Atheists Are Murderers - Debunked (Jordan Peterson)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2018
- This is Atheists Are Murderers - Debunked (Jordan Peterson Refuted).
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / rationalityrules
To support me through PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/RationalityRules
To follow me on Facebook: / rationalityrules
To tweet with me on Twitter: / rationalityrule
And, to watch / listen to mine, Thomas Westbrook’s (Holy Koolaid) and Rachel Oates podcast: goo.gl/oFUiie
--
References:
1). Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty debate (Pansburn Philosophy): • Does God Exist? Jordan...
2). Jordan Peterson’s lecture and Q&A session at Lafayette: • Jordan Peterson @ Lafa...
3). Jordan Peterson’s “Western Civilisation is Based on Judeo-Christian Values”: • Western Civilization i...
4). Jordan Peterson’s “Address The Hard Hitters”: • Address the Heavy Hitt...
5). Jordan Peterson’s Truth - Debunked: • Jordan Peterson's Trut...
6). Jordan Peterson’s Archetypes - Debunked: • Jordan Peterson's Arch...
7). Jordan Peterson is NOT a Christian: • Jordan Peterson is NOT...
8). Everyone is Religious - Debunked: • Everyone is Religious ...
--
As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps spell-out Jordan Peterson’s views.
![[MIRRORED] LISA - ROCKSTAR 🎸 MV version #LISA #BLACKPINK #ROCKSTAR](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-U58DuCCtZk/mqdefault.jpg)
Well I think Jordan Peterson is an atheist who thinks he believes in God.
Thank you for thinking.
I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. As if he can't let go of the idea of God, so therefore he redefines it in such a way that he can still justify saying he's a believer. That said, I do like the fact that he has at least re-framed the debate in a way that appears new. Because that can encourage us to talk about things from different perspectives. I am certainly glad he's in the conversation.
That sounds about right. He's probably also a closet feminist and evolutionary biologist who just pretends he doesn't know the first thing about anything 🤣
Jordan Peterson actually IS an Atheist who thinks he believes in God. He says he "doesn't know if a god exists" in this Rubin Report interview (Sarcasm). lol
(I know the difference between Atheist and agnostic, I'm using his own words back on himself so his argument is moot.)
th-cam.com/video/1opHWsHr798/w-d-xo.html
@@DJ8017 agnostic. Not atheist. A whishy washy fuck.
It never ceases to amaze me that religious people believe that morality is exclusive to religion.
n3Cr0ManCeD
It never ceases to amaze me that atheists have such a simplistic view of what religious people actually believe.
It never ceases to amaze me that people don't know the difference between theism, morality and religion. They are 3 completely different things.
n3Cr0ManCeD It never ceases to amaze me!
Where do you get your morals values?
I get my values from secular humanism.
"Nothings stopping you from committing the act"
What if I don't want to commit the act?
"Then you're not an atheist"
"But I don't believe in a god"
"Yeah you do"
"No I don't."
It's such a rididulous position lmao, "You may think you don't believe in a God, but you really do..."
@@HDitzzDH It's not ridiculous at all. Just like a religious person sometimes doubts their beliefs an atheist person sometimes can have moments where they believe there is an afterlife/god. E.g. "Do you believe in afterlife?" is really not an absolute yes or no question, although it sounds like one. It's more a "on a scale from 0 to 100, how sure are you there is an afterlife?"
This is important, because even someone who might call himself an atheist and truely thinks he is one, in a moment where this person is about to commit a highly immoral act (such as murder) he might still think "well, maybe I shouldn't do it because maybe those christians turn out to be right and I end up in hell."
@@kushtha2531 That is not what is being discussed. You are stuck on ifs and maybes. An atheist might "find god" in a moment of distress, yes. And it might inform how he proceeds afterwards. Yes. But that doesn't mean AT ALL that "only by finding can you fight a murderous impulse". And in no case can we affirm that the inspiration not to kill is inspired by a god. We know that humans do have, overall, an aversion for killing fellow human beings. Regardless of belief system (or lack thereof). I would agree tho that indeed, it's not a ridiculous position. It's an insulting one. Again, religion trying to claim sole proprietorship of morality and righteousness.
"Handsome god doesn't exist, he can't hurt you"
Handsome god:
Be very wary of people who say the only thing that stops them from committing murder is that their invisible friend tells them not to.
Jordan implies that the only thing keeping him from murdering people is the fact that he believes in a god, that’s pretty disturbing if you ask me
Exactly
Perfect observation 👍
Not that I want to defend JP, but that's a bit of an oversimplification. I think he has many other reasons to not kill people, in fact all the reasons we atheists have. But when all circumstances might seem to justify murder in an extreme case like Raskolnikov's, his faith is the "last" obstacle. And he implies that it's a similar sentiment that keeps us from killing too, even when the murder would be totally justified and a net positive for many other people.
In his debate with Sam Harris he was talking about 'making piece with the part of his mind who "would be happy as a auschwitz prison guard"..'
Im seriously worried what happened in this guys mind over the last few years and if its good he has this big audience.. who has a fable for ticky torch marches and thinks that "no fap is some kind of alpha male lifestyle..
@@NewPipeFTW I totally agree and I'm also worried about the path he's on and the way many are influenced by him.
I don't understand how Jordan Peterson seems to pass judgment on an entire group of real people based on his interpretation of the actions of some fictional characters from some book written a long time ago.
Oh, wait...
Brilliant Istvan
you sir are genius ha! xD
Nailed it!
Tee hee 👏👏👏
Someone explain how this is brilliant, am i missing a metaphor ?
The Norsk god Thor advocates bravery, loyalty, dedication to family, etc. So if you hold those values, maybe you don't believe in Thor, but you're acting like you believe in Thor. That's Jordan Peterson's logic.
Nah it's not. And you'd know that if you had actually spent any time studying jungian archetypes. Afterwards you'll realise that many elements that made up Thor are also existent in other gods from other religions. Thus all of them come from the same origin and are different interpretations of the phenomenological world. Philosophers like Hegel combined that with the fact that most of your behaviours arent voluntarily (it's a precursor to the concept of the unconscious) and thus it's most of the times not you who speaks, but something that speaks through you.
And this can be interpreted as your culture, your religion, god (i.e the structure of being).
In his case he said it's God who speaks through you or acts through you - of course it's nothing supernatural. Only a metaphorical approach - and he tells you not to kill. And the conflict in which Dostoyevsky's character was in can be interpreted as the conflict between the ego, influenced by his own thoughts and experiences, and the unconscious which is influenced by lots of evolutionary and biological factors - namely the factor that it actually makes sense not to kill other human being, as the results of such an action are horrific.
And such thoughts that violate the moral rules of your cultural or biological (more the latter) conconscious have been metaphorically described as the influences of the devil by most monotheistic religions. (As it's mostly the experience of evil that leads to thoughts of murder- i.e facing the terrible and horrific side of the nature of being)
So if you continue along this interpretational path you should actually realise that religions were mostly describing real phenomona in a metaphorical way - as that was literally the only way to describe them without deep knowledge of biology or anthroplogy - and they did a great job in doing so. That's why they stood there for thousands of years.
It kinda surprises me that channels arguing against religions in such a stupid manner, are actually considered "rational". As if rationality means to approach one of the most difficult subjects uninformed and with terrible arguments.
@AlexK Kallweit Could you please be a tad more specific when you say " channels arguing against religions in such a stupid manner, are actually considered 'rational'"? In what stupid manner do they argue against religion? By not talking about all the good things religion did for mankind once upon a time while they are constructing arguments against it? In where it appears you're coming from, religion could certainly be seen as a primitive attempt to make sense of the world and humanity and it may be responsible to some degree for much of the wisdom we have and even some advancements made, but this doesn't exempt it from being scrutinized as inefficient or even harmful in modern society. I don't want to be accused of misreading you, so I must give you the benefit of a doubt that you weren't implying that it's wrong to criticize religion because it was and perhaps still is useful in some ways, in spite of its numerous shortcomings. However, I do admit I get that strong impression. I digress. Do you believe that religion was being argued against in a stupid manner by this content creator? If so, when and how?
You refer to terrible arguments.. What arguments are those? Could you please demonstrate the disruption in the flow of logic for those arguments? I am but a simple human, so if you caught something I missed that makes this atheist content creator out to be a fool in how he goes about refuting religion or Jordan Peterson, I'm all for seeing it. I do hate being played, and perhaps you could spare me that fate.
AlexK - What you wrote did not address the strawman fallacy point of the OP. Plus you commented once and did not bother to reply back to the people who pointed out that you made several claims with no justification at all - just like JP - points to a made up presupposition then hides behind mystery when questioned lmao
@Paul Green , you used the plural, gods, polytheists would say you wouldn't necessarily have the same 'relationship' with the gods. You talk like it's simply based on facts but the very nature of gods and humans would be relationships.
Furthermore, if no one from your date of birth to the present time had mentioned anything to do with materialism would you come to the same exact conclusion that the nature of reality is based on non-mind (non-qualia, matter/physical), while knowing you 1st need your mind to know and experience anything at all? Neurons and synapses don't tell us about qualia. We could have been biological zombies but instead we have qualia.
