Jordan redefines theism as useful fiction, this is how he pseudo-argues against "atheism". By redefining theism as a necessary fiction, he subsequently redefines atheism as the natural corollary of as much - a non-belief in necessary fiction. Jordan’s argument is a false equivocation, it’s a straw-man. Notice how he never defines himself as a theist, though defines those opposed to his non-theistic views as "atheists". For instance, he begins with proclaiming the “best” argument for atheism is materialism & determinism. Atheism isn’t a position held in reference to materialism or immaterialism, likewise it isn’t a position held in reference determinism or non-determinism. By definition, an “atheist” need not be a materialist or an immaterialist, such as an idealists, likewise an “atheist” need not be a determinist or a non-determinist. It is simply a person who is unconvinced by theistic claims - that an intervening literal God exists.

@jaijaiwanted

Ай бұрын

Well said. Atheism is like two slices of air with air in between the slices. It’s the absence of something, I.e sufficient evidence to believe…

@sandmancesar

Ай бұрын

It’s not useful fiction. I think the problem with that description is that it separates the religious concepts from the realm of reality, which would mean you’re in fact being a materialist (you’re implying religion is fiction because it doesn’t describe reality in materialist terms) religion is not fiction, is France a fiction? Is money a fiction? Is fear a fiction? If you consider them so, then you’re a materialist… otherwise you would understand that God is the name of being itself, by definition. It is not a fiction, it’s a logical necessity from the standpoint of existentialists. It’s the characterization of the Dasein. Higher concepts exist, like the law, government, etc. To think about the characteristics of Being it has to have a name, it is an eternal entity which we can reflect upon a describe collectively through stories. Those stories are the collected effort to describe Being in the most accurate way possible.

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

not reallyl but kind of.his worldview rightly dismantles your immature conception of "useful fiction"

@BarrySometimes

Ай бұрын

@@sandmancesar Carlo Collodi’s ‘Adventures of Pinocchio’ confesses metaphors, archetypes, analogies, & imaginative representations of reality. Would you place said children’s novel in the nonfiction section of the library? If so, need you be such a materialist? It is Jordan who defines religion as useful fiction, hence it would be more productive to take issue with him, rather than me.

@BarrySometimes

Ай бұрын

@@nkoppa5332 Be sure to provide your reasoning at any moment.

Peter Jordanson would ask "what do you mean by atheism?" in reverse.

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

Indeed

@IanM-id8or

Ай бұрын

Well, it depends on what you mean by "Jordan". And it depends on what you mean by "Peterson"

@konohagakurejonin4461

Ай бұрын

Hahaaa! 😂. This is funny.

I found what he said to be one of the most idiotic things I've heard said. I normally like JBP but this is a huge blind spot. Materialistic determinism is the best argument for atheism? Wtf? It's not even an argument for atheism nor do atheists all hold to materialism or determinism. And then he just special pleads away the "you have no evidence argument," which is the real best argument for atheism. You can't just claim the minotaur exists and then say asking for proof is an "illegal move." It's just special pleading to say God is some exception. Sam Harris is dead on with this stuff. We can keep the contemplative and moral parts of religion while jettisoning bronze age superstitions. Why is this so difficult?

@radscorpion8

Ай бұрын

for the record, JBP says a lot of idiotic things on a lot of stuff. On climate change he flat out embraces nonsensical positions there too, claiming that models don't work when they do. Or that the adoption of green energy in germany resulted in an increase in fossil fuel usage, when every independent analysis of the energy sources used by germany shows a consistent decrease in fossil fuels and a larger and larger share of green energy. Then there is his meat only diet, which could easily lead to scurvy which we have known since the middle ages. His beliefs on Bill C16 are legally illiterate, and have been proven wrong after several years. He embraces covid vaccine conspiracy theories, including the idea that vaccines caused adverse health outcomes in millions of people. This is not the exception. It is the rule. JBP is the dumb person's smart person.

@Frodo1000000

Ай бұрын

I agree with Sam Harris on this too. Why bother defending the superstitions, we could be all past that.

Gotta love JP's jacket. It says a lot about the man. He doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve.

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

I agree with the ideas behind the jacket, not sure if i like the design though

This is how you get to 'God' from a positivistic newtonain worldview: 1) Recognize that your perception of reality is not a fact but a relationship with existence that is translated as the experience of a subset of existence (reality); 2) Recognize the insufficiency of concepts and language that partition reality, biased according to observation discrimination, which does not allow for a holistic perspective where everything is clearly connected and one 'body'; 3) By identifying a global identity tied to a total existence you can then simplify it by calling it 'God' (I like to call it 'the whole' as well). That's it. ==== Technically, 'God' shouldn't even be simplified with a word-concept because it's like using a pointer as if it was the thing itself. God is therefore undefinable because we can't define it because we are [a part of] the whole and not the whole whole. When we coin a word, we are simplfying for sake of discourse and communication, but it should be acknowledged that it's a deliberate faux pas and taken with that in mind. That said, God is the whole and you don't need to 'believe' in it. It just is. ==== Now, as Peterson often mentions, you can believe in more ways than it's usually understood: - You can believe, as in 'accepting an axiom, ad hoc, without sufficient evidence'; - You can believe, as in 'commitment through participation' or 'placing trust/confidence in X'; They are both the same thing from different angles, but atheist types usually focus on the first definition, as they are afraid to be wrong and invest in something that may not be in accordance with objective truth. But as much as we can try to prevent that, in some area or another, we will always be fooled on occasion. What they don't see is that they relinquish the ability to deliberately invest (with risk of failure) in something. So they don't take risks nor invest, because they have to feel intellectually secure that their sense of truth will be validated by scientific consensus and empirical evidence, and that their trust won't undermine their own sense of identifying as a 'smart' person. As identifying as such is so fragile and easily underminable since every corner it dents will blemish the whole prideful identity of 'intelligence' (speciallly in lower essential layers). But if you look at the history of science you'll realise that a 'fact' depends heavily on how it's framed in conjuction with the system it's part of. That is why a new theory that encapsulates more facts in can often reframe the whole framework. I.e.: geocentrism became heliocentrism and now we know galaxies swirl around a black hole. There was truth in all models but not the whole truth. If you take this to the extreme, no matter how many dimentions or how endless space-time is, 'the whole' (or 'God') will always be the totality. Which is why it can always serve as the pointer to the whole equation and the complete variable we always only know a fraction. Ironically, even mathmaticians have the courage to entertain not knowing (incognito variables), but the clergy of scientism clings to the 'facts' and confuse them for existence - they end up eating the menu instead of the food. Gold could be on the other side of the door but since they can't open the door they would rather actively choose to not engage with the possibility that it might there. But 'belief' is having the key to that door without actually having to open it and check. If you know you are taking a leap and ground yourself in that, you can venture past it without sufficient evidence and without losing yourself in fantasy. You can have both empirical evidence based models and belief/trust guided/informed models running at the same time in your mental schematics and sometimes you'll entertain risking being wrong and other times you'll play your cards to your chest and refrain from being tempted into fantasy. But you'll aways have a choice - which is something atheists and the clerics of science haven't noticed they have forgone: their free will. Which is why they are obsessed with determinism (bird's eye view of human nature) and are relinquishing their own individual sovereignty by deeming everything they do as determined - genetically and environmentally driven - and no longer take positions outside of the sea of consensus and public influence.

