If you enjoyed this clip, please drop a like on the video and consider subscribing. Full discussion here: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/rXOfrW2rbISjpJs.htmlsi=6vwX6Nz1q1DwRdvh

RIP Hitch 😊 I wish he were around to help make sense of this mess.

End words of Matt, spot on! Simple. To the point. Easy to understand.

JP doesn't really believe in God or life after death but he thinks us plebs NEED to.

Peterson claims that Atheists actually believe in God if they are “good” people. But, how does he explain Christians who ignore Christ’s teaching and use religion for profit and power over others? Are they “good” people when they oppress others while taking their money in the name of God? If not, are they the actual Atheists because they have no fear of celestial accountability.

The claim 'there is a vacuum' is simply a new placeholder for 'there is a god.' Convincing you that there is a problem, and then handing you a faulty solution. The 'problem' is that people can't accept that there is no problem, accept that there is no problem and there's no problem!

Jordan Peterson thinks that pressing people to define every single word and posturing thoughtfulness is the same thing as high-level debate. In reality, he's slowing down opponents to provide himself more time. He wants to appear intelligent while evading all substance and genuine depth. He wants his semantic avoidance of actual debate to come across like he's this transcendent master of debate. In reality, all he's doing is forming a gish gallop in reverse.

What do we do without religion? Voltaire already answered this centuries ago: "We cultivate our gardens." Do it, and you'll find great happiness.

Jordan Dunning Kruger Peterson

JP became a preacher. And he is not a great one.

Jp like many modern shills says simple and obvious platitudes that suck ppl into thinking that he is intelligent, then he goes off the deep end with his real thoughts.

“The universe doesn’t care about us, we have to care about us.” This to me is an example of something Peterson would critique. There are presuppositions built in that go unquestioned. Why should we care? Who is ‘us’? My family? All humans past, present, and future?

It's rare and wonderful to hear profound thoughts coming from someone sitting across from Mr. Dillahunty. He too often shares the stage with clowns. As an atheist who sat through decades of Episcopal and Catholic services (as an employee), I miss the sense of communal purpose when it comes to major events involving grief or celebration - weddings, funerals, national traumas. I agree that we can and should replace these with secular communities, but so far we mostly have not, and that is a loss.

Matt Diallahunty's remark that "religion poisons you and then offers a cure", is spot on.

Even if Murray is right about a gap, he neglects to acknowledge that Peterson is trying to fill it with bullshit. Not to mention that Peterson is as guilty as, or guiltier than, all the deconstructionists that Murray refers to, of robbing language and concepts and ideas of meaning (as Dillahuntly correctly and succintly observes). It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that in his coded way, Murray is here a (partial) apologist for Peterson, despite differences in their thinking, because Murray sees Peterson as a useful ally on certain issues of substance or approach in the so-called culture wars (in particular alleged cancel culture, other alleged threats to freedom speech, and certain issues relating to gender and gender identity).

I don't understand why an atheist should feel concerned or threatened by other ideas. If you're an atheist and feel threatened, than maybe you did not asnswered all of your questiones that reinforce your belief. I'm atheist myself and have some disagrements with what JP says. But I do belief that that his opiniom should be heard. Especially if it creates further thinking within the induvidual.

God bless your little hearts, boys.

I can't with these thumbnails 😂

Well said, Douglas ! Human nature is unfathomable.

Larkin's poem Church Going explains well the idea of a kind of need, other than religion per se. It's worth reading.

Matt says no one cares about you so you have to care for yourself is narcissism. Matters of heart and head must be met with both heart and head.

Love Douglas Murray💖✨💫

It seems like Peterson is not as active as a debater anymore. Has anyone else noticed that?

Jordan Peterson’s problem in a nutshell is Jung.

Jordan who suffers from wordicus saladosis is incapable of answering a simple question with a simple answer.

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

I find it ironic the man that lectures people so superciliously about getting their lives together is so emotionally labile he regularly melts down into crying jags over seemingly nothing. In public. When grown men do that regularly, you have to question their emotional stability.

All o this was almost as vague as as Peterson!

Amy discussion with JP: 1. I've studied psychology for many years (regardless of topic) 2. What exactly do you mean by..... 3. I've thought about this a lot and decided I am right. 4. I don't have a clear concise answer, so here is a 10 minute waffle about Dostoyevsky that has nothing to do with this discussion but sounds impressive.