Would you conclude, without any authorities telling you so, that reality is based on non-mind and that your mind (qualia) emerged from non-mind?
That's essentially what a materialist and the physicalist says. You see, the physicalist is in some sense a monotheist. Monotheism de-animated the world and said the spirit is separate from the material world and the material world is dead matter. Whereas, most of our ancestors were animists. Atheists went with monotheism and simply said the spiritual reality isn't real. But in doing so, the atheist could longer ground their own mind in reality for they argue that reality is based on non-mind (material/physical).
baraqiyal I think his logic and reasoning is deliberately disingenuous. I don’t think he truly believes the absurdities he asserts because he is very clearly a highly educated intellectual. I think he is just pushing an agenda that requires him to use his knowledge to twist facts and questions in a complex matter that requires a lot of mental gymnastics. His ability to do that is second to none, however by doing this successfully, anyone can assert any absurdity in a logical manner, because they’ve twisted and manipulated the narrative so much that you can make any assertion make sense from your complex reasoning.
"My favorite color is red"
Jordan: "It's not, you're wearing a blue tie. It's obvious that your favorite color is blue, you just think that you like the color red. Anyone whose favourite color is red would always wear a red tie."
Unless his wife's favorite color is blue...
He thinks he's a philosopher, but he's a phinotopher.
It is even worse than that. On he question of God we are all blind.
@@44yvo my favorite color is red and I never wear ties.
@@44yvo nope still blue, Jordan it's all Knowing and knows everything about you better than you, even your wife 😂
Jordan Peterson didn't debate. He accused Atheist of being Theists, and then provided a book report nobody asked for.
Stace
Notice Peterson gets most of his "facts, evidence, & argument truths" from old Russian novels.
Clucks & gullibles eat it right up, being told who & what they are, what they think. 🤣
Or it was a parable and mr.Petersons explanations use a lot of metaphors, sorta like Nietzsche.
@@woodwyrm
>WOOPS
@@woodwyrm That is a weird way to spin word salad.
@@johnlopperman2161 he doenst get his facts from there, he uses them as an example for his facts. Thats a big difference
Once someone asked José Saramago, a brilliant Portuguese atheist writer; "how can a man without god be good?" and he replied, "how can a man with god be bad?"
*a communist
also considered a terrible writer by many.
you say this like it discredits an argument, if you find a gold bar in a trash can do you just leave it there and call it trash?
@@neggit2063 ???
Saramago is/was/might be/looks like a communist.... ... so?
Many consider him a terrible writer.... ... so?
@@neggit2063 You've mentioned two things that have absolutely nothing to do with the point that was raised. Amazing. Are you a Peterson fan? He's often just as far beside the point when he "argues".
Errr yeah that’s exactly the point. If there is no God you can’t be good or bad as you’ve lost your objective reference point.
“Dr Peterson, what’s your favorite color?”
“Well that depends on what you mean by favorite. And it also depends on what you mean by color. This is a very complex question...
One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate that many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, and not dissimilar to Jung's extrapolation of the archetypal and axiomatic juxtaposition of Raskolnikov's neo-Marxist existential nihilism.
With that said... I've written an 800 page book on the subject entitled "On the Origin of Color: The Dostoyevsky Extrapolation", which unpacks the uninformative intimations with absolute precision, both biologically and metaphysically..."
You're sorry you asked, aren't you ;)
Perfect😁😁😁
That hurt my brain.
@@jamesroyce1845 I think we are all sorry when Peterson talks.
Why doesn't this have more likes. This is a perfect comment that demonstrates what Peterson is; a fucking word bank.
One minute in
"We'd lose art, poetry--"
Me, an atheist artist who likes to write poetry, literally existing - Hmm yes I see...
Playing devils advocate here: how did you get into art and poetry? You've probably been inspired by people before you. And if you go back far enough, all the great works of art were done in the name of religion. I guess the philosophical question here is, do humans have a natural tendency to create art? Or is it linked to their spirituality, a want to go farther beyond just physical, boring everyday life?
@@damonlopez2197 Nah man I was inspired by a drawing of a hot anime dude my sister did when I was eight. I thought it was really good and wanted to be as good as her, so I started my own art journey. Though it is very flattering of you to think 8-year-old me would be inspired by the ancient artists of Mesopotamia or Greece. I will say, you don't have to be religious to admire religious art. I love alot of Michelangelo's works because they are beautiful, not because most of them are about religion. Same goes for my love of Greek mythology art or Islamic religious works. This doesn't secretly make me a theist, as Peterson seems to have said at the end of the clip. I was making a statement that my existence makes Petersons statement false, not on whether or not art can be secular or spiritual. Your two alternatives are not exclusive of each other - Humans have a natural tendency to create art, which means unsurprisingly they're gonna make art about things that are important to them, like their religion. Ya know, that other thing they created.
Think of Daoism, now think of history. Daoism is the most in tune with how the human mind works, it gave me some insight, but not anything too profound.
Some of the things I learned
"People are like water, each being a drop of water. If one drop can erode a mountain over millions, maybe billions of years - what can over 7 billion do?" - in relation to art. It wouldn't matter if certain art pieces don't come into existence, "In time, the sea will pay the lands a visit through the clouds", basically saying that even the ocean will eventually come to the land (through natural processes)
TC(convoluted);DR
Even without religion, art and other things will still pop up.
He's proabbaly attesting to the fact the most brilliant artists were religious people.. I mean in terms of music that's true.. Bach, Handel, Tchaikovsky all the famous ones were religious.. Idk about now tho or in terms of other art mediums
@@Seven-yh6st
Music and Art are subjective in terms of who likes them, but objective in terms of how they are drawn and how complex each chord co-ordinates with (term I forgot)
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." -- Friedrich Nietsche
Great quote. This sums up Peterson to a T.
@@ThePookaHarvey Also FN:
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Oddly enough Nietzsche is one of Peterson's favorite go to guys.
@@armandj.8864 If he knows his work as good as he prepares himself to debates with f.e. Zizek, there is big chance that he know as mych as 1st class student in highschool
I'm sure Jordan Peterson _thinks_ that he's Canadian, but Canadians are professional hockey players, members of the band Rush, or residents of the Sunnyvale trailer park.
A "true" Canadian is one that is capable of murder. Yes, I'm completely redefining the word Canadian to make that point, but who cares right??
A "true" Canadian is one that is capable of professional hockey, progressive rock, or murder. We must be fair with the multiple choice here. Let's not sink completely to Peterson's level about this.
Good one 😂
The definitions Peterson is using aren't his own inventions. They're actually coming from an entire philosophical school - Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche etc.
They're oversimplified, archaic crap and he knows it.
"I commit all the murder I want - which is none" - Penn Jullliete
I guess you meant Jillette?
That (quote) only works if you don't actually want to commit murder, what if "all" the murder I want to commit is "all" instead of "none"?
@@SongWhisperer It would make no difference whether you believe in a God or not. You would only be immoral if you act out on those psychopathic desires.
@@NelemNaru Agreed.
Im on one.
And I feel no shame
Good to see Peterson meet someone who really challenges his nonsense.
Ain't that the truth. He's rarely ever allowed himself to meet such people. He avoids them like the plague.
I saw him and Sam Harris live in Vancouver when I was there on vacation. Peterson served a word salad after word salad that no joke put me to sleep.
I love how Jordan knows me and my motivations better than i do, despite having never met me! It's so nice to be understood. The best thing is that he completely knows about my hidden christian faith and my murderous intent, especially when i didn't even know about them
Being a psychologist means you can read minds.
Checkmate, atheists!
🤣😂😂😂😂😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Well he is a psychologist.
i'll just start believing in solipsism and stop giving myself headaches
he is literally a psychologist though, so yeah.
Here in Belgium people assume you're an atheist and question you when you talk magic and resurrection and so on, love it
In the USA, I could only hope ppl, would be so smart.
😄👍
Fuck! THAT would be awesome. Here in the bible belt of the USA you have to lie or be shunned to be atheist.
@Christian smith yah, I have spirituality, but it's is not Science. But knowing with Scientific evidence, is knowing. No Myth, no fable, fiction, to it. I have made a blow Torch Fueled with WATER/ HHO. I made Tesla Coil, Ionic Engine, first 2, I have video on YT - HHO WATER BURNS. From garbage tesla coil. One person magic, is another's Technology. Boom, stick that.
That is the way it should be mate. Even the word "atheist" is a product of rejection of religion, it should instead be "people" and "people who are religious"
Peterson redefines atheism from "someone who does not believe in a god" to "someone who behaves as if there is no god". When Matt said I actually dont believe in a god, Peterson replied "but you act like you do" implying that a moral person cannot be an atheist. The problem, however, is that Peterson never justifies why that should be the case if there were no god, other than saying "its complicated".