I don't really consider myself a "determinist materialist", but I very strongly disagree with your points at around 2:10. Determinism does not entail modal collapse, and it doesn't entail "epistemic collapse". In no way does materialist determinism undermine or prohibit thinking, reasoning, consideration of evidence, rational deliberation, and the like. It may be that we were determined to engage in those activities...but that's obviously compatible with the occurrence of those activities! Also, I'm confused by the accusation of circularity here. Which argument for atheism is circular? Any argument from materialist determinism? That surely isn't right. I'll refrain from talking about Peterson's comments, apart from noting that they seem like an endless trail of confusions and nonsense spewed confidently.

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

But surely, under determinism, one's thinking, reasoning and the outcome of such reasoning is also determined. Of course, this doesn't prevent compatibilistic presentations of free will. But the conclusions and frameworks which allow us to act would be determined thoroughly. Hence, leading to collapse.

@Friction

Ай бұрын

You said that if materialist determinism is true, then "every proposition we adhere to is not based on reason but based on a deterministic framework". This is what I'm taking issue with; believing based on reason is compatible with determinism. If you now point out that "the fact that we reason, the outcome of that reasoning, and so on would be determined", that's beside the point - if anything, that would just be granting the compatibility that you previous denied. Regarding free will and compatibilism, that seems a largely independent issue. If determinism is true, then we don't have free will in any incompatibilist sense. And? We still can and do reason even if none of the choices we make in doing so count as free in the relevant respect.

@MrCmon113

Ай бұрын

@@Phil4All All of your thoughts, decisions and behavior are simply part of the world, like anything else. There are not separate. It's not a coincidence that they're about the world and it's not a miracle that they affect it. When you develop sufficient concentration you can observe decisions being made just like you observe visual stimuli.

JP after his drug problem is just sad. Now he's closer to a televangelist than a scientist. It's like something has taken his soul.

@candaniel

Ай бұрын

He was interested in religion and its relevance long before his sickness.

@IanM-id8or

Ай бұрын

@@candaniel Given that he defines God as a "useful fiction", I think his interest in religion is irrelevant - to both theists and atheists. Also, he's only half right. God is a fiction, but not a useful one

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

jordan was essentially right. There is no point, no utility, no value, no reason, to be an atheist, or to believe in the naive epistemologies that make you become an atheist.

Peter Van Inwagen is both a Christian and ardent materialist/physicalist

It's strange that Peterson is so bent on discrediting natural theology, but then almost immediately follows up with an argument from moral knowledge (6:05). While I think Peterson is right in implying this type of reformed epistemology should be preferred over a classical evidentialist approach, to throw natural theology out the window is mistaken.

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

Indeed, I do wonder whether the last part was a form of fine-tuning as well.

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

jordan was essentially right. There is no point, no utility, no value, no reason, to be an atheist, or to believe in the naive epistemologies that make you become an atheist.

11:50 Heidegger is the big Existentialist influence upon Peterson -- and hence a similarity to Feuerbach and of course to Kant's moral argument for God. Heidegger's Dasein is a "practical-orientation" beyond being captured by propositions, but rooting them and therefore science and a certain naturalism. P. of course throws in Jung, which leads him back towards propositions. But P. has not yet quite squared the circle - partly because Heidegger himself, notwithstanding some key insights, is incoherent about the use of propositions.

(´Д｀) This is artistic evidence that the universe had to be created. When you paint a shadow its the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room.

I am worried about JP. He doesnt seem stable or reasonable.

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

jordan was essentially right. There is no point, no utility, no value, no reason, to be an atheist, or to believe in the naive epistemologies that make you become an atheist.

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

I think he does fall in with certain well-established schools of thought. But im not too sure whether he is explicitly adhering with their language and expression. By not coming out and expressing such influence, it is detrimental to his overall project

JP doesn't believe in God as a Aristotlean substance like most modern believers do. Which is why it feels like he slips out of the question.

Does it matter if God exists? The more practical issue is if any religion is right about God. Because if that’s not the case, what is the value of existence of God? It doesn’t affect our lives. Even philosophically it is not of great value, I believe.

Most people don’t go deep enough to even have a convincing false foundation for this conversation. They think the word “rock” identical to what it points to. If you don’t get this, don’t even try to tackle this one :) Infinitely more valuable would be to place all that attention into your own body - whatever that is. See what you find right here. Exit the matrix of language for a bit.

JP should stick to his field. He is way out of his depth. Matt Dillahunty destroyed him in their debate.

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

No, you are closeminded, and because of this, you dont actually understand what JP is saying.

@northernlight8857

Ай бұрын

@@nkoppa5332 What did he say that you found so convincing or of worth? Let's pop it up on the metaphysical examination table and have a look.

@BarrySometimes

Ай бұрын

@@northernlight8857 True.

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

I agree. Especially with his recent dive into politics, it is rather concerning.

@newglof9558

Ай бұрын

Dillapumpy couldn't even defeat a car mechanic from Michigan, which is why he walked out.

Atheism doesn't need a "good argument". Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Basically, the atheist is saying that the theist hasn't presented convincing evidence for the existence of a god or gods.. Also, Peterson's position regarding the existence of a god is beyond ridiculous - he has stated very clearly that the god he "believes in" is fictional - he defines it as "useful fiction" I'd say he's half right. I don't think theism is useful. The best description I've encountered of Jordan Peterson's ramblings is "pseudo-profound bullshit"

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

No, that would be agnosticism. Agnosticism would be there is insufficient evidence. Atheism is there is no God. There is no existential proposition which says I lack a belief apart from withholding judgement which is agnosticism

@newglof9558

Ай бұрын

Atheism is not a lack of belief or lack of conviction in God. Atheism is the proposition that God does not exist. This is how the term has been defined historically and continues to be defined in an academic context, among academic atheist philosophers. "Agnostic atheist" is a nonsensical term that fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between knowledge and belief.

@MrCmon113

Ай бұрын

@@Phil4All People don't believe in gods BECAUSE there is insufficient evidence. Are we "agnostics" on the existence of bigfoot or a-bigfootists?

@MrCmon113

Ай бұрын

@@newglof9558 You're simply adopting the terminology of Christian apologists. According to you Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Shintoists, and everyone outside of the three Abrahamic religions are all atheists. Atheism is not the proposition that "God" doesn't exist. If it's a proposition it's the one that no gods exist whatsoever. You're unthinkingly setting the stage for Christian apologists by excalting their deity. We have 2000 years of apologetics for this increasingly nebulous guy called "God" and it's less honest and less lucid than any of the reasons why a simple hunter gatherer tribesman believes that the great eagle on top of the mountain guides the seasons.

