny how leftists always accuse "conservatives" of grifting when it's the exact opposite. Your side are the grifters. Your side has no morals, so why wouldn't they be grifting?
You clearly haven’t watched his interview with Alex on Jordan’s channel.
@hafizuddinghafar2867 Jp doesn't need more money, he can live in comfort for 100s of years if he lived long enough
"Wash your penis" - Jordan Peterson
So that’s why the commies hate him. He triggers their (plural) gender dysphoria.
I can't argue with that one
It was this JP quote that made me start washing my penis. Thank you JP. You were the father I never had 😢
Well, first we need to define “penis,” and then we need to define “wash.” Is “to wash” an act of moral righteousness? Releasing impurities? Or is it an act of pleasure and selfishness?
You see, Jesus used to wash the feet of people. What exactly did he do by “wash”?
Perhaps we need to ask Jesus to wash our-
hahah
What's at the top of my value hierarchy is my mom 🗿
That should be it bro. But I've also heared moms that love god over their own children, and... also the case of my mother who has actually said that (she is a good mother and I love her over anything though), but I mean, people really put beliefs over their very own blood and family. I will continue trying to open her narrow view
Yeah we are all huge fans of her
True. But it can be difficult to follow that If a parent has drug issues etc.,
It’s Unfortunate. God is simply the Existence of Love.
Everyone Believes Love exists.
Atheists Unnecessarily Overcomplicate it.
It’s a Shame
Cool
@@damianedwards8827Love and sacrifice exists. That’s our mom.
“It depends on what your definition of is is” - Bill Clinton
Also Jordan Peterson. I think.
@@youtubespag every charlatan ever!
First we have to define "definition".
@@guyincognito5663 first we have to define “first”.
@@J.T.Stillwell3 most importantly, we have to define "we," so WE can distinguish ourselves from the OTHER
For the life of me, as a Christian, I simply cannot understand this Christian infatuation with Peterson. He says so much without saying anything at all. It’s astounding.
That's what I think too
I think if u can't explain Ur reason simply then u don't know what you are talking about 😅
Ya he’s pretty infuriating to listen to. He can’t seem to use the English language but has to deconstruct everything into oblivion
Exactly! I tried listening to what he had to say, but he talks in circles without ever saying much of anything.
My brother, as an atheist I respect you actually claiming Christianity when he doesn’t have the balls. Thank you.
This is simply cause some people lack the ability to understand what he’s saying
JP tried to say exactly ‘I’m an atheist.’ This was the best he could do.
If there were more atheists than Christians Peterson would try to grift them with Scientology
A TH-cam skit series parodying Jordan Peterson overcomplicating every little thing would be funny, like how Lil Windex parodies Eminem uncontrollably rhyming about everyday life
@@zzzzzz69 d’you know the one ‘Jordan Peterson vs. Peter Jordanson’?
@@Calligraphybooster no i didn't, thanks for that
Because a more nuanced explanation is superior than a title.
Whenever I listen to Jordan Peterson for some reason this quote always pops in mind: “If you can’t explain it simply then you do not understand it well enough.”
Yes but sometimes to explain it simply requires a dumbing down or a broken piece of the information that is not possible or ruins it. Sometimes I use fancy words Bcz other words don’t quite fit what I’m trying to mention.
Some people understand things and it’s elements better. To make the other person understand it is a different thing. Again u have ur own internal monologue and thoughts. And then u got the communication and language. They aren’t the same. So yes. One can understand something. But not explain it well
@@googlefaps5883 “If you can’t explain it simply then you do not understand it well enough.” 🤣
Mate thats einstein that said it
@@aang2976 no he didn't
@@diedoktor Source? Trust me bro or?
JP reminds me of "San Manuel Bueno Martir" by Miguel de Unamuno. A priest who doesn't believe in God but preaches him because he thinks its better for society to have a deity to believe in.
I think he does it for power and influence over naive religious people.
@@rasputozen this got too real
"It's better for society" on nothing. So you're saying these are literally people who don't believe in god but pray god?? Pure stupidity, that makes no sense.
for one to believe that is the right move is for them to admit having practically no faith in other people's civility or reason
for better or worse that is also the 18th century definition for Deism, what many of the founding fathers in the US were, they understood the cultural value of the Abrahamic religions.
At first it didn't sound like atheism, but afterward it did.
The branch of epistemology he bases his knowledge and what he considers a source of absolute and eternal truth is inconsistent with that of an atheist who tend to be naturalists, empiricists and rationally illiterate.
Saying this is atheism is an insult to everyone who isn’t an atheist. It’s like saying you don’t believe jahova is God therefore you are the same as an atheist who also disagrees with me.
@@にこ-c7l
No, I accept various categories of religions and worldviews, so I don't think calling Peterson an atheist offends the religious. He is redefining the God of the Bible as some sort of fiction. So he is not a Christian, but he also doesn't fit into any other religious category either for three reasons:
(1) He doesn't even believe that the god he has invented, has existence outside of humanity.
(2) Other religions don't want to define their religion around incorrect ideas of Christianity,
(3) A lot of people have such mind-dependent fictional gods, even atheists. They are a form of idol that doesn't fit into any formal religion.
So as an atheist, he's just not in the mainstream of today's atheists who criticize Christianity while enjoying the fruit of its culture. He is more like an old-fashioned atheist who, over the last several hundred years in the West, were friendly to Christianity due to an appreciation of the culture Christianity produces.
@@philosophyforum4668 A lot of people think fiction is the opposite or truth. He said believes in God but just not from materialist perspective. Idealism and rationalism is the opposite of atheism and there is also no empirical proof for jungian theory.
Edit: my brain is too small to write something coherent and comprehensive.
Are you implying that atheists are religious?
Nah, man.
He's a Christian, he just doesn't believe in it in the way most christians do.
He's a theist, he just doesn't believe in God in the way most theists do.
He's not an atheist, he just articulate his belief in God in the way that atheists do
So... Uhh...
Lol exactly
What Peterson says would be considered heresy in any religion.
JP isn't any one religion. Maybe it's him overthinking, but I think everyone would rather him just pick one instead of stealing from all of them. He says he believes in God, but doesn't hold to the Bible, doesn't hold to the Qu'ran, doesn't hold to the [insert holy book here], and then calls divinity fictional. Everything he says sounds smart, but his religious fluidity helps exactly no one.