Simple truth is, death, the end of existence, is something most people can't really deal with in a healthy way. Religion helps them cope. Without religion, we need to come up with traditions that will comfort people about their own deaths, and that bring people together. That is hard to do because at an atheist, it is all voluntary. For religious people, you HAVE to go to church, it's an obligation, and failure is an eternity in hell; so these people are very motivated to join a group.

A great conversation

Let go of your beliefs. Let go of your ego. Your desire for things is the cause of your suffering, just be here now. Easily said but takes a lifetime to achieve…

Jp's problem could very well be that he won't quite commit. Maybe a Committed atheist is more appealing than an uncommitted believer.

As far as I can tell theists generally want to have their belief and reason too. If they get to the point that they don't care whether their position can reasonably be held, they are fanatics. So anyone who puts up a quasi-intelliectual position which purports to support the idea of an actual deity and/or that belief itself is worthwhile is helping believers believe regardless of reason. It's a step away from reality which is the only accountability imagination can be bound with.

This is one of the areas that I disagree with Douglas Murray. I don't think there's a void leftover when religion is taken away. I think religion inserted itself into reality and squished everything to the side or claimed/usurped things were there before religion (like morality). Religion isn't forming a void as it leaves, it's just reality realigning itself to its default state.

I really like what Douglas Murray said here. Interesting stuff. I definitely keen to hear more of what he has to say.

Peterson Mental Unclarity is so powerful that two usually clear persons seem slightly less sharp than usual here just because they are talking _about_ him🤯😅.

Min 9:13 “I have a perfectly acceptable moral foundation." Could it be that the foundation comes from religion? And although you are an atheist, your foundation is imprinted on you through your family and society. Why is it that communist regimes around the world attack religion?

Wow, he sounded exactly like Peterson 🙃

JP - a pant load of the first order.

What's wrong with Humanism?

Even though there is no provable God, to make this word into anything one wants it to be is dishonest and insulting.

Very interesting . . . and " good." Good is interesting . . . if you can (1) Define it. And if you can (2) Find it.

Everyone watch Matt destroy Jordan in their talk. Ended Jordan's credibility.

I lost a little respect for Dill pickle, people think that their doing something pointing their finger at problems or past systems and saying what is wrong with them. We have enough of that. Jordan is actually inspiring people to strengthen themselves and their families and the community and so on. He puts forth the proposition that if you don't lie that is an adventure in itself. He does more than shake his fist at everything he doesn't agree with, he shows a way to live your life, one that I agree with. He finds meaning in the biblical texts and shares that with the world, whats wrong with that? Every sane person has something they believe in, whether its a higher power or doing good in the here and now and leaving a legacy to the next generation I ask you this where does "good" come from? It derives from the word god meaning to do good is to aim at whats holy. Also where does our opinions of right and wrong come from? From religion so for the people saying all that should be thrown away you don't even know what ur saying. Who does more good for the world Jordan or Dill pickle? The man who sits and tells his opinions on whats wrong with things or the man that tries teaching whats right. The man that inspires nobody or the man that inspires many. The man that doesn't care or that man who does

You can just feel emotions without looking for answers.

Douglas Murray was channeling his inner Petetson with that obfuscation of a monolog.

What does an athiest believe?

I like Jordan but sometimes he appears as much lost as those he fills this gap they're looking to bridge.

Trying to define god is like trying to define every individual worldview. Hence the word salade.

He asked if they felt peterson was a threat to the sceptic movement. Well thats a very telling stayement of how they feel what scepticism should be, and how one should behave as a movement. Its inherently adversarial where theres no cause for it to be.

If you don't like Jordan B. Peterson, but do find these themes about meaning important, I highly recommend John Vervaeke's "Awakening from the Meaning Crisis" series.