@Frodo1000000

Ай бұрын

​@@Phil4Allagnosticism to me is more about being sure that you're unable to measure if there is a god, ever, due to the nature of God.

When I was a baby, I did not believe in Brahma. You may be shocked to learn that I still don't believe in Brahma ! My lack of belief is not supported by any rational arguments.

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

Yes. Well it is good to recognise that any belief or lack of belief doesnt always need or have rational arguments

@newglof9558

Ай бұрын

Atheism is not a lack of belief or lack of conviction in God. Atheism is the proposition that God does not exist. This is how the term has been defined historically and continues to be defined in an academic context, among academic atheist philosophers. "Agnostic atheist" is a nonsensical term that fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between knowledge and belief.

@MrCmon113

Ай бұрын

@@newglof9558 That's complete horseshit. Atheism to anyone on the streets is simply the circumstance of not believing in any gods. Your god is just one of those myriads of gods one could believe in. Your "academic context" is merely people reacting to Christian apologists. All of the people, who don't believe in gods, and have never heard of Christianity, are still atheists. And all of the people, who do believe in gods, and have never heard of Christianity, are not atheists.

@tedgrant2

Ай бұрын

@@newglof9558 I firmly believe that Brahma does not exist. And I am aware that my belief is not rational. Perhaps I am possessed by an unclean spirit.

@Frodo1000000

Ай бұрын

​@@newglof9558first you must make up a God. Therefore atheism is a lack of belief in the God that you propose. No atheist is going about his day and thinking up the god that he's going to refute existence of.

Jordan Peterson is the definition of someone who doesn't deserve a fraction of the attention he is getting.

@andrewmueller9986

Ай бұрын

Yes, which is why videos like this frustrate me.

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

That’s a bit harsh he has had a positive impact on many people’s lives

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

Do you have a single argument at all that either disproves his order of thinking, human psychology, or metaphysics?

@raccuia1

Ай бұрын

He comes across to me as being a turd on a bbq.

@MrSkeltal69

Ай бұрын

There is a major reason why he's getting so much attention, but I guess there will always be people too dumb or maybe perhaps to nonchalant to understand him even though he articulates his points more accurately and clear than anyone else you could perhaps possibly find. I think people don't like him because he forces you to see how much more complicated the world is than many would like it to be, perhaps many find him annoying because he forces you to think for yourself, rather than providing simple answers which many of you expect someone to just have for some reason, I think Jordan shows better than anyone I've listened to how deep you really can go on most subjects. Whether he's 100% right or not on everything he says is not whats most important, his ability to make you think in ways you wouldn't otherwise is what makes him significant. People are sooooo QUICK to misinterpret his message almost as if they are DESPERATE to discredit him as soon as they feel like having a chance at it. Like, sure I get why people have a lot of anger and internal self-hatred today, most people do things they shouldn't do all the time given all the modern day technology that messes up how we stimulate ourselves but I don't think hating on someone like Jordan is going to do you any good to be honest.

I might not get what JP is saying, but if his point is believing in God is just a fact, not a proposition, can't the same argument be used for atheism?

@IanM-id8or

Ай бұрын

But he also says God is a "useful fiction"

The problem of evil isn't an argument for atheism, in fact its positive evidence for God, because if there is no God then there is no evil, I agree with Jordan, there is no good argument for atheism, it seems to me in order to be an atheist you have to deny the obvious, for example you have to deny that life only comes from life.

This is where I depart from Peterson. I am an atheist simply because I have never been presented any convincing arguments or evidence for theistic beliefs. And when those beliefs contain appeals to the magic or the supernatural, my standards of evidence massively increase.

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

You show you dont understand. This is deeper than just "This is a good argument or not"

@EricRedekop

Ай бұрын

@@nkoppa5332

@newglof9558

Ай бұрын

Atheism is not a lack of belief or lack of conviction in God. Atheism is the proposition that God does not exist. This is how the term has been defined historically and continues to be defined in an academic context, among academic atheist philosophers. "Agnostic atheist" is a nonsensical term that fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between knowledge and belief.

@MrCmon113

Ай бұрын

@@newglof9558 No. Atheism is disbelief in all gods, not just the guy called "God" from Christianity. And I want to stress that most of the polytheists had much better reasons to believe in their gods than any Christian philosophers gave for believing in theirs.

@saintsword23

Ай бұрын

@@newglof9558 This is just nitpicking the words.

Biology, chemistry, etc., replaces mysticism with the physical nature and history reflected in the dynamic development of our living world.

@planteruines5619

Ай бұрын

those matters don't even tell you id the water is wet

@sandmancesar

Ай бұрын

lol where do they come from? That’s the problem with materialism. The incapacity of taking in account what it took out in the first place to create science, the human experience.

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

jordan was essentially right. There is no point, no utility, no value, no reason, to be an atheist, or to believe in the naive epistemologies that make you become an atheist.

Isn't this "sola fide" all over again?

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

It would come close to fideism, but the claims are vastly different. Sola fide is about what saves you, jordan peterson is asking about what belief is

I feel like the issue that I see here is that jordan is misunderstood not that he is trying to straddle a line or trying to be confusing. I believe he begins with the idea that stories that guide your life are actually what undergirds life itself. IE i believe God doesnt exist because of x story or y idea. My issue arises when you say the problem of evil is a good argument. What story do you have to tell to make that a good argument, and how do you know that story is the correct story to follow. Facts can be interpretted by both the left and right to say entirely different things. Facts dont make the stories.

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

Yes, i do think evil can be seem positively and negatively from a narrative perspective.

@Impossinator

Ай бұрын

@@Phil4All positively or negatively? It seems that there has to be a narrative that we all should strive to gain in order to correctly parse out the definition of evil. What narrative would you suppose best does that?

Regarding Peterson's moral argument, for a while I wondered why Dr Bill Craig believed the moral argument had any force, until I heard him explain that it's based on our intuitions, as you noted. We have the same basis, some would argue, for believing the external world exists as we do for affirming objective morality

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

Indeed, I believe the moral argument is based on intuitions, perhaps less so on objective proof for their existences. Perhaps it is best presented as an abductive argument (argument to the best explanation)

@steveg1961

Ай бұрын

Not really, because intuitions are feelings inducing motivations as "rough guidelines," and not more than that. Meanwhile, the real world claps back on us regardless of our intuitions, and when our intuitions are wrong we have the ability to override our intuitions using our intelligence.

@RustyWalker

Ай бұрын

Then why had "objective" morality continuously changed over time?

Is JP forgetting that theistic belief is underpinned by indoctrination, emotion, and human psychology?

@sandmancesar

Ай бұрын

Yeah, that’s the materialistic framework he’s precisely negating. Indoctrination is just your opinion and emotion and human psychology are kind fundamental parts of human existence, you’re dismissing them because you’re a deterministic materialist, which is kind of funny. Read some Heidegger man.