He said god is a fictional figure
I honestly always thought he was an atheist, but knew he would lose such a large portion of his fan base if he admitted it so he played the part anyway. 🤷🏻♀️ I dunno. Just my thoughts on it, I could be wrong.
What do you mean "do" what do you mean "you" what do you mean "believe" what do you mean "god"
What do you mean what, what do you mean do, what do you mean you, what do you mean believe.
finally we're getting to the brass tacks of the conversation
@@jr8260 What do you mean "mean"?
What do you mean "Jordan", what do you mean "Peterson",... 😄
But yeah, I also saw him dissecting this sentence too. He does have a point, but if this is, how you start a conversation, you won't get very far.
Lmao 🤣
Peterson is agnostic. Whenever asked about existence of God, his first response is "Well, I'm afraid he might.". This is not something which neither theist nor atheist says.
You forget that you can be an agnostic believer or an agnostic atheist. You can lack belief in something while admitting it's possible for you to be wrong so some fear of it can still exist since you're honest enough to accept the possibility of being wrong.
youre either convinced a god exists or youre not.
@@katiebarber407 To me "convinced" is the wrong word to use as that suggests you are far more "convinced" than anyone who is agnostic should be. I'm an agnostic atheist but I would never use the word convinced to describe how I feel about it.
@@katiebarber407 According to atheist religion, What is wrong about genocide?
Should we ask mao zedong?
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable what the fuck is athiest religion? lmao. if you want to justify genocide, just look to the story of Noah's ark
JP is literally trying to play both sides & it's kind of funny because of the bowl of "tossed word salad" that he presents in every debate/conversation.
One would think he is one of them postmodanists
He sure does waffle a lot. He kinda sounds like what would happen if you picked out a bunch of philosophy books at random, stuck them all in a blender, then poured it all out onto the table.
@@tzenophilehe actually is.
Showdown: You VS JP
Make it a reality.
Why? Peterson is not even a Christian or theist. At least not one with a proper theological background.
Alex has invited him countless times to debate, Peterson is a coward
at this point, petersen's detractors know him better than he knows himself
@@axelnova123 i don't think so
@@issaavedra JP can handle it i believe.
Peterson's Rule: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
Just because you're too stupid to understand it doesn't mean it's bullshit
@@nilsteegen33 Typical fanboy response, no one dares criticize Professor Wordsalad. Peterson is a cranky old transphobe who is just smart enough to make dumb people think he's a genius.
Not really you’re just unintelligent
@@chapman2001 Brilliant analysis. Nice job. You're like a child covering his ears and yelling "nuh-UH! nuh-UH!" Grow up.
@@chapman2001 hurt Peterson fan?
"If God doesn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him"
- Voltaire
Stressed is just desserts spelled backwards - Joe Biden
The videos on the playlist on my channel shows why it is reasonable to believe God exisits!
@@arian3003 trollge lore
"God doesn't exist." - Hawking 2016
"No u" - God 2020
@@charlesj.easleyii7642 no God said that, you're mentally ill
Exactly! That's why I've always loved his work. While he may not be the best at formal debate; his insight, knowledge, and wisdom are certainly still quite uniquely valuable.
Peterson sometimes get confused by his own word salad
I think it technically qualifies as linguistic mince, seeing as he’s been on that carnivore diet and probably doesn’t “do” salad 😏
Example?
@@indigetes Asking for proof only to disengage when it’s presented is a bitch move
Sometimes? Give an example.
@@Andreas10012 Why? So you can willfully ignore that too? 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
I've been pointing this out for years.
JP is an atheist
who doesn't understand what words mean.
For a person hating postmodernism, he sure engages a lot in it.
I've been thinking this for years. But its remained in an almost ambiguous place. Its undeniable now.
@@panwp123 like when a question gets too hard and he just turns into a deconstructionist
A lot of "Agnostics" are just atheists
he uses all of his mental gymnastics in order to reframe and redefine words. but what is a woman, right?
He's not saying the divine is fictional. Hes saying our best understanding of it is reached through fiction.
I think you may be right in this instance. But based on everything I've heard from him, it seems pretty clear that he does not believe that a god actually exists.
Lol, why do I always find the "he is not saying...", "he meant...", "u misunderstood..." comments under JP videos?
It's almost as if...nobody, including himself, knows what he is talking ab.
he does believe in god he just refuses to be drawn into petty semantic games like this clown loves playing
Dostoyevsky.
Depends on what you mean by “the”
Incredibly helpful! Please make more finance videos like these. It’s really interesting to see the behind the scenes of what you pay, interest, benefits of financing/buying in cash. Keep up the great work Yianni!
If this isn't a bot, your comment got a laugh out of me lmao
"Does God exist ? I am afraid he might exist" - Jordan Peterson in one of his talks
I think this is the truth. He's not convinced either way. He hasn't ruled out either possibility. He has conceptualised and analysed both belief systems and concluded that Christianity is superior to atheism. Not the least because atheism often leads to nihilism.
He's somewhat agnostic, but instead of sitting on the fence, he's trying to be a Christian. You might think that he's a fake Christian, but a lot of Christians struggle with their faith and I don't see a good reason why he would be categorically different from them.
@@erikblomqvist8325 Most atheists aren't nihilists. It is true that most nihilists are atheists, though. So, JP doesn't want people at large to identify as atheist because that leads to a few extremists. I have some bad news about theism then...
@@piecrumbs9951 I don't agree with your assertion. Nihilism isn't extremism. Nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism. It underpins hedonism, because if life has no meaning, why wouldn't you seek pleasure and avoid pain as much as you can?
These belief systems don't help you get through hard times and aren't healthy for the individual, nor society. The individual needs a higher purpose to preserve and society needs individuals to make sacrifices for eachother and society as a whole.
@@erikblomqvist8325 "Nihilism isn't extremism." If you take extremism to mean the unusual or unordinary position, then it is extremism wether or not it is logical because most atheists wouldn't call themselves nihilists. Beliefs that were once extreme are sometimes adopted by the majority and become the norm, and vice versa.
There are, like with anything, multiple definitions of nihilism. If nihilism is simply the rejection of objective truth, meaning, or morality, then it would seem to logically follow (although Sam Harris and his ilk exist, and as I'm sure you know they argue for objective morality). I would argue it also follows from theism. There's no non-circular reason why a God's meaning or morality is any more "objective" than our own, as Plato outlined in Euthyphro. In fact, if I found out there was a God who had a particular purpose in mind for me that conflicted with what I already considered to be my purpose, I would still persue my own. If I found out there was a God who endorsed murder as pious, I would still condemn murder because my conscience won't allow me to do otherwise.