How do we know Truth? This is in part from an article about the evolution of that idea from within liberal religions starting in the early 1800s. There are, in my view, 4 legs to a table that if balanced, go a long way to Truth, including moral truths. One is Science and reason. One is History (the U. S. founding fathers were predominantly men who studied history in a new way; to learn what works and what does not - the historic evidence of how monarchies (don't) work for esample. One is our personal experiences. The way being excluded from participation in a society and the harm felt by the aggrieved is an example. And the last one is what I call Sacred Dialogue. We are on a never ending journey of ever improving our relations and understanding of these principles and how to use them. I like to use an example of self driving cars. A possible future reality; We will set up rules for how they are programed in emergency situations. About to strike a pedestrian; does the car ensure the life of the pedestrian even if it might take the life of the passenger? That kind of thing. So, we set rules and that will always be followed by whatever real world consequences come from those rules and we will re-adjust them to improve them only by open, reasoned dialogue AT THE TIME THAT WE HAVE LEARNED FROM OUR FIRST RULE SETTING. There are historic examples of single elements becoming dominant (Transcendentalism and the primacy of personal experience, I believe went to far for example). To me, Science is or should be our new religion and contrary to what Murray says, there is no unfortunate vacuum left by the absence of Religion. The physical universe itself is a book to read; a bible to study. Only science can give us our true creation story. Only science can tell us how to save ourselves from climate change; and with the other 3 legs, things like horrible, increasing wealth inequality and WAR and the like. NOT Religion.

Many contemporaneous humans recognize the artificiality and naiveté of the religious "magical thinking" we have inherited from our ancient forefathers. The benign aspects of those teachings are readily apparent and universal. But there are many, many aspects of those teachings that to not resonate in the contemporary world. We have evolved past those hypocritical mindsets. We have matured. Our belief systems have not.

Both, particularly Murray, were very soft on the religious mess of Jordan Peterson because of his contributions on other fronts. Sam Harris has a better grasp (or he’s more blunt) on the nonsensical and avoidance aspects of Jordan’s concept of god.

The best Jordan Peterson can do for the longing for deeper meaning is merely alluding to it without providing any real answers nor depth of thought. He delays the conversation by repeatedly casting doubt on simple definitions to make himself appear inquisitive without actual substance, while filling time with regressive monologuing. It seems that a disturbing number of people are satisfied with unsubstantial speculation and pointing to dogma, simply spending time on the subject, which is a nebulous consolation for the fear of the unknown, that gap in human longing for the source of existence, and that's what this snake oil salesman takes advantage of, he's a charlatan selling nostrums.

Yes, Peterson is often incoherent.

It brings me such joy seeing how washed up pangburn truly is. Gained success on the backs of greater minds, then after his fall is desperately trying to reclaim any crumb of that success by click baiting those very same names.

This is Murray attempting to cover up his bigotry and intolerance by pretending he is a profound thinker on the topic of religion, to which he means only Christianity. However his religion has taught him the joys of bigotry and intolerance. Quite ironic.

The question is from an atheist who is disturbed that others have different views. That's an unhealthy, solipsistic perspective. Speculative thinking is central to scepticism. Matt may claim to be a sceptic, but he too risks adopting the position of a conformist by overusing the "categorisation" of an idea as invalid rather than "indeterminate". Agree more with Douglas on this one.

JP is incoherent when talking about religion. He speaks so much gibberish that any one can form their own meaning of his religious gibberish. Hence all kinds of Christians think he is their hero, but when you pin him on something that is central to Christian believe like, does he believe Jesus rose from the dead he claims it'd take him like "100 years" to answer that, which you'd expect a simple yes from an actual Christian, not a metaphorical one.

I'm an artist, I have know many Artist of many stripes over the years, and I guarentee that the Artists that created this amazing Western culture that Peterson fawns over, absolutely, definitely didn't tidy their f*cking rooms!

I take things from all three men.

Hey Matt, how about putting your foot down so that your pointy shoe isn't in Douglas's face. It looks bad. And arrogant.

It isn't bothering when someone is religious or atheist, what's annoying is that whne they make it their entire personality and want others to affirm that.

I always find this calm and collected douglas murray very shocking. Everywhere else he's exactly the opposite. Thats why i think he's very much a chameleon who changes with his audience.

I do not think that a vacuum can exist in the absence of a god. That has always been the case. No vacuum and no god. Just natural reality. That is of course only in the realm of philosophy. Here you are talking only of societal vacuums in the absence of religious practices, and not about vacuums in the absence of gods. Well, even there, if there was ever a vacuum, I'm sure by now Jordan has already filled it up with his psychological bollocks. So, no vacuum, and no god. Just bollocks.

Jordan is great and then religion comes up, the likability bias pops up, and his great brain shuts down.

Peterson is actually atheist, he just redefines words and speaks in a confusing way to give the impression that everyone is christian in an effort to keep it culturally relevant. He's terrified of what might happen if it disappears completely.