@JohnCamacho

Ай бұрын

@sandmancesar First I'm not a materialist and this isn't a materialistic framework. And I'm not dismissing them - you are. If you cannot deal with the fact that those 3 things underpin theistic belief that's not my problem. We learn about God from our parents mostly, then elders in our communities. You cannot get away from that

@sandmancesar

Ай бұрын

@@JohnCamacho it is a materialistic framework. What you call human psychology and emotion are the basis of existence, pretty much all of your perception spurs from them. So how would that undermine theism? Also, the word indoctrination has a negative connotation, if you were taught maths by your parents would it be any different?

@JohnCamacho

Ай бұрын

@@sandmancesar "So how would that undermine theism?" Theism isn't something we can investigate. Neither is the supernatural or anything immaterial (which I am agnostic on). "Also, the word indoctrination has a negative connotation" Not my problem. It has been the primary method of propagating religion(s). "if you were taught maths by your parents would it be any different" Yes because math is the same everywhere and it can be verified. The most important beliefs in any religion cannot be verified and are frequently unfalsifiable. And different religions are taught around the world. They can't all be true but they can all be false.

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

This is showing you dont understand. His whole point is showing you the roots that even let you utter the phrase "good argument". Good arguments, or calling an argument good, relies on a host of presuppositions about the world. his point is to philosophically and pyshcologically and cosmically show you the relevance and coherence of all these presuppositions. Life is a bit mysterious, learn to think in a nuanced way. There is no prima facia the universe owes you to make it easy to understand.

An "illegal chess move" eh? My goodness, what a bold presumption to think human beings are intrinsically playing the same game as he is. I used to hang on every word JP spoke, but since he's pivoted to promoting religion as something fundamental to the human experience, I cannot tolerate that kind of rhetoric anymore. It's not an illegal chess move in the slightest. Calling atheism an illegal chess move implies that we're playing chess. That alone is already a non-starter. Game theory tells us we are all playing a game of some kind & that we can switch games anytime we feel compelled to. So, with this in mind, someone who subscribes to atheism is - by definition - playing a different game. Yknow what's beautiful about that? The simple fact that human beings aren't born with instruction manuals assigned to them indefinitely. We can be born somewhere & later on move & adopt entirely new perceptions on life. You could be an atheist one day, turn into a christian the next, then maybe become buddhist, & maybe fall back into atheism. It's all fair game. JP saying that he doesn't believe there's a good argument for atheism likely stems from a presupposition he has about the nature of humanity. It's the same thing Carl Jung experienced. Jung basically believed that 'god' was imbedded in our psychology since before we were conceived, thereby permitting the ability to believe in a god as we mature. But most psychologists have pointed out the simple fact that we are not born with the intrinsic desire to believe in gods, but rather that we are born with the proclivity to believe in anything whatsoever if the experience of being introduced to that belief moves us! JP's proclamation that there's no good argument for atheism is easily reversible. We could all just as easily say there's no good argument for belief in his subscribed deity of the christian god being the god that designed our planet & universe. Mind you, thats not the same as excluding the existence of a deity altogether. It only excludes the idea that it is the christian image of god that is the correct or accurate representation of a deity that lords over humanity & knows & judges all things. Hell, the belief in this god contradicts itself in its own versus! The old and new testament are riddled with situations where god flaunts his hypocrisy & permitting things that we are not allowed to do despite supposedly being made in "his image." The channel "MindShift" does an incredible job dissecting the bible & it's flaws. & since JP's definition of god is so contrived & unrecognizable as being anything like the christian god, I'm sure it's because of this that he believes there's no good argument for atheism. But, frankly, there's only one HUGE flaw in JP of all people stating his case against atheism... If Jordan Peterson himself cannot define 'god' & his own explanations of 'god' are deeply nuanced & formulated from his experiences & observations then HOW in TF does he think there is no argument for atheism when his perception of god is vastly different from the widely accepted consensus of what a deity is??

@brianbridges8124

Ай бұрын

yes and the fact that he constantly conflates atheism and materialism, like all atheists are making a positive claim that this is all that exists. when in reality most atheists are saying that we don't currently know if anything exists beyond the universe as opposed to ''there is absolutely nothing that exists outside of the universe''

@tgenov

Ай бұрын

@@brianbridges8124The logical implications of those claims intersect, so it doesn’t matter if you aren’t claiming it explicitly - it’s implicit. Unconstrained ignorance (e.g claiming “I don’t know”) entails all possibilities. Including the possibilities forbidden by logic a priori e.g the possibility of “nothing”.

@brianbridges8124

Ай бұрын

no, saying i don't know only pertains to the possibilities that you haven't yet either experienced or considered. that's nowhere near the same as 'all possibilities'' the absolute smugness and ego it must take for a person to take an uneducated 'stab in the dark' about 'how things operate outside of the universe, (something they've never experienced, much less can comprehend)..... when we haven't even scratched the surface of understanding things WITHIN the universe....is always amusing to me. Add to that the fact that this stab in the dark is based on ancient eyewitness testimonies from anonymous authors in a book that has been copied ,translated and altered so many times it would make a person's head spin. It would appear that this ability to trust texts like this with blind faith, would make Christians the ones who are guilty of allowing for all possibilities when claiming to have knowledge of what the universe is and how it came to be. If you think you can apply logic to something that exists outside of logic (external to the universe), then I don't think you understand what you're even claiming here@@tgenov

@tgenov

Ай бұрын

@@brianbridges8124It is inherent in the notion of possibility that anything except the impossible is possible. What you have considered or experienced is immaterial and irrelevant - not knowing what is possible is a literal argument from ignorance. Your limited experience and knowledge imposes no constraints on what is possible. Believing otherwise is egotism… From our interaction so far it would seem that you don’t understand which one of us doesn’t understand. Logic is a priori notions of “inside” and “outside”. This stuff is covered in any class on topology. You don’t just get to impose limits on the way other people think. This is the realm of Moral arguments. And as an atheist you have no moral ground to stand on.