So my counter argument to this is to redefine a Christian from "someone who believes in jesus" to "some who behaves like jesus" since jesus did not sin, yet everyone else does, then no one behaves like jesus did. Therefore there are no Christians.
Great analogy!
The same can be applied to theism in general. If Peterson thinks that an atheist is this completely immoral person, wouldn't that make the opposite true, that a theist is a completely moral person?
Rick - God is just an abstract concept used to teach people morality and give them direction in life. Yes, I'm sure you can trick people into following an evil God, but why not get them to follow the most virtuous one you could imagine? That's how Christianity slowly evolved.
Your counter argument sucks
That's a terrible analogy, a better one would be "Someone who behaves as if there is a Jesus", or it would be a good analogy if the original redefinition would have said "Someone who behave like no god". Or if we wanted to include the no/not in the analogy, an A-Unicornist is "someone who does not believe in unicorns" to "someone who behaves as if there are no unicorns".
And regardless of if your analogy is good or not, you still need to define what the word "like" means, or what does it mean to behave "like" someone else? you said the only way to be like Jesus is to not sin, but if we apply that to another situation, then is Person A like Person B if and only if they sin the exact same amount of times? or is there a level or ambiguity? If so, it wouldn't follow that no one is christian. or if it is the same amount of sins that count, then no one is like anyone else, because no one sins the exact same amount of times, in which case can you see why your definition of "like" is kinda pointless, and that you should probably get a new definition of it?
Oh yeah and this isn't counting babies, the people who are like Jesus because they haven't sinned. which would mean that to you the pope is less like Jesus than little 2 second year old crack baby in a trailer park.
I wish you wouldn't post such videos, Stephen. It's really interrupting my murdering schedule.
LMAO
…damn atheist
Matt should have told JP that he must be an atheist because otherwise he would be in favor of stoning people to death for adultery, working on Sunday, killing witches, etc
My mother told that, you're such a good man, helping other and care for people and animals you can't be atheist.
I told her I'm such a good man because I'm atheist.
I wasn't good when I was a Muslim even I was religious and followed Allah's will, but there's bad teachings in what good things Allah wants us to do. And it's same thing in Christianity.
Same thing for me , i don't do good things because I need to go to heaven or get good karma but because I want to.
Hope you will live long, take care.
If you do those things as a believer who fears the Devil then would you really be good. Nothing my parents dissapoint me in more than trying to indoctrinate me into Christianity i was a good kid allready, there was no need to teell me i was being watched night and day even more than Orwells 1984 this god even knows my thoughts
@shrödinger's cat there are a lot of you out there a lot more than dare to be known
Questioner: 'Hey JP, what in your mind is a real atheist?'
JP: 'Well, it's this one nonexistent character in a book I read'
*Is literally sitting right across from an actual atheist*
Spoken like someone who doesnt know what he's talking about.
you guys really like to point out that it isn't a real character *even though arts and literature have basis in real life*
Ethan Nino He seems to like several books where there are nonexistent characters, but he believes in the existence of all the characters in one specific book... pretty weird.
Yes, literature might have and often has basis in real life. However, it does not mean that a particular character from a particular book is true, his actions are true and so on. Therefore, it can`t be made as a valid argument.
You mean Harry Potter and Chewbacca aren't real?? NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
My favorite question in that debate was.:
"If all of humanity dies, does God still exist?"
That is like saying 'If all humans die, an their souls are in Heaven or Hell -- does the Earth still exist ?'
@@SabbaticusRex It might seem that way to you, but the big difference is that all of us perceive the Earth (though not its roundness) every waking moment of every day through our senses, while some people experience God through the unreliable lens of their feelings.
@@bakarenibsheut12 , 'unreliable' doesn't necessarily imply 'unreal'.
If my sight extended into the infrared spectrum before our technology could perceive it, your lack of technology to objectively confirm my claims to see something you don't see doesn't imply that my claim is untrue.
Our inability to scientifically verify a claim doesn't disprove that claim. And, while we may be 'rationally justified' in our absence of confidence in the claim, our position is nevertheless incorrect.
I think sincere agnostics are the most intellectually honest people. They freely admit not knowing whether something is true, without arguing against (or for) the unproven views that non-agnostics hold.
In law, the objective of a law often gets lost in the endless wrangling over terminology. Similarly, I find the love of wisdom and pursuit of truth also sometimes get list in semantic wrangling.
But in this case, the earth is real
And Jordan managed to evade that one too...
"Jordan Peterson the stupid man's smart person"
Well he has said a lot of good things
Listen to his lectures
But he also has said a lot of very very stupid things
Lol, that's him alright
Is perterson a Dr he's more of patient mental issues.
"There's no god? Well I guess I'll go be a horrible murderous slaughtering monster then. I'll start sharpening my knives right away!"
- Nobody in the history of ever.
“Oh, there’s a god? Well I guess I’ll go be a horrible murderous slaughtering monster to everyone who doesn’t believe he exists!”
-said literally almost every single religion in all of history
No planes were ever flown into buildings in the name of atheism.
Jeffrey Dahmer, and you missed his point of that's what you think he was saying
@@kellydalstok8900 Maybe, but more people have been killed in the name of atheism than ever have been by flying planes into buildings.
Communisam denies God as well as religion. That killed 60 million people in Russia in the 20th century.
I wish Hitchens was still alive to slap this fool silly.
He's not as bad as Deepak Chopra but does his word salads and clearly has not thought many things through.
Christopher would, his brother Peter, probably wouldn't :)
Orange Kayak
Naw. Hitchens was an intellectual hack. Your perception of truth says more about you than Jordan.
Orange Chris Hitchens was sloppy in his research, unread on the Bible, unlettered in history, lazy in his thinking, and wrong most of the time in most of his debates. No, Chris Hitchens would have been completely at sea if he'd tried to oppose Jordan Peterson. He couldn't counter Roger Scruton.
ToxaKoldyn _I honestly can't fathom how anyone could "frankenstein" such a sentence together._
Nor can I. Peterson knows what he's talking about. Hitchens almost never did. In politics, sometimes. About atheism and religion, never.
Atheists: this is who we are in general, and this is what we’re overall about,
Theists: you’re wrong you’re not that, you can’t be that because I say there’s no such thing.
Atheists:.................
Great summary
Strawman
That's basically his stance on gender, as well.
“But... but... that’s too much like us! Being not crappy is a Christian thing!”
Matt Gates *blocks your Foucault*
Some of the most kindest, loving, caring, humanitarian people I have ever known are atheist
You probably have, but I've known many people in my life religious or atheist that were absolute dickheads. There was a teenager that used to live with us that was an atheist and loved making everything into an argument about athiesm for absolutely no reason. He was also a narcissist, liar, gaslighter, theif and most definitely shown signs of being a potential sociopath.
@@jaspermcminnis5538 Being argumentative and edgy is a farcry from telling someone they're going to burn in hell eternally if they don't convert, or telling someone they must convert or die.
@@LifeLikeSage You don't understand, this kid stole money and things we own, greedy, break things we owned, get in fights with us and at school, get in fights with everyone else, constantly accused his friends or anyone else around him of plotting against him or kill him, wants to kill his mother, abused his brother, had delusions of grandeur, he thought he had the IQ of Einstein, lie about something every single day, would exaggerate about peoples intentions possibly ruinning their reputations, accuse anyone of doing all the things he's guilty of.
@@jaspermcminnis5538 Well then that's just an unrelated anecdote about your life.
I was iterating the point that arguing points of logic regarding atheism don't require threats like some religions do.
@@LifeLikeSage I was only making an example to 1j007zm that being atheist doesn't always mean good people.
Although it’s certainly distressing to know that the great Hitch is no more with us, there is much solace in knowing that our atheist community has men who are capable enough to fill the void! Thank you Steve! You are a rare price, as is Matt, and the numerous others!!!
Don't forget the women like Shannon Q and Jaclyn Glenn! ~ Anastacia in Cleveland
@@AnastaciaInCleveland Absolutely! Thanks for inserting them. More power to all of them!!!
"The mindset of what people have about what an atheist is has been poisoned by religious proclamations. We have been denigrated from the pulpit, and it has seeped into every aspect of culture right up to the height of intellectual pursuit, and it's time for that to end." -- Matt Dillahunty
Peterson appears to be the “it-all-depends-on-what-your-definition-of-‘is’-is” intellectual.
To be fair that is just an almost residual side effect of critical thinking where topics are highly contentious. Definitions are significant although I agree it can and very often is used as a tool to deliberately avoid contestation.
Jordan and all of his debating opponents don't know.
I don't know and you don't know.
Now we can begin the discussion.
@@Azurantine81 I think it's fair enough to decide on definitions before debating something, but JP just takes the piss, and he does it in order to deliberately obfuscate, as even he knows that there's no real substance to his beliefs.
Paul Wittenberger maybe a deist
Well that depends on what you mean by appears.
Peterson always looks like he's performing rather than explaining which puts me off. He also looks like he's impressed with himself?
Yeah, talk about egotistical. Isn’t pride one of the deadly sins?