If nihilism is the assertion that there is absolutely no meaning at all, and that knowledge is impossible to obtain, then this doesn't seem to follow logically. As I said, we can prescribe our own meaning and purpose, and that meaning is just as real as any God's meaning or purpose. It also seems pretty clear we can use the scientific method to acheive knowledge, and we can and have implemented this knowledge into our lives to extraordinary effect. So I reject this nihilism.
Life does have meaning: our meaning. If I want to persue pleasure and avoid pain, I will do so for no other reason than because I want to. That's certainly good enough for me. I don't see why I need any reason other than that. Obviously I don't, because I, along with millions of others, do seek pleasure and avoid pain despite there not being any "objective" reason to in our view. I see that as a crushing blow to your assertion that "the individual needs a higher purpose to preserve" and I see the fact that largely secular societies in Europe have found enormous success and prosperity as a crushing blow to your assertion that society at large needs these beliefs. Clearly, atheism is no barrier to living a happy life.
@@erikblomqvist8325 Also, I should add that I do think there is an objective reason that I persue pleasure and avoid pain. Because I want to. Just like it is objectively true when I say "I like Star Wars" but subjective when I say "Star Wars is good." People may disagree that Star Wars is good, but they can't disagree that I like Star Wars. If I were to say "you ought to persue pleasure and avoid pain," that is subjective. If somebody wanted to be a masochist, I can't objectively tell them they ought not be one. But if I were to say "I want to persue pleasure and avoid pain," that is objectively the case. I do objectively want to, but not for any objective reason.
He isn't saying the divine *is* fiction, he's saying we *characterize* it with fiction.
But then our concept of God is just a characterization of the divine, i.e. fiction.
@@APaleDot yes, because God is way beyond our underatanding. That's why I find it funny that people go against religion because God was a "mass murderer". So you are judgding God on what others a few million years ago had characterized him as in their fiction?
@@Ignasimp
I think that's missing the point. Criticizing God as a mass murderer is not judging God, since atheists don't believe a God exists. It would be quite foolish to judge the morality of something which doesn't exist.
Rather they are judging those people who characterized him that way and asking why you would see yourself as continuous with that tradition.
@@APaleDot Atheists actually just simplify everything. Pay attention to how an atheist mocks God. Invisible Man in the clouds with a beard. So they are not engaging with the topic as if God is more than human, they just assume he is a human, and humans are best off not killing.
@@Pangora2
Are you suggesting that something being "more" than human would justify it committing genocide? Wouldn't we hold it to a _higher_ moral standard if it was more than human?
i think jordan also said something like, theres no such thing as atheist because everybody without fail has something on top of his value hierarchy..
Not to mention that even in the denial is a recognition of His existence.
@@carriebell3566 No, it obviously doesn't.
He doesn't like the label, but he doesn't believe God is real, so he's an atheist by its actual definition. What he himself calls atheist bears no resemblance to the term as it's used by regular people.
@@carriebell3566 Santa Claus doesn't exist because I deny him.
@Carrie Bell that is some faulty and unsound logic. I deny the existence of unicorns. Am I somehow acknowledging their existence?
Nice job. This is something I've been failing to persuade my fellow Christians of for a while. Not sure if this will come off as a compliment, but as a Christian, I'm a big fan of your work. It's hard when the debate involves an atheist that is blind to their own presuppositions. This is what happens nearly every time. While you, actually present Christianity honestly, then argue for the validity of alternative presuppositions. An actual conversation then becomes possible. A breath of fresh air. I hope your disposition rubs off on the rest of the non believers. I hear you talk, and it's like listening to the pre converted me. I would still be in your camp if I had been left alone to continue philosophizing to find the truth. But, glory to God, I was snatched up out of my disbelief by a direct, observable, and impossible collection of supernatural occurrence, and miracles. If God is real, if he wants relationship with man, then we should be able experience him outside of our minds. I have. Every Christian I know has. One can only prove God to be reasonable, or possible through logic. But, in the end, the Bible says, "taste and see", for a reason. Because taste is something discovered by experience, not by calculations. You can prove a donut isn't poisonous, declare it will taste good, and break down it's chemical composition, but to taste it, you have to take a bite. Now, I understand this isn't proof or anything. I had explanations for how miracles could be possible without God before I believed, so I'm sure you do too. I used to say "God ain't real, but prayer works". Hard to say that when face to face with such power. It would be the equivalent of a flat earther, looking back at earth, standing on the moon. They have a million explanations for how those images from NASA came to be, but when the exact same image enters into their own two eyes, it would be hard to deny. Easy to say "he's lying or his eyes lied to him", harder to say your own eyes are lying.
Christians didn't arrive at their belief by way of philosophy, and science. Instead, the philosophical, and scientific defenses of Christianity came from people trying to explain what the heck just happened to them. We didn't search out and find God, but God came down and found us.
Jordan Peterson isn't an atheist, he's Kermit the frog wearing a skin suit
Even then, its an insult to Kermit
@@Eli_Guy he's the Darth Sidious Kermit like the meme where Kermit is staring in the mirror at his dark side version
@@maxatrillionfatstacks Y e s
Your talents are wasted here.
This vídeo is absolutely FALSE. THEY are together today
In this clip, before 'God is the ultimate fictional character', it is said 'In the biblical corpus'. That was left out, and the meaning changes noticeably when doing so
Thank you so much for articulating this so clearly.
Is that a nervous banana-man Comfort sat next to Mr. Verbosity?
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.” - William Butler Yeats
There are worse than JP, surely
“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself” -Albert Einstein.
What are you saying? That you would like the dumbed down version for 6 year olds?
@@BBanzajno, just that apparently nobody understands anything…
Taxes? Don’t get them.
Pornstars? Thought that was a show about selling stuff.
High level mathematics? Nah 5+5 is all you’ll need.
Quantum mechanics? Pretty sure quantum break is a movie, duh.
Literally anything complicated.
I doubt if Einstein was able to explain is work to a six year old such that the six year old understood it.
@@BBanzajPrecise and lucid, not 'dumbed down'.
That's retarded, and I doubt that he said that. How many six year olds would understand relativity?