@brianbridges8124

Ай бұрын

YOUR idea of what is possible and impossible is entirely subjective and based on your limited gathering of understanding from your short existence, people 100 years ago would have thought smartphones were impossible, you claiming what is truly possible and impossible is a smug egotistical claim, and I have no reason to take you seriously, one of us is being intellectually honest, the other is pretending to have absolute knowledge of things they cant actually demonstrate. in the mean time, I accept that my understanding of my experience is far too limited to think I have solved the biggest questions that humanity faces.... and therefore I'm just going to be honest and say that I genuinely don't know if materialism is or isn't true because I haven't yet seen enough evidence to sway me either way. @@tgenov

JBP is making the same or similair type of arguments or explanations as to what Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein alluded to both implicitly and explictly in some extent about in their writings, namely: Simply belief in God is an commitment to living a life (A form of life) in accordance to a set of principles (rules) or presuppositional values and can therefore not be equal or proven to be true in the same sense as facts can be proven true false or meaningless. Ye shall know them by their fruit! (Matt 7:15-20)

@jaijaiwanted

Ай бұрын

Sounds like an “illegal move” to me. The logic is circular in that it’s completely separate from everything else and is dependent on itself. it can’t be proven or disproven. The same way you can’t be certain if a pony is standing behind you right now in this instant. Does that mean your going to believe and organise your life around the possibly a pony is behind you? To non religious, science minded people, the idea of believing in a specific god without sufficient evidence seems just as ridiculous as someone saying “I have a book that was created by the divine, and it says that god lives in all our shoes and creates gravity for us, it also says that it’s self (the book) is completely factual and correct and perfect and also that god is great and virtuous”. Why don’t you believe me? What if brain washed from childhood 2.4 billion people to believe in this, would you then join the party? I would hope not. This is how many atheists see religion today, they see all religions as very unlikely to be true. I have the best intentions in my writing this. 😇

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

I think it will do him a lot of good to recognise explicitly such influences. It would make it easier for people to take him seriously or understand the arguments he provides.

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

@@Phil4All Everyone can understand him. He comes at it from the jungian view, and that involves a dip into platonism, kant, evolutionary psych, the goodness of humanity, the bible etc.

I don't know why people take Jp seriously. I see no atom of intelligence in this guy. No offense

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

Whether you like him or dislike him. He’s good at being popular and influencing people, so there has to be intelligence there. He might be wrong, but he does get some things right

I think when Peterson says atheism is an illegal chess move, he means it entails the destruction of the very fabric of reality as we experience it and therefore cannot be a viable option (to understand what exactly this claim is, one would then need to read Alvin Plantinga, and to 'feel' the force of this claim one would need to read Dostoevsky)

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

Are you referring to Plantinga's EAAN? The EAAN would suggest that on naturalism one is unable to have any epistemically warranted beliefs. However, I am not sure whether this is what Peterson had in mind, looking forward to hear your thoughts

@KasperKatje

Ай бұрын

But he believes god and every biblical story is a metaphor but contain valuable lessons. So if I agree, I'm no longer an atheist?

@Christian-ut2sp

Ай бұрын

@@Phil4All Yeah I was referring to the EAAN. Plantinga's argument shows you that naturalism is logically untenable (what I think Peterson wanted to say) and the Brothers Karamazov demonstrates why naturalism, or really atheism more broadly, is unlivable. When you combine these two I think one begins to see why Peterson thinks the move is illegal

@gergelymagyarosi9285

Ай бұрын

​@@Christian-ut2sp Plantinga's argument only shows that we cannot have perfectly reliable knowledge. In essence: it's the halting problem. Theism suffers from this too.

@Christian-ut2sp

Ай бұрын

@@gergelymagyarosi9285 No, what Plantinga's argument shows is that we cannot trust the faculties that produce our beliefs if we accept naturalism is true, including naturalism itself, lol. Please do familiarise yourself with the argument, it's powerful

Wondering about the existence or otherwise of God? Here's a hint: Ask him (do it humbly) He promises to respond. No response? Then assume he doesn't exist. However, if & indeed when you get a response, take it from there. Good luck x

God of the Bible is the highest form of morality? Has JP ever read the Bible? The Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg said " God of the Bible is a terrible character" Agree 100%.

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

You are showing your lack of education to properly engage. ALso, please give me a scientific source that says the god of the bible is evil

@MrCmon113

Ай бұрын

@@nkoppa5332 Wtf do you mean with scientific source? The source is the bible. How about you read the crap you're defending?

@Galaxyman2903

Ай бұрын

@@MrCmon113 exactly, but I'm the uneducated one🤣

@nkoppa5332

26 күн бұрын

@@MrCmon113 yeah give me a source proving he’s evil. Get it? Because you have no authority to claim anything being evil or good at all

I think Peterson is much on the same page as a professional right-wing troll like Milo Yiannopoulos: he flirts with theism, without committing himself to any established doctrine to make himself interesting and also to remain in sync with religious apologists. Were Peterson to align himself with thoughtful articulate atheists like Graham Oppy, he knows that he would lose much of his carefully curated mystique. Similarly were he to convert to a doctrinaire faith like Calvinism he would have to provide a stringent and well articulated justification for his religious beliefs. For Peterson definition is deadly. In particular he likes to dance with Catholic intellectuals like Bishop Robert Barron, with whom he can shoot the theological breeze for hours without ever having to land on a definite conclusion. As for Matt Fradd, he is following the path blazoned by Thomas Aquinas: decide what you ought to believe, and then find reasons to support your beliefs.

@jaijaiwanted

Ай бұрын

Well said. JP legitimately seems less sane atm than 3 or so years ago, I wonder how much of this intellectual behaviour is intentional.

@AlgyPug

Ай бұрын

@@jaijaiwanted Of course his long illness and dependence on painkillers may have something to do with his present intellectual wooliness.

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

You dont have the education currently to actually understand JP, its ok to admit it.

@AlgyPug

Ай бұрын

@@nkoppa5332 As JP might ask: what do you mean by "education" and "understand?"

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

@@AlgyPug your philosophical, psychological, historical, scope, As well as an honest analysis of these topics that does not have such dogmatic close mindedness as to cut off the question immediately after "Well no studies proving God therefore no God." reality is more complicated than these naive enlightenment era questions.

There's less of a good argument for why Peterson should wear that monstrosity of a jacket than I shouldn't believe in atheism. It's really simple. I don't have any reason to believe in a god just because a book says so. /discussion Q. Why is the third person of god called the Holy Ghost? A. Because god has wholly ghosted humanity.

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

I do prefer he has a better suit😂

@newglof9558

Ай бұрын

"I don't have any reason to believe in a god just because a book says so." The religion understander has logged on

Jordan Peterson accusing others of playing games while trying to play word games. My only question about him is how much does he believes this crap vs how much he is playing into for his fans

@jaijaiwanted

Ай бұрын

He’s seems smart enough, but idk. I think there’s a pretty small correlation to being smart and being right, assuming external conditions are the same. He has so many conservative and religious fans atm, and is partnered with the daily wire, he’s pretty heavily incentivised to support the nonsensical in this situation.

@thecriticalone1783

Ай бұрын

@@jaijaiwanted that is very true. Like I said. I wonder how much he is bs'ing his fans and how much he actually believes. He does have a psychology degree although I think his license has been revoked do to him refusing to except the current standards of practice. (Could be wrong. I know at one point he was at risk of loosing it.)

@candaniel

Ай бұрын

If my ability to read humans is worth anything, he's saying what he believes. I don't think he's BSing anyone.