Peterson is one of the few intellectuals who will actually work his thoughts out on real time. If hes looking impressed, hes impressed by the idea he is possessed by that many times aren't his creations. I've seen Jordan in interviews change his opinions on the spot in response to questions, rare for anybody, especially an intellectual
@@MrTimberwolfsden he’s not an intellectual he’s wrong a lot of the time
@@PHDdad you can be smart and wrong simultaneously
@@MrTimberwolfsden except many of his thoughts are contradictory or flawed. Matt Dillahunty revealed some of that in the debate they had. I personally have little time for a man who has a definitive answer for everything.
Well, that last bit is interesting. I had a friend who was teaching in a school and was an atheist. When the kids found out one little girl came up to him and said "But... But... But... You're nice!"
Jp's whole argument is based on the no true scottsman logical fallacy
Yes, it is! :)
Pretty much.
"Deliberately obtuse and obfuscated" - very well said!!!
Alexandra 'Well said,' but deliberately wrong.
It still boggles my mind how people assume you need a god to not murder or not do bad things in general.
I, personally, would prefer a person who doesn't steal from me or murder me because they'd just rather do good than bad over a person who just doesn't do it for fear of pissing of their god.
Well I think people believe so because if we wouldnt have this law system the murders and bad crimes would flow up. It is because people are scared to be caught. Like take it this way, I am an athesiest and I could take advantage of something by killing that person and stealing the goods but thinking that I could end up in jail for the rest of my life stops me from comiting this act.
@@labranjames most humans aren't capable of killing other humans. There's actually extensive research on that.
@@DerVagabundli that is true. Part of my point is that Stalin, Hitler were not having a pleasure of killing people. They were killing people in mass to obtain a goal. In my opinion those great in number criminals were all athesiest people. Of course I don't deny there were crusaders but they had a different perspective and reason they were fighting for (not just killing people)
There is another type of criminals who kills only because of pleasure and I don't think I have heard of one being religious guy. Again, this wouldn't mean that a religious person can't kill with a passion the wife that cheated on him but that's a different essence.
@@labranjames but there you see, what they did was "legal" at the time.
Whether murder is illegal or not isn't really why people do it or not.
It happens whether it's legal or illegal.
I don't think anyone in history has ever thought "I'd kill him if it was legal" with the actual intention of doing so.
@@DerVagabundli you don't think that people would have committed much more murders if they could have hide the body? I am an ex law student and the criminology matter is studying what is under the criminal skin, what he would think or act and most of them are actually afraid of unwanted consequences that might come up upon them rather then having a pity or remorse for the murder.
So I dont quite agree that people would not consider the legal factor. Most murders stop because they don't want to be arrested anymore or that there is not a good spot to kill the victim (which results in a fear of getting caught)
Hope I didn't lost my ideas with my English.
I remember years ago being in a debate where one person on my team (against my advice) tried to use a work of fiction to illustrate a point. The jury rightfully shut her down. A story someone made up can be used to prove anything.
That's a great point, you can make sense out of anything, with enough changes in definition, with low enough ignoring of facts or other circumstances, and by just using logical or seemingly logical course, by starting by complete wrong or invented assumptions
And absurdity is such an easy way to commit atrocities
In Norway (about 73% non-religious) you hear conversations like "people can be nice even if they're a little superstitious, right?" "I don't know... I guess. But why are they always so aggressive though?"
Elajim I hope you're being sarcastic.
According to "world happiness report": Norway tops the global happiness ranking for 2017.
I think it's Iceland now. But don't quote me on that, it's just what I've heard.
Elajim okay? 102 what? And where did you get whatever measurement this is from?
Elajim I see, I thought you were using a sort of measurement.
Sure, they are not lowest on suicide rates, but I doubt that is the world happiness report's only mensuration.
I'm from Georgia and it's true that vast majority of people are religious here; maybe not 98%, but it's close to this.* It's also true that many of these people are aggressive fanatics. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, our identity has become associated with religious nationalism, and that's the greatest problem that keeps our nation back and makes us weak and vulnerable. Kremlin successfully manipulated us until the Rose Revolution because Russia was seen as an ally because of the same (well, similar) religious identity, and even after the revolution, some people still buy into this shit regardless of Russia's aggressive politics towards Georgia (that lasts for centuries, BTW) and many other countries. Science, tech, innovation, and education are doing terrible, the economy is on a life support and mainly consists of unindustrialized agriculture. Our GDP per capita is comparable to that of Syria. Our government has become a huge bureaucracy that does nothing but wasting money. Our currency is doing terrible. And, worst of all, everything changes slowly. There are some improvements, but not a lot.
On the other hand, if you look at the Baltic countries, they've managed to handle the transition to a liberal democratic system like champs, and they have one of the most prosperous and stable society in Europe. And guess what? Majority of people are irreligious there, and meanwhile, the Soviet authoritarianism has turned into a religious authoritarianism in Georgia and many more post-Soviet countries. I think this has something to do with the issue.
* The 2014 census didn't give us a clear picture on this; in many reported cases, people weren't even asked about their religion, and the census takers were simply assuming it. Furthermore, I'm one of the atheists who they counted as an Orthodox Christian. If you want a better case of religious society for a comparison, look no further than the Islamic countries or 12th century Europe.
- "I don't believe in a god. I'm not convinced."
- "No no no no no..... You do..... See, you just aren't aware of it....."
- "WTF MAN????"
belief does require input, that is funny tho.
Peterson is right about Raskovnikov.
Its almost as if he is a clinical psychologist, looking deeper into the meaning and origin of your axioms. What he is saying is that he doesn't necessarily subscribe to your idea of where they come from and that you either wilfully ignore or are unaware of the extent to which your moralistic beliefs derive from religion. Especially if you were raised in western society your entire culture and therefore your belief system (even if it's devoid of God) were sculpted by Judeo-Christian values. True absence of belief in the metaphysical or reverence of the spiritual breeds absolute utilitarianism.
@@PurestIcicle Holy moly, those are some high class words. I don't even know what they all mean.
I'm saying, I don't believe in god. Which means, I REEEEALLY don't believe in (a) god. You can't say "no no no no I do believe in god, I just don't know it", because I know best what I truely believe and don't; thank you very much. Jeez. Keep it simple.
@@AquaPeet My b if I came across as pompous. Not intentional. I noticed your original post was 11 months ago so its cool that you responded so fast. The argument in this video that JP is trying to make is that like it or not your view of morality stems from common moral standards we share in western society that have been molded from the Judeo-Christian values that founded it. He's saying the fact that you have a set of beliefs that at times oppose your own well being and that you dont act in a purely utilitarian way 100% of the time means you must have some belief or reverence for the metaphysical. You may not be convinced of Christianity or Islam or any other religion's version of God. But if you believe that there truly is nothing other than the physical world around us then there are no pure moral truths and therefore utilitarianism would be what a completely faith-free person would subscribe to... basically I am not saying you believe there is a big bearded man in the clouds and you just don't know it. I'm saying simply that the fact that you have a moral code that isn't made up of pure utilitarianism shows that you (even subconsciously) have some beliefs instilled in you that are inherently religious.
I was working in a restaurant with a highly religious person. I got my best friend (let's call her Carla) a job at this restaurant. After a few months, the highly religious coworker said "Did you know Carla is an Atheist?" I said "yeah, I've known her for years." Her response was "she always seemed so nice!"
Not only does this person believe that Atheists are inherently evil, but her reaction to learning that a nice person is actually an Atheist is to assume that the Atheist was FAKING BEING A GOOD PERSON.
"No metaphysical reason stopping me from the act" is like saying "Air cannot stop me if the air was air"
I wish I could have seen JP try to tell Hitchens he wasn't an atheist.
InMaTeofDeath would be terrifying...lol hitchens would skin him alive.
I’m pretty sure that Peterson would be too scared to debate Hitchens. He would be completely dismantled within about 3 minutes.
That would have been a great one!
He made one good argument against a bad journalist and I momentarily took him seriously. I haven't made that mistake since. He is a total fraud. I don't understand why Harris still treats him like he's an intellectual.
And then the subsequent Hitchslap was so loud that God himself went deaf.
I have read Crime and Punishment maybe 4 times. Once I did a page by page re-edit of an English version into American English.
And I don't think I ever read the book that JP is talking about.
Peterson has also bought into the notion that there are infinitely many possible interpretations of any text. So there's that.
Name a single thing he misrepresents about the book.
TWiiGZ how 'bout what Dan said? Rasn.. KNOWS it's bad to murder, not as JP says; Rasn.. Believes it's ok to murder cus there's no god.
Thulyblu -- My understanding that immediately after accepting that notion (which I've seen him do a few times), he _immediately_ follows, that a _minuscule_ *finite* set of those interpretations are legitimate. Can you show me otherwise?
Raskolnikov was a mix of a nihilist and a utilitarian. This philosophy was probably not sufficient to allow him to murder the woman except that he also believed that great men could morally do terrible things. The items he stole were incidental to his desire to believe that he was a great man.