And then he has to say, that fiction is more real than real. Full circle back to "nobody is an atheist".
I am
@@brianwhite9288 I can't tell whether this is a religious response, Mr. burning bush, or if you are trying to say, that you are an atheist. But in any case "me too" is probably good enough for an answer.
@@biedl86 I was just saying I’m an atheist, as a throwaway comment
@@brianwhite9288 Me too.
Me three
If he believed in a god, he'd probably answer the question instead of dodging it 🤷🏻♀️
Depends on what you mean by "dodging".
well, what do you mean by "answer"? is that any broad response to a given call? or is it a relevant and timely reply to a specific line of questioning? because then, we'd have to take a very close look at the credibility of the interrogator's position because i happen to think that's very important to the outcome of the conversation blah blah blah
I believe he once answered "I act as if God does exist and I'm terrified that he might".
That's hard to get across well in an interview when a million eyes are on you at all times. It's a statement that's extremely vulnerable to mischaracterisation, so best to avoid it entirely, especially when you're ruling out lying for yourself.
@@Aetherian1 one of the issues with his responses on anything but particularly in regards to religion is he doesn't ever answer yes or no and none of his answer are concise.
Q- are you christian
A- it depends on what you mean by christian
Q- do you believe in Jesus and god as defined in the bible
A- to properly discuss this we would need days to devote to this question. (Also would probably say something about the metaphorical substrate and the hero's journey)
He never answers anything.
@@GameTimeWhy depends on what you mean by “depends on what you mean by”
Okay I really actually liked what JP said. But you are SO RIGHT, Alex.
He practically verbalized WHY I am now and atheist and not religious.
The most successful grifter can convince your audience (especially when they have opposing views or beliefs) that you are on their side of an argument.
Yh but what do you mean by Jordan ?
what do you mean by Peterson?
what do you mean by is ?
what do you mean by an ?
And what do you mean by atheist?
😆
That's essentially what Peterson does
I do mean.. things...
@@aktab9 when someone’s asks him about the god topic 😆
@@ivarbrouwer197 😆
Great discussion. Neither really changed my mind, rather at this time gave me things to ponder.
Kindly have a videotaped conversation with Jordan Peterson about this. I'd love to see it.
dude won't ever accept a talk he can't "win"
@@nanoblast5748 Which dude?
I think Alex is one of the few modern atheists that could have a valuable exchange with JP. When Matt Dillahunty debated him, i had the feeling Matt was relying on his experience debating dumb american creationists and wasn't really interacting with JP's more intetersting ideas. Given JP also gave some amount of bullshit for Matt to easily debunk but i think we lost the opportunity to really get to the bottom of things which Alex might aime for with his more subtle approach.
Whether or not Jordan Peterson is an atheist is never as important a consideration as whether or not Jordan Peterson is a crazy person.
What makes him crazy?
@@badreddine.elfejer 'foster free hate'? That makes no sense. Learn English
@@Andreas10012 he's a pseudo-intellectual
@@badreddine.elfejer a person possessing a highly developed intellect
@@jackduane5555 pseudo-intellectual = crazy?
Ngl I thought this was Mr Beast and i was shocked that mr beast has the time to discuss Jordan Peterson's religiousity lol
Nah this guy would have to actually be remotely productive to be Mr beast
Religiousity?! How do you even come up with a word like that? Spirituality is the word you're looking for, or religious beliefs?
'has the time'? He's got plenty of time because he doesn't actually do anything
Sitting beside a devout christian who's agreeing with him! I share the same belief as you and I believe he goes to this length for the right, and also because he often states, "do not lie".. So he definitely must perform mental gymnastics on this for his audience and also his own values.
I'm still half convinced he's a closet believer, but if not I'm surprised he managed to say "god is the ultimate fictional character", I'm sure he doesn't wanna upset his fans lmao.
nah. his hesitation to firmly plant his feet tells me he doesn't believe at all, but doesn't want to offend that demo of his supporters. he can't openly speak about it from a completely detached positon. he's fake, is compromised, has secular stakes and interests... false prophet lol
It's the most strategic position to take considering his background. If he goes full blown Christian he would have to give up psychology. If he continues to look like he could accept Jesus at any moment, he gets to keep the attention of a certain demographic that will continue to pray for his salvation. I'm not religious but from what I understand, a Christian isn't supposed to play those kinds of games.
@@olive4naito well, someone could argue he isn't playing a game, that he's having spiritual battles and needs further support. he's so close! let's all get behind him because if he comes over to this side, it would be a huge win!
@kryptonite3175
See? It's 100% working.
I swear he's not upsetting a single theist lol. It's kind of a big deal.
He'd probably be a political genius. I've always heard him use the word "machiavellian" in a negative sense, but imo he's a great example of one.
He also does it without ever actually lying, he only goes for non-answers, but somehow it doesn't come through as a "sin of omission" to believers.
I think there's a big lesson here on how to cleverly bypass the tribalism of some groups of people.
@@tacitozetticci9308 i'm not convinced he got here completely intentionally. but being an atheist who pushes for traditional values based on anthropology and utility would not gain much traction among most conservatives, who'll dismiss you based on the pedigree of your ideas before they consider their validity. he'd still gain a following, of course, but not at the level that he's currently embraced. even left and right politicians typically have to pay lip service to "the almighty." it seems like he's painted himself into a corner and each serious probe into his faith pins him tighter against the wall. so long as he's able to bite his lip each time and not make any explicit admission of disbelief, the most ardent of his followers are willing to turn a blind eye, since they need as many credible and capable mouthpieces as they can find for their position. despite all that, gallup polls are reporting lower interest in religion in america over time
To really understand jordan, you should read some Jung. About what should be at top, peterson uses our guilty conscience as proof that we all have inherent divine values. It just took humanity a lot of time to find it. From unconscious animals to polytheism to abrahamic religion is humanity's journey in choosing different divine values and finally settling on one.
the problem with Jung though is that he himself was very influenced by the heretical "Christian" group called "Gnostics." Voegeling argues pretty conclusively that all ideologies (Nazism, feminism, communism. etc) are just modern forms of Gnosticism.
You're missing the point entirely. If your "god" only exists in human minds, you don't believe in God. You certainly don't believe in Christianity or Islam or any popular religion.