@danielmcdermott3558

Ай бұрын

@thecriticalone1783 JP doesn’t seem to believe much of what his interlocutors want him to believe. When asked simple and direct questions like do you believe in a Christian god or do you believe the Bible he uses flowery and evasive language that mays well qualify him as an atheist. Cosmic skeptic did a great analysis of JP’s wispy washy language to mask what any atheist would call atheism.

@thecriticalone1783

Ай бұрын

@@danielmcdermott3558 I know the dude likes to waffle about when it comes to religion, which is why I say I don't know if he is religious or not. While I dont believe in God's I also don't think someone is "insane" because they believe. Also I unlike jp I use a lot of words to try and clarify not obscure what I'm trying to say. Also, also, he seemed to say god exists in this video clip, despite his word games making it seem like God only exists as a useful concept. At least in part.

Interesting. If JP is saying that the belief in God isn't reason based from evidence/data premises, then he's seems to also be acknowledging that there are no good arguments for theism either. I actually somewhat agree with JP in some sense. I take Graham Oppy's view on this: that there aren't any successful logical, deductive arguments for or against God. So we need a different approach which is going to be how we tend to form other beliefs: world view theories in terms of how does a theory (theistic vs atheistic) explain data we all agree on. For Oppy (and I agree) naturalism explains as much as theism without having to commit oneself to extravagant metaphysical entities like God. ie: positing God doesn't provide any explanatory advantage and so reason to think God isn't necessary.

@jaijaiwanted

Ай бұрын

I thought this was interesting but I do look at it a bit differently. I think of it more like: You are stuck in one spot and are staring at a brick wall. Many people would say that they don’t know what’s behind the brick wall, some would say that a donkey is behind the brick wall. The other people that answered have the same evidence you have and nothing more. Which answer would you believe? I think if we don’t know something, we should say “we don’t know” and not treat it like there’s a high probability that it could be anything in particular, for instance, a donkey is almost certainly not behind the brick wall. Just because you can’t “disprove” that a donkey isn’t behind the brick wall, doesn’t mean that we should pay any credence to the idea. The beginning of the universe is the brick wall. a particular god is the donkey. It’s ok to say “idk, let’s try and figure it out”. Thanks for reading. I developed this kind of mindset probably from Sam Harris, a few evolutionary biologists, Dr Mike israetel, and the article “critical thinking, what is it good for (in fact, what is it?)”.

@christaylor6574

Ай бұрын

@@jaijaiwanted Sasuke - nice avatar btw. Thanks for your reply. I like that example, but I guess I would answer it the same way: what does posting a donkey behind the brick wall give in terms of theory explanatory power? If I can explain all the data without the donkey, then (as Oppy puts it) I can just discard it from my ontological commitments - ie: I can believe it doesn't exist. Same with the universe and God point. It just seems we can explain the universe without positing a God did it, so I can just discard it from my ontological commitments. But I agree we should always be open to new evidence that might overturn that. I think it's coherent to say that while I don't 'know' what caused the universe (presupposing there is a cause) I'm comfortable saying that I currently believe it wasn't God. But I'm sympathetic to the sentiment "I don't know, let's try and figure it out." Thanks.

@ZoneTelevision

Ай бұрын

Equivocation. Atheism subscribes to an arugmentum ad materlialism or a posteriori vs a priori.

@christaylor6574

Ай бұрын

@@ZoneTelevision Equivocation is when someone uses the same word in different senses. So I'm not sure what word(s) you think I'm equivocating on? Not all atheists are materialists. You'll come across atheists who also believe abstract objects (numbers) exist, and these aren't 'physical'. In fact there are arguments for atheism from abstracta (if such objects exist then they exist independently of God, thus God doesn't exist). Prominent Christian philosopher William Lane Craig thinks abstracta pose a problem to Christianity, which is why he adopts nominalism. I don't know what you're getting at when you say "atheism subscribes to posteriori vs a priori." Some versions of the problem of evil is an a priori argument because it's a reductio of Christian definitions about God.

@sandmancesar

Ай бұрын

God is necessary when you get to the maximum level of abstraction, Being. Even in the low levels of abstraction ie. when talking about money, justice, geopolitics, naturalism is not enough. The material mechanics of something is not an explanation that satisfies most of the questions that can be asked about everyday existence. I don’t see how naturalism could tell you if a fetus is a baby.

It doesn't need one, it is correct.

@GhostBearCommander

Ай бұрын

Correct answers are most in need of good arguments, in order to stand above all others. Treating Atheism like a dogma just shows it to be another religion.

@avishevin1976

Ай бұрын

@@GhostBearCommander It's a belief. Why do beliefs need arguments? It's only when you want to convince someone else that you need to argue for it.

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

jordan was essentially right. There is no point, no utility, no value, no reason, to be an atheist, or to believe in the naive epistemologies that make you become an atheist.

@EricRedekop

Ай бұрын

@@GhostBearCommander It's a correct position; only you used the term "answer". The most common *answer* you'll hear from atheists on the big questions? "I don't know." And that would be a correct answer.

@newglof9558

Ай бұрын

Lol, it is not correct. Atheism is about as wrong as somebody can possibly get.

There is no problem of evil.... people just "feel" that GOD can't have a good reason, which is actually an appeal to emotion fallacy. There are no inconsistencies or contradictions saying GOD has a reason to allow it. Also the problem of divine hiddeness is another poor objection, since an overwhelming majority of all humans to ever exist do not believe "GOD" is hidden

why are my comments being blocked....

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

I don’t know. KZread blocks random stuff

@brianbridges8124

Ай бұрын

its gotten so bad, literally nearly every comment...youtube sucks @@Phil4All

@brain0nfire

Ай бұрын

@@brianbridges8124 I wonder if it's people reporting your comments. Or if past reports give you a bad 'score' that can have your comments more likely to be deleted without merit.

As long as you admit that the psyche functions "well" when a hierarchy of values is present, then according to JP, you are a theist. Thats not the classic definition of god though.

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

Yeah it is all a word game

@andrewmueller9986

Ай бұрын

@@Phil4All So don't give it attention.

Jordan Peterson has reached a point where he has an unshakable belief in the transcendent, which is the same place Carl Jung ended up at the end of his life. From that perspective, arguments for atheism are inherently absurd. They require a person to deny the very existence of the transcendental or to put it in a box where it is no longer actually transcendent. It is the handwaving of the transcendental that makes the arguments illegal moves. Where Jordan Peterson loses people is how he has his convictions about the transcendent. His glibness seems to be the recognition of the pointlessness of trying to use philosophy to understand what's beyond the reach of theology. If theology's best attempt at understanding the transcendent is the illogical statement of the Trinity, then philosophy has no hope of coming close and Peterson doesn't care to try. Jordan Peterson's convictions comes from his own personal experience helping people in his practice, and his own difficult experiences in his own life where he saw spirituality being the best way for humans to move forward. He sees that reality acts as if the God and Devil are real and there is a fight for each individual soul on the lines of good and evil. He also struggles with the fact a book whose first parts were written 3000 years ago contains more truth and wisdom then what's come later. You only need to hear Peterson do symbolical and psychological analysis of the Bible to see this.