Philosophy and the dangers of certain philosophies are explored, as is the psychological reaction of someone to doing an imoral action, but being a nihilist or a utilitarian or believing in the role of great people who are above common morality are orthogonal to the belief in or lack of belief in one or more gods.
Moreover, if you listen to what Raskolnikov says or the way he thinks and the imagery he uses, he is a christian throughout the novel. His belief in the literal truth of the story of Lazarus is incompatible with him being an atheist.
I love that you reacted to his clip rationally and without interruption or belittling while fully explaining your point
Are there people out there that hate when someone does that? What's your point?
I don't understand why Peterson seems so full of venomous anger whenever he talks about Atheism or when he talks to a person who challenges his delusions.
Because he’s lost and confused
Great video. I get tired of people claiming and assuming that morality is locked in religion when it is not. And that's not even getting to the arrogance of believing that everyone is secretly a theists. Great counters my fellow ape.
Jesse Chavez "without a god, no objective mortality exists" of someone says that, just first all them "which god or gods exhibit objective mortality" and let them ponder it.
I think you have JBP's position backwards. He does not assert that morality comes from religion. What he says (on the rare occasion anything he says actually means something) is that your (every individual's) morality *IS* your god, your religion.
Pietro Lucchese well, she's half right. See, everyone who is religious was born an athiest. No one is born believing in anything. The part she missed is that most people grow out of their imaginary friends around elementary or middle school age.
There are some unlikely or wondrous things I would not mind ascribing to a mysterious purpose. But with all that implied suffering and coercion built into the structure, it is not easy to feel that way.
As freaks like peterson prove time and time again, it is impossible to find morality WITH a god
"Mr. Dawkins, do you believe in a god?" "No."
"Mr. Dillahunty, do you believe in a god?" "No."
"Mr. Hitchens, do you believe in a god?" "No."
"Mr. Peterson, do you believe in a god?"
"Well, that's a very complicated question. It would take me about 46 hours to answer it right, but metaphysical claims lead to the scientific observation that ancient, archetypal lobsters observed and thus absorbed primary implicit pain through their receptors, but through the use of paracetamol, they lost the ability to do so in our age. [waves his hands around dramatically] and that's really what [cites some book he is sure nobody in the audience read] meant..."
Another thing Peterson does is:
Q: Do you believe wars are bad?
Peterson: well that depends on what you think about "wars" and "bad"
If you notice he didn't answer a question, in fact he avoided it. He replied a question with a question. When you ask a normal person he will give you his definition of war and why he thinks what he thinks. And if you agree or disagree that’s up to you. And weather you want to debate of define these terms that won't change the fact that he is asking you, your own definition of them and your personal opinion (or conclusions depending on your ideas). But instead of giving your own interpretation or views what Peterson does is return the question to you and all of the sudden it's up to you to answer the question you asked in the first place which make Peterson a scape route to avoid the question (or the topic depending how far he wants to go) in the first place.
Zidneya of course because like any of delusional brainwashed moron like Peterson are so damn stupid they actually believe we all be Going around killing each other if there was no good because that how these delusional moron are taught to believe.
@@user-xs2qq7kv9w According to Livy and Machiavelli Going around killing each other is what we do most of the time. War is not as economically beneficial now as it was in the past. It is still profitable in some parts of the world though. Religion is quite a unifying power especially Abrahamic ones. The strange thing about Christianity though is the fact that Middle east was even more advanced than Europe but then Muslim dark age fell upon them. Europe also had its share of religious Dark age but for some reason it overcame all that and became the leader in all endeavours concerned with human prosperity. When there is lack of food it is rational decision to kill. That is what we have been practicing for past thousand of years. Religion maybe was meant as a means to stop all that feral behaviour. But it is just an instrument and it will serve the purpose according to the wielder.
nikoloz kharshiladze religions are just mans way of controlling others.
I dont know if your aware... but your comment just shows you to be unable to understand long strings of sentences. Listen to a science lecture maybe??
Jordan Peterson is one of the highest achieving lecturers in the world and has a clearly extensive knowledge of the fields of psychology and philosophy.
(Also he usually mentions the same books over and over. its actually almost a joke how much hes mentioned crime and punishment).
Peterson is the type of people i hate when communicating: who interrupts other people while speaking
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
What bottom?
@@johndelong5574lol ask dawkins...its his quote.
I love how all the real skeptic channels are taking down Peterson
All you can eat at Red Lobster
Fernando Giubilei
So attacking a strawman like some SJW hack is 'taking down' Peterson. Kay.
Peterson does a good job of taking down SJWs, though they are very low hanging fruit and far more unhinged than modern day Christians. His stance in defense of masculinity is positive as is his stance of the far lefts absolute utopian delusions of cultural equality, infinite gender theory, femanazi hysteria. JP conducted himself with the typical arrogance of a psychologist in this debate but to have an all or nothing view of him is unwise.
Fernando Giubilei
Misrepresenting someones views is a strawman. ffs
Fernando _I love how all the real skeptic channels are taking down Peterson_
That's because they can't keep up with him. He knows too much.
I'm glad that you're happy about not having actually to think, however. Your brain can remain in its peaceful, quiet, unmoving state.
Using fiction as an argument, written by any good writer, is not an argument. As an atheist and an artist, religious metaphysics does not come into my motivations in art nor does it drive my ethical considerations. The no true scotsman fallacy, retooled for atheism, isn’t made valid.
Paul Mellender you probably want to rethink that. Were you raised in western culture such as the majority of countries in Europe or in America? If so, then religious doctrine has shaped your world view whether you agree with it or not. Judaeo-Christian principals are the foundation of western culture. They are the principals behind our laws and why they are written they way they are. This is an immutable fact that you can’t escape from. Like it or not western culture was molded by the Judaeo-Christian beliefs
CD Arthurkins sorry, but it’s laughably asinine to even try and make a claim that western society is not based on Judaeo-Christian principals. I mean all you have to do is look at the majority of the laws that each western country has that are similar and have a basic understanding of the Torah and the Bible to see just why this is the case.
To claim anything otherwise is to be either willfully ignorant, or worse, to understand this but wish to propagate lies in an attempt to deconstruct our society.
Aaron Starke western civilization is more based on values that originated in acient empires and republics, most notably Greece and Rome, than judeo-christian values
Using fiction as an argument?
Thats absurd... *cough* The bible *cough*
Aaron Starke: Yes please elaborate how the morality of slavery is professed in your great Bible. Or freedom of speech. Or Democracy. Or Equality? The values of western civilization. Let me do the job for you since you fail to do it yourself.
*Slavery* The Bible actually gives instruction on how to enslave other human beings, tells you who to enslave, for how long, gives a loophole on how to enslave someone for the rest of their lives, and not once does the bible condemn slavery. It actually condone slavery.
*Freedom of Speech* Blasphemy laws? Is that really freedom of speech in your mind?
*Democracy* Christianity and Islam endorse Theocracy. Not Democracy. Democracy originated in ancient Athens. Not the Bible.
*Equality* Again, the Bible endorse the subordination of women. Endorse the execution of homosexuals. Again, endorse slavery and the execution of blasphemers. The Bible does NOT promote equality.
But since you make laughable claims of how western society is based upon Judaeo Christian principles, please elaborate what principles you are talking about. What beliefs are you talking about? What doctrines shape our western society?
I mean, its not lethal to think for yourself. Instead of buying stupid claims from a dishonest persons, like Jordan Peterson.
Thank you so much for creating these videos!
You're doing an excellent job! I just discovered your channel and I'm amazed at your spot on, confident and articulate way of analysis! Really great job! Well done!
Peterson doesn't even understand Crime and Punishment. It's not the case that Raskolnikov thinks that his actions are justifiable because there is no God. In fact, Raskolnikov knows that his actions are wicked. His thinking is that even though his actions are wicked, they are justifiable because Raskolnikov is convinced he is a great person, and that he is permitted to commit slight wicked acts in order to achieve his full greatness. This is why Raskolnikov thinks so much of Napoleon - a figure Dostoevsky greatly admired. Ironically I expect something similar is going through Peterson's head when he decides it's fine to mislead people to make lots of money because maybe one day he'll do something great.
Dan.
Well at least a few of us can see through the B.S. artist, Peterson.
All he seems to have done so far with the money, is buy more suits and ties, along with the booze.
It's also fucking bizarre that a well-employed professor/"psychologist" would ask for money on patreon, just to peddle religious poison and "self help" ramblings which are obvious to anyone who's not busy deluding themselves in every passing moment.
He knows he is being dishonest and manipulating his cultist followers but he is doing it because he genuinely believes himself a savior of civilization, he actually believes the world is about to disintegrate into chaos otherwise. Peterson is a total nutjob but a dangerously gifted demagogue and manipulator.
C.F Gauss yeah, that's right. Because of how obviously baseless his word salads are, he has to delude himself FURTHER into thinking that there is only truth in his sayings and that there is some great demon lurking within our specie that only his "revelations" can fight against, because closing in on his 60s, he has STILL FAILED to make even the most basic corrections to his worldview, yet he has enough hubris to preach his garbage to others while riding on the backs of people like Jung and Nietzche. Because he lacks truth, or any original thought.