"If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire the philosopher
And that is why as a chaos mage I worship The G-man from Half-Life 👍
Not the full Voltaire quote from his letter to the Prince of Prussia. As it is usually cut off.
“If God did not exist, He would have to be invented. But all nature cries aloud that he does exist: that there is a supreme intelligence, an immense power, an admirable order, and everything teaches us our own dependence on it.”
There's a reason Voltaire was a deist, and in fact was very dismissive of atheism. I'll use a different quote from him.
"It is absolutely necessary that the idea of a Supreme Being shall be deeply engraved in people's minds. Atheism is a pernicious monster that, if it is not so deadly as fanaticism, it is nearly always fatal to virtue"
@@Kelsper Thank you for the full quote. I prefer to use the peices I like, but I'll never pass on an opportunity to learn something. I myself am an Omnist, I used to be an Atheist. I like that part of the quote because my faith is invented, I don't deny that. 👍
@@max_the_mantis5173 I only mention the full quote because it's usually quoted by atheists who don't know the full context. So I'll apologise for assuming that, I have no beef with you.
I'm a Deist myself so you may understand how I can be a little picky that not many seem to know the full context of that quote is kind of the *opposite* point of what atheists quoting it are implying. :)
@@Kelsper Intreguing stuff. My father was an Atheist, he was also a very painful, and fake man, that's part of why I am not an Atheist as an adult is because of the biases his teachings put on to my heart. Now that I have some semblance of autonomy over my own life, I love learning about all the things he wouldn't talk about do to his own truama with a certain monotheistic faith. Personally I am polythiestic, I'm an Omnist, but I made up my own faith which I call Corism. I have found that weather my favorite gods are real or not doesn't really matter to me anymore, because what they teach me has a real affect on my life, I could be worshipping the concepts under any other name, but it's the concept itself thats key. I joke that a video game character is my God but really he's closer to my own shadow, a thing that once explored brought out certain concepts Knowledge, and Death, although the names I know that form by is Azreal because it was the name given to me in a special dream. So naturally as a budding wizard I focus on the effects of the stories and gods instead of trying to grasp the reality of it, because when I searched for those kinds of answers that is part of what lead me into a particularly nasty Psychosis. Not at all an uncommon thing for someone like me, but also not something I recommend or wish to repeat. 💛
@@max_the_mantis5173Have you tried forgiving your father?
Thank you!!! I've been grappling with this for ages! He clearly doesn't believe what religious people tend to believe: the literal existence of a creator of the universe that is conscious and hears our prayers. Yet he calls those of that sat so religious because we believe in a value hierarchy!
He is indeed an atheist!
“I should not exist
Yet I am
As are you “
Maybe you dont exist but you haven"t realised it yet.
@@tomcook3860 he thinks, doesn't he?
So what's your point? Wherever I go...there I am! See...I can say stuff too!
😂😅
@@dukeblair7792 it’s not my point. It’s God’s. Hence, the quotation marks.
@@TheWayOfRespectAndKindness , and you know that...how?
Not quite I think. Jordan believes that religions characterize the divine place using fictional stories. The difference is that Atheists do not think that a divine place exists, but rather entirely invented by humans as part of natural and evolutionary means. Jordan on the other hand believes the divine place actually exists and that it is responsible for why the value hierarchies and religions evolved in the first place.
So in essence, Atheists think it's a human invention whereas Jordan believes it is a human discovery.
Well how does that explain Jordan’s inability to answer the question “if humans ceased to exist would god continue to exist?” If it were the case that Jordan believed that a divine place actually existed outside of human metaphor, then he would easily be able to answer the question as yes. But no, Jordan can’t answer the question, as seen in his debate with Matt Dillahunty.
He calls that place "divine as a matter of definition", but that's a word game. He chooses the word divine because it calls to religious imagery, but there's nothing about it that requires religion. He could've called it "your top ten values" if he wanted. He's obfuscating the truth on purpose.
🎯
No, JP _never_ says that the divine place _actually_ exists. What he says is that it is _by definition_ the most important thing. And, being _important_ it is _true._
Here is the sleight of hand: true does not mean _actually_ existing. It just means that, since as an idea God is affecting people's lives, he exists in our heart.
Since divinity is _defined_ as the most important thing, and important things are those affecting reality the most, and something that affects reality exists, God exists. As much as Achilles and Ulysses, or the Brother Karamazov: they exist as they affect our lives and thinking process.
This is what JP means as "existing". By this definition of existing, he is right that everyone believes in God's existence: who could deny the relevance in society of the concept of God? But no where JP said that he actually believes its existence.
That is your interpretation of what he said, but it’s the most uncharitable to the words he’s using. You have to disregard what almost all of he’s actually saying in order to replace it with something completely different that would make more sense.
It’s much more likely he’s an atheist cosplaying as a Christian for social capital.
I mean the way jp says it then "getting high" and "drugs" was my God for years!
aspiration and escapism ....could? be the same thing for some people? i don't see it, tho. someone else make the connection
When John Rich asked Peterson if he would turn his life over to the Lord, he said 'I already did that, long time ago'. So there is a contradiction in what he says.
A professional skeptic.
You break down what other people work to make. I can't think of an easier thing psychologically. The accent helps, too.
What's your point? Philosophers have always torn each other to shreds.
I'd love for you to name something Jordan has made that no one should dare criticize it
@Rebypox real philosophers have mountains of their own work behind them to earn the right to tear apart the work of others. This guy is in his early 20s at most and already seems to know everything.
Lol you're trying so hard to sound smart. You must be a JP fan 😅
@@charlesj.easleyii7642 you're a fool
@@jackduane5555 he's alright, I guess. But, I won't hesitate to agree that I am a pompous smart-ass. I'm really not that smart, though.
He can answer so many things skillfully, but when religion is broached, he turns into a potato.
That’s because religion is such a complex thing to unravel when talking about how the universe truly works at least from a Christian point of view. He did a series with the daily wire that looks at the Bible. Look it up it’s called Exodus.
@@NorthmanEdits No. It's because he very cautiously is trying to not offend his biggest fan camp. Any person with this kind of education would very easily be able to formulate a straight thought. For example: Bottom line: No!... but here is the implication etc.
Religion is not so complex you can't speak intelligently about. JBP is just intentionally obfuscating his beliefs because he is a dishonest coward.
@@NorthmanEditsit's because you're trying to take some fictional , and make it real. its not real, so its a difficult task
What does he answer skillfully?