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

good take

Great video

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

I'm glad you enjoyed the video

Atheism is just to not believe in a claim about gods, it is like I would say that Unicorns are real for I have a book and Jordan Peterson then say that he do not believe in unicorns or my book, his disbelieve in that is not an argument in any shape or form and the same goes for atheism, to not believe is not an "argument" or a "claim", so Jordan are just an angry christian make word sallad to defend a former claim that he is not religious.

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

I’m not exactly sure what your argument is here. Atheism is a proposition, that there is no God.

@newglof9558

Ай бұрын

Atheism is not a lack of belief or lack of conviction in God. Atheism is the proposition that God does not exist. This is how the term has been defined historically and continues to be defined in an academic context, among academic atheist philosophers. "Agnostic atheist" is a nonsensical term that fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between knowledge and belief.

Meanwhile, in the real world, theism isn't even chess. It's the pigeon that lands on the knocking pieces off the board, poops, then flies away.

@candaniel

Ай бұрын

Sounds oddly similar to the average ignorant, yet insanely arrogant reddit-tier atheist

@youtubestudiosucks978

Ай бұрын

​@@candaniel why would anybody want to use reddit at all? What are you looking up to be on reddit in the first place?

@steveg1961

Ай бұрын

@@candaniel You wrote, "Sounds oddly similar to the average ignorant, yet insanely arrogant reddit-tier atheist." Hmmm... This remark here looks extremely similar to the average ignorant, yet insanely arrogant reddit-tier Christian apologist. Thank you for displaying the often two-faced nature of Christian rhetoric.

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

You should note that atheism is the recent phenomenon not theism.

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

"in the real world" you are more dogmatic than a fundamentalist christian. You dont understand what he is explaining.

Jordan P. Is 100% atheist and he knows that! Playing the counterpart role to sell books and his pseudo-intellectual figure made him Millionaire

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

Either that or he is genuinely expressing what he believes, even if its convoluted

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

YOu are blind

@newglof9558

Ай бұрын

He's not an atheist. You wish he was, though.

Sorry mate. Peterson is 100% correct. Argument from existence of evil is also invalid.

@rizdekd3912

Ай бұрын

Describe your version of the argument from evil. How about the problem of suffering?

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

What do you mean by invalid. It may not be sound, but does seem valid

Hard to take anyone seriously that wears a jacket decorated with medieval bible illustrations, but perhaps that's just an expression of the "fake it until you make it" phase of his evolution into a full-blown Christian apologist.

@residentevil2928

Ай бұрын

The jacket goes hard

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

I wouldn’t say he’s a fake it till you make it in the sense that what he says is what he genuinely believes i don’t think he is lying. However, i do agree that the jacket is odd

Atheist have a narrow view of the world. They are missing one big part of the experience of life and don't understand what people like Peterson are trying to say, they just hear some words coming out of him, word salat which they can't digest...

@rizdekd3912

Ай бұрын

What is the narrow world view atheist['s] have? What experience are they missing? I would agree many don't understand Peterson's lines of reasoning. How about you explain it NOT using word salad.

@Jerry-ft5lo

Ай бұрын

@@rizdekd3912 let's say narrower. They are missing the "spiritual" dimension of human existence. They don't learn in this field, don't study this things, don't think about it and they can't fully understand what is being said when it comes to these debates and to avoid cognitive dissonance they use words like word salad, skydady and other terms to mock something they don't try to even understand.

@BarrySometimes

Ай бұрын

@@rizdekd3912 On a side, I've always thought of the abrahamic religions as holding narrow views relative to polytheism. I'm an atheist, though I find the polytheistic Canaanite religions (of which abrahamic religions are based on) & hinduism much more charming than abrahamic religion. I can imagine OP's statement above being said by a polytheist - "Monotheists have a narrow view of the world. They are missing many big parts of the experience of life and don't understand what people like Devarishi Dasa Asamoah are trying to say, they just hear some words coming out of him, word salad which they can't digest".

@newglof9558

Ай бұрын

@@rizdekd3912 "NOT using word salad" You realize "word salad" is not a rebuttal, right? Anyone who uses the refutation "word salad" is really just saying "I don't understand but I still want to feel smart"

@MrCmon113

Ай бұрын

You don't understand anything he says if you think he's not an atheist. Does Jordan Peterson think "God" would exist if there were no humans?

Divine hiddenness is an argument against theism, not an argument for atheism which isn’t the same thing. Why do you keep going back to this as an argument

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

An argument against theism is necessarily an argument for atheism. Something which reduces the probability of x increases the probability of not x.

@nkoppa5332

Ай бұрын

No, whats your response to JP?

Why does JP sound like someone being cornered and needs to go on a rant? If God is an anthropomorphization of values, virtues, and ideals, then why can't mankind use those values, virtues, and ideals as they are?

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

I think Feuerbach would be interesting here. The religious story to Feuerbach maintains value in its ability to express truth in a deeper and more applicable sense than the propositions that it contains. However, from a metaphysical standpoint, I completely agree with you. Jordan Peterson ought not to confuse the two discussions together

@newglof9558

Ай бұрын

So why can't mankind be a Nietzschean Ubermensch, is what you're asking?

Atheism assumes our thoughts are logical, reliable and potentially fruitful. But if we are just random cosmic accidents, being hardly smarter than animals, can we really trust our thoughts? Would you ever trust a monkey to make good philosophical conclusions and accurate theories about our existence and origins? Well, that's what we are doing with ourselves. Even if we agree with atheism, would we be correct? No one knows and that's hilarious

@JohnCamacho

Ай бұрын

"can we really trust our thoughts? " Not always and that's why we need to check them, use reason, or pass them by someone else for scrutiny. "Would you ever trust a monkey to make good philosophical conclusions and accurate theories about our existence and origins?" By themselves, no. "Well, that's what we are doing with ourselves. " Which is why philosophy needs dialogue between people of different opinions. "Even if we agree with atheism, would we be correct? No one knows and that's hilarious" Even if we assert there is a God, which religion has the most accurate representation? Maybe God is so transcendent it doesn't care about human beings at all. I know believers don't want to hear that.