He is a wasted individual, and he is killing so many minds in his Neo-crusade.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins
Shawn Simmons Usual intellectual Dawkins savagery
Miguel Pereira...In my personal opinion, it's not savagery, it's just common sense.
I think you are missing the point. If the fundamental axiom based on which one acts is the existence of god and if that axiom is a product of evolution, then acting as if God exists yields the best results for an organism, which is a pretty good indication that God exists.
Aik r/woosh
@Sam Do you disagree with the argument?
I love that retort in the end. Jordan is the definition of the classic 'no true Scotsman' argument.
"We behave as if there is a god"
What nonsense
I behave the way I want to, god or no god I will do what I want. That is being helpful to the people I like or love and enjoying my free time.
I dont need to be scared of hell to know that murder is wrong
Sacrilege, you deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?! Blasphemers. You will starve for all of eternity. Repent and make spaghetti and meatballs and down it with the holy pasta sauce to be redeemed. Ramen. 😂😂😂
@@proculusjulius7035 ramen 🤣 i love it
@@silversurfer6360 ramen, the flying spaghetti Monster has pardoned you. Save me some though.
4:00 “so Dostoevsky sets up the stage...”. This is all you need to know. He created a fictional character...a fictional situation...a fictional story... This is why Jordan is not worth listening to. His best evidence is a fictional work of art.
I’m an atheist and I haven’t killed anyone, no matter how horrible a person they are. Nor do I care to.
Damn, man... not even once? You should try murder at least once. Remember; don't nock it till you try it. Lol.
@Paul Simon McCarthy the thing I hate about the whole Crime and Punishment thing of JP is that he got the book totally wrong.
I mean he does not even state that Raskolnikow did not kill because he thought about it. Didn't raskolnikow nearly leave again with that axe?
"I once got carried into killing someone. It didn't seem right. I know I shouldn't have had those thoughts but the more I tried to get around the problem, the more logically sound it appeared to be. So I decided to act upon it. I mean, he was sending people to torture chambers, for the most pointless of crimes like using electricity on a given day, for a really long time. Unfortunately, I cannot kill imaginary beings."
You aren't a *TRUE* atheist, or else you would be a heinous murderer.
@Dave McNeal doesn't matter; he can cite whatever examples he can he just isn't accurately describing the book
A general rule of thumb: If you are trying to argue that very real people behave in a certain way, you shouldn't use fictional people as examples.
But but Harry Potter is a TRUE warlock! All the others just THINK they are warlocks.
There's actually no problem in using a fictional character as an example. If you're aiming to describe a behavior and that fictional character has it, then that fictional character is a good example of it. It doesn't matter that it's fictional because that's completely besides the point.
So if I said that Christians aren't really Christians and a TRUE Christian would murder in the name of God, and then pointed to a fictional character that does precisely that, it would be a logical argument??? The problem with the argument is that the example does not help his argument in the slightest.
The part where the character is fictional would be just as irrelevant to the validity of your argument. You'd be using that character to illustrate the type of person you'd be referring to, not as an argument in itself.
It's not like you'd be saying (or like JP is saying) that christians had magic powers like Gandalf. Even if you said something like that, that would still be a mere component of the argument, not the argument itself, and not the premise of the argument either. Although dumb, it *could* still be irrelevant to whether your argument was actually valid. An argument may still not be invalid when one component which isn't the premise is false, or dumb, or whatever.
And if it doesn't help the argument, so what? If it still doesn't invalidate the argument, well the argument is still valid.
First time I’ve watched this channel. I’m a fan, well done, great editing and presentation.
Matt's here talking like a normal person and getting his point across clearly while Jordan is trying to overcomplicate simple questions to seem smart and try and win people over by using big big words.
I've always thought Peterson's rise is based on shock value. He appeared as a nonconformist and climbed the ladder of popularity using his charisma and psychological knowledge. Because people were so impressed with him, they gave him a green card when it came to him mixing religious bulshit and propaganda in his vague views. I'm glad people like you do their best to expose him. I'm sick of his brainwashed fanbase.
Bogdan Patru, I've come to call Peterson's fan base, Peterphiles-for various reasons. There's a lot that can be taken from or put into a nickname like that I'm sure.
Can you please tell me why Peterson would use religious propaganda in his views? What's in it for him?
Peterson has no charisma
Yian Pap, He does it because he is religious. He is a Christian, although he'd never admit it openly. And, since he knows that defending the Christian dogma or its metaphysical claims is near impossible, he uses language to mask his intentions.
He does so for two main reasons: appeal to a larger audience (believers and atheists alike) and appear more intelligent and more profound than he really is (the founder of hidden meanings, the opener of virgin paths).
I may be wrong, but, hey, he doesn't do much to break my impressions either. And I believe Peterson's greatest strength, which is language manipulation, will ultimately become his downfall. People will get tired of this semantic balet he's resorting to in order to create confusion. It's intellectually dishonest. We are literally close to classify Peterson as a fraud.
I believe he is correct in many aspects with regards to psychology. He should stick to that rather than rambling on subjects he is clearly incapable of entertaining. But, then again, few people would listen to him then.
Money.
01:45 At the height of it's power the Catholic church held a strangle hold on all forms of art and declared heresy on anything they didn't like. We don't have religion to thank for art and culture we have religion to thank for stifling art and culture.
Great point. Of course in the name of religion people also stifle science (Galileo, evolution) and ethics (reproductive rights, slavery, honour killings).
Bonfire of the Vanities
Who was the Sistine chapel funded by? What major European institution do you think was the patron of the majority of renaissance art???🤔
Hint:
It’s starts with a C and rhymes with birch
Djrobot8, I am sure there are many examples of religious organisations paying to create art. That says nothing of their other activities to censor creativity.
Djrobot8 That proves only that the wealthiest and most powerful religious / political organisation of the time controlled the arts, just as they controlled everything else. It does not for a moment say that if mankind had never had gods there would be no arts, which is what Peterson is asserting.
Oh, and while that organisation was castigating 'Sodomy', Michelangelo was carving The Boy David - modelled on his favourite rent boy.
Matt doing his best Hitch Slap impersonation at the end there... well done sir. Well done.
I loved this video SO much. Thanks!
I am confused. What Judeo Christian moral standpoint does JP think I should adhere to? "Turn the other cheek" or "an eye for an eye"? Judeo Christian values do not tell me not rape nor not to abuse children. They also tell me that slavery is ok. Christians and non Christians alike, therefore, must get their stance on these issues from elsewhere. The truth is that modern Judeo Christian morals borrow from morals evolved both biologically and sociably and not the other way round.
I would have taken 500 words to say the same thing! Spot on and very succinct.
demiurgo If even true that would have been a rather pointless thing to have said.
demiurgo Pretending for a while that God exists, you can be kind to God but not to your fellow man. When the OT sanctions slavery and rape, it is done wirh God's permission or instruction. Strange how raping a woman allegedly hurts the same God who directly imparts so much pain to men and women.
demiurgo So being flogged to within an inch of death on a regular basis is better than being flogged to death? Tell me why the former is ok.
demiurgo The problem is that being "fine" with God is not necessarily the same as being good to people, especially as the God of the OT is not good to people. Just check out how rape and slavery are dealt with.
You seem to be saying that we can live by the simple rule of not harming others. That is a very laudable rule but no God nor Bible is necessary to put that rule in practice.
Until recently I liked and looked up to Peterson a lot, but slowly but surely I'm coming to the realization that he's not all that sophisticated or impressive, quite the contrary actually.
Yeah, just steal some good ideas from the man and thats that...Skygod is a hinder for humanity. + I wanna see how the new obtained funds of J. Petereson will be put to work :) ---> Its a possibel trap in so many ways
Noah G I've met people like Peterson.
"Learn a bunch of 3 to 4 syllable words. Mash them into sentence. Embrace people who awh me. Refute my adversaries with more syllables. Feel like a god."
When in reality all they spew is nonsense that they cannot clarify.
Like 2016 2017 I saw a lot of his lectures and planed to read his book when I ended my Jr Dr year, cause I like a lot CGJ and the archetype theory, and he looked like a interesting conservative intellectual (such a rare species) but always was there something odd, like, his stance in post modernism, not a big fan here of of pomo, but his arguments were like a fog, everywhere but at same time impossible to pin out. I thought I was stupid, or out of shape intellectually. But here we are.
I feel the same
Beware of what he's saying about psychology too. His absurd pattern seeking and weak requirement for evidence mean you should question everything he says. Someone on TH-cam has edited down his pseudoscientific statements about the presence of the image of two entwined snakes in a helix in many cultures, and how that suggests that all humans had some innate knowledge of the structure of DNA molecules prior to its scientific analysis. Once I heard that I decided not to listen to anything the man says.
Great video, and I agree that Matt's response to Jordan were spot on. Just FYI, the photo that appears at the right of the screen at 9:21 is Kent Hovind, not William Lane Craig.