Glad that Alex came forward to correct himself saying he misunderstood Petersons view/explanation here and that he can understand it now. That central confusion for Alex was the use of the term/phrase “fictional character”, but through further examination he recently corrected himself in their new convo! Very fun to watch lol
Not really. This guy is full of himself…
JP is a bullshitter by saying everything you hear him saying & not saying it at the same time. He bullshitted his way through that convo by using very precise & unnecessary convoluted language to say & not say what you hear him saying. If this doesn’t make sense, it explains JP in very precise, repetitive & convoluted language.
@@controversial1994 JP speaks finely… I think you may be the one having issues… much like the OP
Perhaps complicated issues and matter require a bit more complicated wording…
@@seonggkim Confusing ‘complicated’ with ‘convoluted’ & ‘highfalutin’ tells me you probably didn’t understand what JP said. Get a dictionary & maybe you may have something intelligible & worthwhile to say. Until such time…
@@controversial1994 again, you are rigid as a rock. Go study language and come back when you truly understand how language works. Perhaps the idea of a “greater semantic range” has no meaning to you. That’s okay.
Happy Advent, Alex. 🎄🕯️🕯️🎄
I think Dan Crenshaw expressed something like, Christ is a fictional role model, like Superman. When a little girl called him out, he got upset 🤣
Great video. Extremely succinct.
"The term and concept "God" is but a metaphor for that which transcends all categories of thinking."
-- Joseph Campbell
Did he actually say something that stupid or is that a copypasta?
@@MrCmon113
He said it, and it's not stupid.
And Campbell's statement is utterly different than Peterson's "God is the highest value in the hierarchy of values." Values don't transcend all categories of thinking. Campbell wasn't saying that God represents or reflects our values at all.
@@donnievance1942
What you just wrote is a category of thinking. 😉
Two words: Carl Jung
Two words: carl sagan
Two words: meow meow
two words: carl wheezer
@@youtubespag i got u brotha
Most of these atheists have never even heard of Jung. I think they'd see the value of spirituality if they read him.
I have been saying he is atheist for years already.
He is ALWAYS most slippery when asked about it.
I am convinced that JP is an atheist that doesn't believe the people in general have the capacity for morals and ethics without religion.
But as a known figure, he can't say directly that God is fiction but other people should believe it.
I agree with him actually. I think anyone that doesn't believe an atheist can have morals or ethics is someone protecting it, and THEY wouldn't have moral or ethics if not for their religion.
JP usually shows himself in other instances as a follower of evolutionary psychology.
He believes that if religions naturally emerged in ALL or MOST human societies, then they provide some evolutionary benefit.
The God of gaps is the atavistic dread of the hunted.
“BUT THE PHYSICAL AND THE SPIRITUAL WORLD INTERCONNECT AND ITS BEAUTIFUL…” *starts crying*
😂😂😂
Isn’t he wonderful
"AND IT'S LIKE, IF YOU'RE THE KIND OF PERSON THAT DOESN'T SEE THE BEAUTY OF IT, MAN, IT'S LIKE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A ROUGH TIME"
@@Wingedmagician Jordan Peterson? No
Mentions queer people between sobs.
Not quite. Although, this is a year old now. I have a feeling that you've surpassed this stage of late. You appear to be progressing to the next stage currently - a lengthy but exciting; then disturbing, and then amazing journey, indeed.
He’s not arguing that humans invented God, he’s arguing that we DISCOVERED God
He says a lot of things
Dumb
Then why didn't he just say that instead of a salad of words.
I often enjoy listening to JP, but this is the first time I have heard him describe the divine place before. That was insane.
Ew
wishmakr I enjoy listening to him too. I like to be open minded and hear all the issues and problems he discusses. Unfortunately, he's now EVERYWHERE on my TH-cam. If anyone has recommendations for different intellectuals like Peterson, preferably unbiased and logical, please let me know! I'm okay with them leaning either way I just don't want to listen to a full blown leftist or right wing person who will make everything a fight between the other side.
@@desireandfire You’re terrible at lying. You aren’t looking for contrasting perspective, you want someone who already agrees with you so you can point to THEIR reasoning to absolve you of any need to think critically for yourself. You’re being passive and indirect about your desire for confirmation bias reinforcement.
And Peterson? JORDAN Peterson? Logical? Unbiased? What delusional reality do you live in? Dude has built his entire career by creating bias confirming content for paranoid conspiracy theorists. Miss me with that pseudo-intellectual hippo shit 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Only a true theist can realise that they are an atheist.
Makes zero sense.
@@albuquerquehotspot7835 It does make sense, the idea is when a theist actually studies their religion it leads them to atheism because they would start to realize the issues and the flawed thinking, the more they have to think about it
@@Thornskade a key point of many religious beliefs is a human mind can’t make sense of its creator. That’s like saying a character in a video game could make sense of its creator. The human mind is so limited on spectrums unimaginable, such as our senses (the visible light spectrum for humans is very small), that the idea we could logically come to a concise correct conclusion of our creator is pure nonsense. There is not flawed issue here. Something created this. There is no other logical explanation. To think that something came from nothing is complete illogical nonsense.
Ok, let me rephrase this: "Only someone who can admit the existence of God, independent of his knowledge or lack of it, can realize that they deny the existence of God".
Unless you're talking about the Devil, this doesn't really make sense.
When you truly study the religion you believe in, instead of merely praising and worshipping it. You will realise that it is all human and there is nothing divine about it.
Think about it: Why does a God require faith when everything else requires truth. You may think that it is an exception but every other time truth trumps faith so why would the most powerful being in the cosmos prefer faith over truth.
I love Jordan Peterson and have followed him for years. He's definitely an atheist haha but I think he believes religion is important and doesn't want to push atheist beliefs on the majority of people who he believes need religion
I really hope Jordan response to your video. Good thing you already have an established contact to both him and Mikhaila.
Alex, I am stuck in a country that's 98% one religion and thr is no comfort, no room to breath. Listening to you is being able to breath. Thank you for being you.
Just thank god you don’t have two religions warring, like for example Gaza.
Or no religion spurring a movement of disillusioned youth towards destroying the very country they were brought up in.
@@Mevlinous why must we always compare ourselves to the absolute worst thing in the world to endure our pain?
minorities in my country are still lynched and bombed but thank god im not in gaza.. smh
I am so sorry! I really cannot imagine it. What country are you in?