@gio.gionosakan

Ай бұрын

@@JohnCamacho I've thought a lot of the "if God exists, does he even care about us?" question too. Also the questions "Is God good or an evil ruler who either ignores us or is trying to control us?", "Are there different Gods who compete with each other?" and "is there a God who is the strongest out of all the Gods but hasn't revealed himself to anyone yet so we are essentially worshiping the weaker Gods and wasting our times because they are not actually "The One Above All God" we are looking to connect with?". There are many mysteries even if God exists but let's firstly take the first step: Does God exist (via objective proof and no philosophical mambo jambo)? The answer can be found only through objectively (+scientifically) examined and confirmed supernatural phenomena - basically impossibilties turned into reality for the sake of theological reasons (and I'm highlighting "for the sake of theological reasons" because if we are about to talk about random weird events without any form of divine or theological meaning, origins or purpose behind them, then those events are just meaningless unexplained natural phenomena and not proof or work of God). Are there such phenomena? The answer is interestingly yes! There are scientifically approved supernatural theological phenomena, better known as miracles. These miracles are of the Christian Faith. Some are: • The incorruptibles (Saints whose bodies did not decay after centuries) • Tilma of St Juan Diego (the image of the Virgin Mary with Baby Christ appearing on a rock. The "Miracle" part of this is that the rock's colours changed and no extra colour was added in to create the image. This also happened on 1754 when no technology could replicate this phenomenon) • Eucharistic Miracles of Lanciano and others Additionally, archaeologists have discovered the destroyed biblical city of Gomorah, there are hundreds of fulfilled prophecies from the Bible and there is also documented proof that the Holy Fire that occurs every year at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem on Great Saturday, the day before Orthodox Easter, cannot burn people or surfaces for about 33 minutes after it first appears. Please note that I'm just a random Christian guy on the Internet and you don't have to believe what I say just by reading my small comment. Please research these phenomena on your own and judge/change your cosmotheory from there. There was a time when I believed that all things can be naturally explained and that considering God as the answer to everything or even anything was just a cop out. Now, seeing all these objective miracles, I understand that considering "science" or "nature" the answer to everything was the true cop out all along. Remember that I just attempted to prove God exists based on scientifically approved miracles. I cannot offer an answer to whether the Biblical God is good or the only God. In other words, I cannot answer the questions I brought up initially. That's why, even considering the Biblical God exists, you still have to take a leap of faith and trust this highly and still mysterious entity that appeared as Jesus Christ of Nazareth 2000 years ago.

@MrCmon113

Ай бұрын

People often do make mistakes and deceive themselves. That's what all of apologetics is about. That what leads to your nonsensical delusion that inserting a deity somehow does away with radical skepticism. It doesn't. To the contrary, it debilitates you, bcs you have made your rational faculties magical and lost the ability to examine and question them.

@gio.gionosakan

Ай бұрын

@@MrCmon113 you are right. God existing doesn't automatically give an answer to everything (at least as long as that God doesn't appear to us and explains everything out). I never said that theism provides better explanations than atheism or that it's better than radical skepticism. In my original comment, I didn't even bring up God or theism as an alternative. I simply explained that our ideas could very well just be (a slightly better version of) monkey thoughts and no one would deny it which I find really funny because it really is the truth (according to Atheism obviously) Accepting God exists doesn't make me smarter than you or more knowledgeable than you. It just makes me want to join HIM via following his commands. In other words, faith for me leads to a change in habits and way of interacting with others. Answers or questions about this world like how was the universe created, what is time, what is inside a black hole, all these are irrelevant to me as long as I just want to know how to join the entity that claims to be the creator of all these

The effect of your video is to mask the incoherent ravings of Peterson and to try to salvage from his word salad some idea of meaning. A herculean task. A more simple approach would be to disregard it as the nonsense it is

@candaniel

Ай бұрын

The word salad accusation against Peterson is getting old. Sure, he had snippets where he didn't answer a question concisely, or where he used more words than necessary. That doesn't mean you get to dismiss everything he says though.

@tomfrombrunswick7571

Ай бұрын

@@candaniel An oldie but a goodie. The issue is has he clearly articulated a point. Answer no. the measure of a public intellectual is whether they can articulate a clear rational message which is based on a solid foundation. The alternative is people who articulate a series of words in which a person listening to it will put their own meaning on the words. This is how fortune tellers work. They spew out a series of propositions and use the principals of cold reading to spark the interest of their rubes

@BarrySometimes

Ай бұрын

@@tomfrombrunswick7571 True, & ... a fellow Aussie!

@candaniel

Ай бұрын

@@tomfrombrunswick7571 _"has he clearly articulated a point. Answer no"_ ~ You don't think he ever clearly articulated a point? _"the measure of a public intellectual is whether they can articulate a clear rational message which is based on a solid foundation"_ ~ he does have a message, a pretty clear one I'd say, and a foundation in clinical psychology, his readings of psychologists, philosophers and literary geniuses like Jung, Nietzsche and Dostoevsky, and his examintation of 21st century ideologies. How is that not a solid foundation? What foundation does one require for you to accept them as a proper public intellectual? _"The alternative is people who articulate a series of words in which a person listening to it will put their own meaning on the words. This is how fortune tellers work."_ ~ If you have so much trouble understanding what Jordan is saying, maybe the problem is on you. Do you actually think he is as incomprehensible to everyone as much as he is to you?

@sandmancesar

Ай бұрын

@@tomfrombrunswick7571his argument is pretty clear lol you didn’t get what he said which is different. Probably a deterministic materialist…

I don't need any argument for atheism, much less a good one. Jordan Peterson needs an argument (better yet--evidence) for the existence of a god. Until then, my rejection of baseless, illogical and toxic god claims is absolutely justified, a priori.

@newglof9558

Ай бұрын

Atheism is not a lack of belief or lack of conviction in God. Atheism is the proposition that God does not exist. This is how the term has been defined historically and continues to be defined in an academic context, among academic atheist philosophers. "Agnostic atheist" is a nonsensical term that fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between knowledge and belief.

@MrCmon113

Ай бұрын

@@newglof9558 Nope, atheism is the circumstance of someone not believing in any god. Your god happens to be one of them. There is nothing more profound about it than any of the other gods we don't believe in. And in fact I think that most of the polytheists throughout history had much better reasons to believe in their gods than any of the Christian philosophers came up with for theirs. In any case, I'm still an atheist prior to having argued specifically against the existence of Odin.

Everything Peterson said is spot on. This "critique" video is just more deconstructionism which is really disinterested in the primary points Peterson and the process that Peterson engages in to reach his conclusions. There is no "formula" per se with which one arrives at "believing" in God and knowing what he is. The real and broader question is what does it mean to "know".

@NathanGuerraTV

Ай бұрын

This...atheists still struggling to understand their field of play while claiming the field before it's taken...not knowing their behavior is the exact thing that drove them too their stance, religious fundamentalism. Cue Pam meme "they're the same picture"...

@martin2289

Ай бұрын

Spoken like a true fanboy.

@tenmilesfm

Ай бұрын

Peterson can't even forge a suitable allegory - an illegal chess move is laughable. What process does Peterson engage in to reach his conclusion? Rabbit from a hat? Or more accurately, rabbit from his arse?

@xtopher960

Ай бұрын

Every God should be judged based on the character he or she claims to possess. There is countless evidence that Yahweh even if he Is real is not all powerful. I mean he got a lot of projects from inception being screwed up and keeps regretting his actions even till this day.

@Phil4All

Ай бұрын

Im not sure how the video is deconstructionism. In fact I would say peterson is a deconstructionist by ridding God of ontological truth, making it purely psychological or analogical