Atheist are murders: LAUGHS IN SPANISH INQUISITION
I love that Matt made Jordan clarify. Jordan clearly tries to be as articulate as possible to confuse people into being unable to realize just how stupid his views are.
There’s also a problem of semantics and definitions... JBP’s “God” is not at all the same as what most Christians believe in
Oooooooooooohhhh, so thats problem! Got it
EXACTLY what I thought. As an ex-Muslim, I can vouch that what he defines as God is not what most Muslims believe in either. So.. Idk man. It's weird.
That is his play: totally redefine what 'God' is, then argue 'see you actually believe this '
@@MrThemaskedavenger 'Well that depends on what your definition of 'is' is.' sort of nonsense.
Academics can speak for an eternity and say nothing. But I've known factory workers who can express and inform you about an eternity with a simple look or a single sentence.
Most of academia has become masterbatory. A great expensive circle-jerk. If you wish to explore a new path rather than give your professor a reach-around -- you will be rewarded with expulsion or slowly die in a defunded desert of great new ideas.
If you want to get ahead in modern academia get a thesaurus ; learn some large words to flatter your peers and professors with , conform and have no gag reflex. You will be rewarded with a gold plated treadmill to nowhere.
yeah he never called you a murderer
he just called you not athiest, which I guess is pretty bold but meh
"Insufficiently vicarious" is just a beautiful turn of phrase.
really interesting, thank you
Peterson does know that art preceded (organised) religion, right? The earliest hominids created art; it’s not something that came about when religion was invented.
Now, where did I leave my axe?
Macca Lives he's not actually referring to religion as that... It's more that art is of sort a belief in a higher being, which truly is true for movies for example. You are captivated in the same way as you are in theism.
"lemme just shift the goal a little bit.. aaaand I'm correct again!"
yeah, but those cave painters who started art weren't atheists either
carrotzombie They weren't atheists? Citation needed.
FluffySquirrels
beliefs in the supernatural are a human universal, if human beings were born atheists that wouldn't be the case
P.S. I'd apologize for the audio problems, but it isn't my fault - whoever edited the original (in my opinion) damaged the quality.
Rationality Rules Peterson's core problem is he understands that there ARE Atheists but seems unwilling to let go of his conception of how an Atheist should be and act. He read some Dostoevsky and thinks he discovered some secret truth that even Atheists are deluded to
I'm an atheist I'm not a murderer
Rationality Rules jordan petersons view on this comes from his prior philosophical view that you are what you act out. Because you didnt debunk that, I think you failed at rebutting his case simply because you didnt understand it. If you had debunked the statement, you are what you act out, you would have succeeded. Jordans view is that because atheists don't act out the conclusion of their atheism, they are not atheists because they don't act out their atheism.
@Pie Maker2 Are you sure? No bodies in the basement or cupboard? Just checking ha ha
Someone can be addressing a strawman, without deliberately strawmanning a position... this still qualifies as a strawman fallacy
Quick question, something it seems you would have failed to consider. Why would the “internal reasons” of remorse and sadness that would come along with killing the old pawn broker lady trump the “external reasons” that raskolnikov had not to kill the pawn broker lady?
Id love it if you covered more of Jordan Peterson my friends love him and you help me point out the flaws in their logic
If you need someone else to logically guide you through those arguments against ideas a priori you declare false, then you are concluding there is falsity in an argument before even knowing a logical way to respond it. This is a contradiction by principle of logic, don't declare an idea false if you don't have a logically consistent argument beforehand. It's quite an arrogant pretense to live by.
You're correct. I will only say that my plans are beyond your understanding
Sometimes i wonder if peterson even read crime and punishment
why though
According to Jordan, the main character kills someone because there are no consequences of that, and then suffers consequences. Hmmm.....
Lo kai tso
He has such a weird interpretation of whats going on.
For a start the women raskolnikow kills besides the lender is her sister and not her niece, a simple mistake that happens. But for someone who is so obsessed with that story i would think that he should know that.
And also that he says that after he commits the murder 'all hell breaks lose' that is completely untrue, the pressure on raskolnikow slowly builds up both from his mind and the police.
Ah yeah ty I didn't remember it's actually her sister. It's true that Raskolnikov's "hell" happens gradually but I don't think JP meant that it happened instantly when he says "all hell broke loose", seems more like one of the standard phrases he uses a lot
Lo kai tso
Yeah okay that could be the explanation for that, but did you get the impression while reading the book, that raskolnikow commits his murder because he is an atheist? Im not even sure he is honestly.
I think that the book is a masterpiece and that Freud was right when he called Dostoyevsky the greatest psychologist of all time, but i did not read it as a critism of atheism.
But that could also be my conformation bias
Jordan peterson has a serious hand gesture game that tries to make his speech authoritative, many times it isn't.
It reminds me of Zizek but less unique
First time I hear JP voicing the extreme theist-head position of "you believe, you're just suppressing it". This man passes for an intellectual..?
Dr. Peterson has boldly taken on many of the growing absurdities of our current age and is undeniably highly intelligent and analytical. But I would argue that, when it comes to his religious perspective on societal function, he suffers from a serious case of confirmation bias. He has a conclusion, a result, that he believes. Then he shapes every experiment to create the result.
I still, to this day, do not understand the discussion about "you act like a religious person" or "our morals and values come from religion".
Like, what kind of arguments are those? I feel like that only in america you have these discussions, because even remotely similar principles like those, are just unthought of over here in germany.
How can someone claim human values for himself, and then tell someone that he "acts like me". If I made a new religion, Oxyianity, and breathing would be part of its values, is every human being gonna be a fucking Oxytian? How does a man, that is described by people, christians and atheists alike, as clever, making such utterly stupid claims and arguments? I expected those from Ben Shapiro, and boy he delivered, because he's a religious nut, but from Peterson? Where and how did he study psychology?
Even religious nuts here in germany don't make such abysmal claims, because they know they would make themselves look dumb. But in america it seems to be an accepted claim?
Because in America, the "common sense" position is that we get our values from Judeo-Christian traditions. It's taught in homes, schools, churches, and pop culture. The "Judeo" was thrown in so that we don't appear anti-semitic. It's a comforting assertion because there's not much national unity in the US. We're multiracial, multi-ethnic, and have vast and differing geography. So it's kinda comforting (to some) to be able to say, "we disagree no a lot, but this is what we all agree on. And even if you don't, it's what the country was founded on."
It's probably because 1: america has a lot more people, which means there are more dumb people, and that makes it easier for dumb people to gather around some idiot like Jordan and form a larger crowd much faster. 2:Europeans overall have more exposure to other countries, cultures and belief systems, so they don't have in the same amount the usual american perspective of "christian or unchristian". Which is why Jordan peterson's shit sells better in the north american area.
This is something I can't wrap my head around. When I hear Ben Shapiro, Peterson or even fucking Prager saying that western civilization was formed under judeo-christian values, that is DEMONSTRABLY false. First, because they act like the so called "christian values" just poped up in the age of enlightment, when in fact christianity has been around for a shit ton of time, including some of the worst in history, and this so called "judeo-christian values" made no fucking difference. Second, because when they say "western civilization" they basically mean the USA, as if this is the only country in the world with a set of moral principles; like, what about Japan and South Korea, for example? They most certainly aren't western civilizations and they do just fine without tons of christians. And third, even if you're talking about only the USA, what the fuck does freedom of religion, the very first amendment, has to do with judaism or christianity? Isn't the first two damn commandments like "I am the Lord thy god, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, Thou shalt have no other gods before me, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"? That's like...the opposite of freedom of religion. I mean, the bible is a pretty fucking long book, but it's right there on the beggining of a very well know passage
How did Peterson become so overrated? I don't get it.
marketing.
Sjw shit
Just another successfull con man
because a lot of insecure people have been strengthened by his talks on responsibility. so they support the vessel. but they fail to recognize however that this does not give Peterson any claim to truth(message).
Tastypie
Because the incel population is much larger than predicted.
That's a very well crafted rebuttal
Interesting points.
I agree with Peterson in many things, but this isn't one of them. Really enjoying seeing different points of view, I think everyone should.
Same
Same.
I agree with Viced Rhino as hes well versed in religion. His politics however are shrouded in ignorance. Seeing people's arguments instead of them is important.
Likes + comments
.
.
Depends what you mean by 'idiot'.
6chhelipilot AHAHA GOLD STAR!
I may have missed this comment, but the photo to the right at 12:37 is not William Lan Craig. It is Dr. Kent Hovind. Sorry if this is a redundant observation. Cheers.
wars happen because of religion.
When Jordan Peterson said that I nearly lost half of my respect for him.
People will never seem to understand what Atheism is.
The problem is, that when he says "you behave like you believe in god", he dosent mean the actual christian god. When he talks about god, he means an "ultimate value" we all have, thats kinda different for each person.
He clarified that in a few interviews. Nut not nearly enough.
that's not even the most worrying thing, if religious people are only "nice"/ "good" to save their own souls imagine the horrors they're apparently capable of without the fear of being punished. the reasoning skills of a child pretty much.