Dear Jordan ,
The ultimate test of your knowledge is your capacity to convey it to another.
Richard Feynman
And millions of people understand him 😂 the problem might be you if you don’t
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. Are you suggesting that you have difficulty understanding what Jordan is trying to convey? Because you seem proud of it, that’s why it’s confusing 🤣 .. the irony.
…. Jordan is only difficult to understand if: you’re not listening. Or, you’ve got some TH-camr twisting his words.
I understood him perfectly? "The divine" is the ultimate transcendental value system we orient ourselves towards and strive for.
I often feel the criticism "they use so many words but say nothing" is used by people who just dislike the speaker in question.
I agree with Feynman, but he was a physicist, a subject of rather objective nature. This topic is extremely subjective and in my opinion, impossible to "know". There is a clear difference.
@UpperclassHomosexual just because millions don’t understand, doesn’t mean he doesn’t make sense. He makes perfect sense to me, and when he doesn’t, I challenge his stances for myself. By no means is anyone advocating for unabated support of JP.
spot on
One of the guys that lived in my collage dorm was also an atheist. He never let anyone forget it.
To be fair, that was likely due to indoctrination from an early age by creationists like many of us have experienced.
Because some of us feel compelled to call out the ludicrousness. The religious all fall into 2 categories; those that can't think critically and those that choose not to
@@Ronnie_B bruh don’t talk to us about ludicrousness when you believe that everything you’ve ever seen in your life just came to be by chance
@@miiguel3550 Where would an entity that can suspend the laws of physics, make planets, people and poodles and who would worry about Bob tugging Barry off come from?
@@miiguel3550 still seems more likely than a random sky daddy that has a contradictory book that well... Contradicts everything it claims to have happened.
You should upload more
If you’re not clueing into the Jung influence you’re not understanding Jordan Peterson.
You're such an amazingly lazy thinker that you honestly seem to believe that being "influenced by Jung" means you're right about everything and nothing you say can ever be questioned. Literally everyone, who listened to Peterson for more than 20 seconds, knows he's influenced by Jung. That's no secret, you clown.
I feel like UFC has had a decent year In many ways. Yes the Apex slop has been the worst but 298, 299, 300 were all pretty significant events with really good fights. 302 main event was great, im excited for 304 and 305. I really only watch the ppvs now though. And its not my job to wind through gassed heavyweights with womens bantamweight headliners. Bless you Slacky
“Well good luck with that"
As an agnostic I'm still doing the (Idk) shoulder shrugs 😅🤣😂
Thank you. Been trying to tell people this.
Thank you for unmasking him. He shouldn't fear being honest. I hope it's not a matter of being afraid of losing the amount of money that he gets from so many Christians. I myself am a Christian and I value the effort that he's put into fighting for values and free speech, but I want him to be blunt and straightforward in everything he says, not selectively.
I've been saying that Peterson is an atheist for years. The funny thing is, I'm still not sure that he realizes that.
"I've been saying that Peterson is an atheist for years"
Your definition of what that word means is probably not his definition. JP is precise in language and tends to avoid self identification with such fuzzy language.
@@thomasmaughan4798 he tends to overcomplicate the most simplest ideas. Sometimes, Occams razor makes the cut, and that's most of the time.
@@Kidd_SS313 "he tends to overcomplicate the most simplest ideas. "
As do I 🙂
I despise binary thinking. If I am asked whether I like something; I question where is the threshold that converts a continuum into exactly two categories; yes, no. In my mind there's usually at least 3 categories; yes, don't care, and no. Well, actually there would be a "no opinion" which isn't a value but with some thought I might be able to categorize a thing.
I love listening to Jordan Peterson because he is precise; and if there's nuance in the concept, it will become nuanced in language.
The word "atheist" is one of those words with considerable nuance and vastly different meanings. So he will try to figure out what YOU mean by it, before saying whether it describes HIM.
@@thomasmaughan4798 I think you'll find he completely ignores what the asker means and will posit his own contrary definition before answering.
@@AnimeReference "posit his own contrary definition"
Contrary to what authority, exactly? Atheism isn't an "ism"; it has no properties of its own other than disbelief in a thing that also has no particular definition.
Except of course, for many people atheism IS an "ism" with properties, dogmas, even preachers (Dawkins) and churches (the Seattle Atheist Church). In those cases they usually adopt "Humanism" as the religion. There's no "God" per se; but there IS advocates and prophets and preachers of Humanism. Even a Wiki page!
Daaaamn crazy how many cuts were in the video
If you don’t cut Jordan Peterson’s babbling what you have is wasted time and a boatload of shit
What’s your point? He links the full video
Show me any part of the full video where peteron doesn't prove her stupidity
Because its a YT Short of a full video. Do you not know how Shorts work?
That guy is so deeply Catholic it's ridiculous.
The comments on this video are so incredibly intelligent AND funny I regained hope in today's society. I wish I were friends with these guys in real life.
Jordan Peterson is a very risk-averse, cautious, and community-based emotional person who is actually cosplaying an analytical & logical person, that's why he likes to half-ass whatever he says or explains.
JP's word salads are really something else.
Just admit you cannot comprehend
@@adrianjudedelacruz9536 I understan that JP says "and man made god in his image", that's fiction isn't it? exactlly the opposite the Bible says. I don't know if you are a christian or not, but if you are do you agree with JP or with the Bible? because it's impossible to agree with both.
The word salads are fine, but I'm here for the beef!
@@Pados_music i am a Christian my man. And JP was indeed not a Christian back then. He was only interested in the psychological aspect of the Bible, as her daughter relates to us. But now he is coming closer and closer.
@@adrianjudedelacruz9536, He can't even comprehend what he's spewing.
He's right that definitions are fundamental to any useful discourse, but he's redefining everything without being clear about it in the first place
He once said that "he acts as if god exists ".
He just refers to good old Plato's concept of ideas without giving him credit for it😂
the world of the Forms where everything originates from, where everything is original and pure.
Good observation. Incidentally that is similar to how we Hindus view theistic ideas. As pre-existing psychological archetypes present in the mind. So platonic forms which are pre-programmed in the human mind for discovery. We call them "devatAs". This God is a state of consciousness that can be accessed by our efforts.
@@raghavkumar00where can I read more about this?
@@soda_socratesstrange question, but did you read on it?