Pineapple Panda Not all theists are Christians. There are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists (sorta), Hindus, Deists, Shinto, and Spinozian, and there were Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, Canaanite, Babylonian, Sumerian, Mayan, and Aztec, just to name a few, in the past. Over 4,000 gods have been worshipped by humans throughout human history. Theists are diverse in beliefs, traditions, and culture.
Peterson defining "God" as the "ultimate value" doesn't really amount to much; it's nonsense as it renders the very definition of a God meaningless, just like Spinoza's God does. And his claims on Atheists:
1: Atheists that are morally bankrupted killers.
2: Atheist who completely contradict premise 1 are not "true atheists."
are quite insulting to an atheist.
Peterson's Premise 1 is a generations long persisted lie with no real bearing on reality. And Peterson's Premise 2 is a no true scottsman fallacy.
An Atheist is someone who is without a belief in a God. That's where the definition of an Atheist ends and doesn't define the Atheist's individual character any further than this.
He understands what atheism is, he's just made up his own definition and replaced the original one with it. This is acceptable in academic circles, as long as you clearly state "I define the term atheist as the following." The question is why he makes such an effort to hide the fact that he is doing this. Outside of his psychological theories, in which he brilliantly interweaves myths and stories like the ones in bible, what does he gain from associating himself with Christians when he himself is agnostic about Jesus rising from the dead?
This is part of a large and consistent pattern of behavior redefining terms with well established meanings to mean things we already have good words for (such as "values" for "religion") and then using them in their normal definition (such as then equating "religion" and "theism") without ever defining how he's using words unless pressed, because it helps him pass one of his favorite logical fallacies off as truth.
By his own standards of judging people by actions rather than what they say (or even believe) about themselves, this makes him a charlatan.
Please look up more "Jordan Peterson debunked" videos on this and other channels until what he is becomes clear because he's very skilled at hiding it.
I actually like Jordan Peterson, but it has been clear to me and probably many others that he is a great example of what cognitive dissonance looks like at the extreme.
Mathias Berg no it doesn’t I think he knows what he is doing but he is laughing all the way to the bank with his faux science!!!
Look at his patreon: 80.000$+ p.Month
Dont melt little snowflake
While I don't personally like Peterson or his politics, I can see why people are impressed by his intellect and his way of speaking. He is clearly good at 'coming off' as a deep thinker, by the way he speaks and his clearly vast knowledge. But anyone with any scepticism who listens to what he is saying rather than how he is saying it can see how empty his words really are. His views on 'God', morality, atheism and conciousness don't hold up to even minor sceptical analysis, but then again, that goes for most religious minded people.
I am honestly curious, why do you like Peterson? What about him or his views do you like?
Hi J Gairns
I like him for identfying and challlenging the post-modernists which he does very well, and for championing free speech. And he seems like a person with a great amount of empathy, you can try and find the clip where he talks about depression and starts crying. I agree wholeheartedly that he puts too much stock in the christian myths, and when he talks about religion it just seems like he is trying to convince himself that it is somehow neccesary to believe because he for some reason can't face the fact that it makes no sense. And he is a pretty good psycologist.
I also wanted to say I appreciate all the likes and comments, my comment got. :-)
Hey....because of your work i've just realised how much gravity Matt's summation had. Thank you so much!! We win!
It’s not that Peterson thinks that all atheists are murderers, it’s that he has a different definition of ‘atheist’ than most people.
I thought that J.P. was a smart person.
There are hundreds of well known atheists that he could have mentioned and in the end he picked a fictional character. But what amazes me the most is the fact that somebody like him is convinced that without delusional and mythical books there is no morality, poetry, music and he might be stupid enough to say that without religion there would be no science.
If you delve deeper into almost any topic peterson is talking about you will realise that he is a big fraud. Probably the only topic I would take him seriously, if at all, is clinical psychology, and only because a university employed him in that profession.
Same. It’s a giant word salad. Except some of his lectures I’ve seen. Bout it.
Agreed! I would also be pretty upset if someone said I believed in god even though I asserted I have no belief in any god; how disrespectful!! I think I know my own mind better than any other human does. JP may be smart/intelligent in some ways, but saying to Matt that Matt acts like he believes in god is just plain stupid. I love that RR included Matt's response to JP.
"Deliberately obtuse and obfuscating." That's Peterson to a tee.
There clarity to everything he says if you actually try to hear him out.
Barely.
@@benjaminr8961
Provide evidence or get used to being laughed at and dismissed outright.
@@MegaMiir People making a claim are the ones who need to defend their position not the ones refuting them. I am saying their is no substance to his claim. I cannot disprove something that is not based on anything.
Also I am fine with idiots laughing at me and I am fine with idiots dismissing my views. Other peoples ignorance is not my burden.
That got me thinking about the many criminals and sociopaths I've known over the years (one of whom is currently serving time for but the latest of his several homicides). And every goddamn one of them professed a belief in some sort of celestial "higher power".
Thank you for making me a better thinker.
I love Jordan Peterson but the arrogance of him saying that I an not a real Atheist, or that he can define Atheism and I cannot. The idea that a real Atheist would simply be going around eating babies is fallacious
dr.derp What's there to love? He's an overly obtuse, long winded, pseudo-intellectual whose only talent is obfuscating arguments with copious amounts of word salad.
You love him, why?
JP has some good ideas on other things like free speech, politics, etc., but I just wish people like him, who are so brave when talking about other things, would show the same kind of BALLS when it comes to the topic of religion.
@dr.derp
He's not saying that you would go around eating babies(Although there would be no metaphysical - morality, justice, love - reason NOT to). He's saying that in a scenario where you have every reason to commit a murder and the only thing stopping you would be a metaphysical belief you can either commit the murder or not. If you commit the murder, then you're acting as if there truly were not metaphysical reality(a true atheist); if you don't, then you're acting as if there truly were a metaphysical reality and therefore not a true atheist.
It's like being an atheist who prays to a God: that person is not a true atheist.
@G Kaiser
Who dropped you as a baby? :P
I never said to kill wantonly and neither did Peterson.
I said(and so did he) in that particular narrative case. The case is built upon specifically so that it's full of pros and devoid of cons.
> It's not beneficial for us to live in a society that allows murder of children as children are our replacements.
Tell that to the pro-choice crowd :D
> Therefore it is instilled within is the ability to be disgusted with such an act.
So? Again who's saying that there are no cons to killing babies? By the way, the same argument of disgust can be made against say homosexuals, yet I doubt you would say that being gay is wrong(not that I think so either, so you don't jump to conclusions). The biological sense of disgust is not adequate to explain morality.
Also, as I said, that would not be a METAPHYSICAL appeal, right? You're not saying you shouldn't kill babies because it's unfair, unloving, the breaking of an obligation or higher law, or anything like that. You're merely trying to pass on debatable practical reasons as moral reasons.
> Its makes no biological sense to kill children!
Of course it does. You can kill the children of your competitor like lions do. That makes biological sense. Yet we would agree that biological reasons are not the most powerful reasons. Rape makes perfect biological sense and CAN be a good strategy, yet you wouldn't say it's not wrong, would you?
> U guys think there must be a transcendental reasons why murder is wrong.
No. I'm saying that one of the most powerful arguments against such actions IS the transcendent. Those are MORAL reasons. The other reasons are practical ones(going to jail, being barred from society, etc..). Those are perfectly debatable and CONTEXT-dependent.
> And yes, him saying a true athiest doesnt see anything wrong with killing people is indeed him saying we are immoral monsters
-Sighs- I even wonder if you are willing AND able to have an honest conversation without reacting emotionally with your gut-feeling instead of your reason.
He doesn't even say what you're claiming. He puts a SPECIFIC case in which it would make rational sense to murder and the only possible reasonable reason NOT to do so would be an appeal to the transcendent. As the case is built narratively on that premise(by the author, not Peterson) you can't argue that it's not so because the author precisely made it so in other to show an argument. If you disagree then tell me: In that SPECIFIC case, what possible reason would an atheist have NOT to commit that murder that is not addressed by Peterson's rationale?
Peterson is his own worst enemy. The more he speaks, the more there is to deconstruct. He became popular because of his approach, but eventually people learned to deal with it. Now he just looks like another deluded fool.
He's harder to deal with because he argues more for the structural integrity of Christianity more so than other literal aspects of it . And most people agree that Christianity has some merit in terms of morals,which he then uses to try and defend some of the more shitty things Christianity pushes.
Justin Whittington
He became popular because he says things people want to hear. A nice reasoning to follow a fixed order in life and a scenery-chewing villain to go along with it.
Very talented psychologist, though
Maybe your just too low IQ to understand his statements?
It's 'you're', moron.
Peterson is an intellectual in the same sense that Hulk Hogan is a professional athlete.
Even if I was given the opportunity to murder a convicted mass murderer, I'd gracefully decline without a second thought.
Saying that, had I been a christian tasked with murdering some evil heathen I am sure I'd merely hesitate seeing doing so would curry favour with the creator of the universe.