"good old Plato's concept of ideas without giving him credit for it"
Attribution might be better. Plato is dead; no need to be giving him credit since he cannot use it.
Matt Dillahunty has closed him down.
Sam Harris aswell.
@@Uhdksurvhunter hahahaHarris
I disagree. Jordan and Matt didn't eveb discuss the same thing. This is what I dislike about the atheist debate fans.
@@PastPerspectives11 Did you see the discussion? I almost felt bad for Jordan.
He knows his audience and doesnt want to lose followers. Hes definitely an athiest
This is his literary breakdown. He's said many things breaking down a tiny segment and making such a claim is pretty bold.
Alex, when are we finally seeing you two debating the big themes of life? ;)
The difference is that he sees that we need a higher place. Atheism doesn’t go there.
The "higher" is the inner. It's an ever-expanding, infinite, collective consciousness that flows through everything. Religion is nothing more than mankind's failed attempt to understand this concept.
Hey, leave MY consciousness out of your collective mess.
@@Forrest1989 that sounds very vague. What's the evidence for that "collective consciousness that flows through everything"? At first glance, it sounds like the perfect kind of philosophy to justify any atrocity for the sake of the "collective consciousness" or the "greater good".
@@naiyo87 that's your takeaway from this comment..? What an idiotic assumption to make from what I said. It's a collective consciousness, and it doesn't have a book or a prophet. It's called Pantheism, the belief that everything is one. When is the last time you've seen a Pantheist commit a horrible crime in the name of Source Consciousness?? By all means, tell me. I'll give you as much time as you need 😂 this consciousness is the energy that can be found everywhere, and in everything. I don't worship it, and I've never heard of one person that does. It doesn't ask for burnt offerings, for virgins to be thrown into volcanoes, and it certainly won't burn you for not believing in it. There are no churches, no tithing, no offerings, no good and evil, no extremism, and no prophets. It's being studied in quantum physics, but our understanding of energy and consciousness needs to be taken to a completely different level before it's seen as fact. It will get there, eventually, but the problem is people like you, who dismiss it, while knowing literally nothing about it. How can something be studied if no one is ballsy enough to study it? When you get laughed out of the laboratory for bringing it up, or lose your funding because you were brave enough to study it, despite what your peers say, there's not much to be done, now is there? People like you have already decided that no such consciousness exists, so you move onto something else. Remind me, isn't science supposed to be non-biased..? The way that I see it is that Pantheism works well with science. I believe in both micro and macro evolution, the big bang, and that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. The only thing that I would like to expand upon here is that I believe that biological evolution is the physical embodiment of this expansion of consciousness. I believe that good and evil are subjective terms that mean little to nothing, and that religion is a mechanism of control. We decide what is good or bad to do through evolution, and I believe that creationism isn't science. Even Richard Dawkins called Pantheism a "sexed up version of atheism," because unlike you, he had done enough research on the subject to know that we don't view this philosophy in a religious way, whatsoever.
@@Forrest1989this stoner definition leaves out objective morality
After following JP for years even in pre-fame I can say that he is not putting on an act here. But yeah he’s like philosophically not too different from an atheist and I wish he’d accept that.
it's not a question of self-acceptance. it's a business and political strategy to straddle the fence, as not to ruffle the feathers of his closest allies
Jordan Peterson could help to unite politically religious believers and atheists, which would be a really good thing.
@@360.Tapestry- you beat me to it! 😊👍
@@360.Tapestry why would he need a political strategy when he is not a politician. Is he trying to get elected?
@@Ignasimp so dumb lmao that's great
I think by "fiction" JP means visualisation or idealisation of that which can not be fully visualised/known. It does not mean non existent.
He’s not saying the divine is fiction, he’s saying the way we understand it is through a fiction recreation of our understanding of it.
That's still pretty reductionist making God seem like “the spirit that you must emulate in order to thrive” (actual Peterson quote) instead of the source of all being as revealed in scripture. As a Christian I think Alex is right
I personally reject the divine or if not, I am my own divine I do things because they make me happy. I fall in love, because love makes me happy. I help others, because helping others makes me happy. I am an egoist I am my own reason. I am my own divine
What if being cruel to others makes me happy? In what sense would it be wrong for me to do that if I am my own divine and I can define what is good and bad based on what makes me happy?
@@moose7314 I don’t know, i’m not a moralist but I will say that my boyfriend is a sadist and an egoist too and I’m a little bit masochistic so I help him and he helps me reach happiness.
I don’t try to define what is moral and what isn’t. Really? I think it’s all bullshit. And I’ll let other people to define their ethics for themselves.
@@moose7314 We all act that way already, don’t we?
Take yourself, or this fictional sadist you reference. What sadistic pleasure does he deny himself, even though it’s entirely possible to indulge?
I’m willing to bet he doesn’t torture animals/people because of the consequences to HIMSELF.
Isn’t that how we all live?
When we return a lost wallet, we do it because we get a kick out of being a good boy.
Even if we do it for God, our brains are getting a little dopamine rush.
“I’m doing something godly.”
When have you ever really done something you didn’t want to do, which wasn’t for your own benefit in some way?
@@moose7314 If being cruel to others really makes you happy, you are infernal, a devil 😈, a danger to a moral, kind, loving society, should be recognized as such and be cast out, as allegedly "Satan" was cast out of heaven for rebellion. You need to be isolated and treated for your condition if any effective treatment is available -- although certain hallucinogenic drugs that could actually help are still banned worldwide by a bunch of effed-up governments.
@@charliekowittmusic That’s also a good point
No-one ever accused Jordan Peterson of being consistent!
Exactly! Well said... ❤
a debate between you two would be interesting
No it wouldn't. It would just be this guy making sense and Jordan peterson talking in word salad
@@jackduane5555 If you honestly think that Peterson is just "talking in word salad" than you didn't listen carefully at all. If you watch enough material of one person you gonna find something stupid with everyone, even "this" guy. Both of them have a certain view which in their head is the most objective way to look at things. To see who contests the other one's ideas the best you need a civil discussion. Emotions shouldn't play any role whatsoever.
@@no_alias_for_me No, Jordan peterson is just a pseudo-intellectual who appeals to stupid people
@@no_alias_for_me That's not true at all. Maybe you need to raise your standards for what you consider intelligent commentary.
@@matthewcaldwell8100 "Intelligent commentary" is not what I'm looking for. I want to see objective facts which strengthen one side or the other.