I’ve listened to Peterson in numerous debates now attempting to defend mainstream Christianity citing the values of allegory, metaphor, and inspiration. I still have no clue what he actually believes about its main tenants. I think Peterson wants to conflate these values with the veracity of the theological claims themselves, thereby rendering his “arguments” (or what I would call his “word salads”), disingenuous and lame. The man should stick to psychology, he does a piss poor job at theology.

I’ll bet Matt gets high… Jordan Peterson doesn’t that’s for dam sure.

Weird question. Not sure why he had to include Peterson in that. Influential thought leaders of faith are hardly new.

Dillihunty is superman.

Ya can't have both religion,and reality.

I cant agree with Murray at all. Peterson isnt trying to create a revison of anything. I especially disagree with his assessment of atheism. Peterson is doing nothing new and atheism is still moving forward.

What Murray thinks is a "void" is the natural world. We're alienated from it and out of sync with our place in it. A healthier spirituality would be less about Christian atonement myth and people feeling guilty for existing here (as if they had a choice) and more about honoring our place within nature and the cycle of life. As creatures who understand time and mortality, that would make us cultivators of life in all its forms. So long as people maintain capitalism as the true god of this age (Christian and non-Christian alike), that presupposition inhibits knowing something so much better.

From what little I know, Jordan is an intelligent man whose wife nearly died from cancer (she found solace in faith), He had a mental breakdown, drug addiction (medication), and hence found solace in faith. When I heard him speak, to me he sounded confused and angry. Let him believe what he wants. It seems various groups of people just want to use him for their own purposes.

The fact that you guys team up to dog out jp tells me he's the big dog on the porch.

Simply one must ask "What can I do about..." wars, human suffering, hurting of children, torture, lies , deceit, as monks meditate, you can contribute to good by demanding mercy and compassion this is your void, your inadequacy, if your are not filled with hubris, Matt, you will step back and encourage those who steer into the mist , Douglas.and Jordan.

Again ill say it only carl jung will i respect as a psycologist

He brings a structure and an narratives that actually helps. The first thing you have to believe to get up in the morning is to believe that whatever you do in the day will matter. The starting point is a conviction. Scepticisme doesnt bring any certainty, except the convictions that nothing has to be trusted and anyone is gullible. Skepticism doesnt positively prescribe, nor describe, but try to correct the descriptions as much as possible and tend to reject arbitrary social norms.

Matt Dillahunty of the word salad fame doesn't know when something is unclear??!!!! Look in the mirror, mate.

Wasn't familiar with Jordan Peterson😂😂.... who are you again? I havent heard of you....

Matt annointed himself the Godfather of skepticism.

There are perhaps two things that religion provides that people find attractive. 1) Ritual. Confucius wrote at length about social harmony and the need for ritual and routine for getting along with others. A funeral is just such a ritual. Holidays are another ritual. Saying "god bless you" when someone sneezes is a ritual. These rituals can morph over time, and in fact most Christian holidays were appropriated from Pagan holidays. 2) Community. Religion can develop a sense of community and belonging, but again, these communities can morph and adapt so that they don't depend on conforming to obsolete dogma. Psychologists remind us that we are social beings and our relationships with others are perhaps the greatest influence on our happiness. There are some essential elements of human happiness that have been woven into Christianity, but I do not think that these are immutable, and that they will be replaced organically as people reject religious dogma, which is harmful.

My opinion is this, and it builds off what Douglas Murray has mentioned about the vacuum that religion has left. It’s not just the vacuum from religion that has so many especially young men searching for meaning and orientation in this modern world. It’s the fact that we in the western world are so individualised and atomised in our family systems that we lack a crucial masculine support structure which would have traditionally have been fulfilled by one’s wider family “tribe” of uncles and grandfathers, and second uncles and second grandfathers etc. And furthermore, our own fathers have been neutered thanks to second and third wave feminism. They no longer wear pants, they can’t teach their sons how to be men. So young men are cast out into this world, unprepared, to a world which hates them and essentially blames them for all the world’s troubles, and disillusions them from the get go. So young men are struggling, with NOONE, to help them, they are lost and desperate, in need of guidance and structure, and they found that in Jordan Peterson. He IS the father figure of all the sons no one cared to bring up in a good fatherly way. For those whose fathers were too indoctrinated in feminist ideology to understand their sons needed to be raised to BECOME men, and that you aren’t a man automatically because you reach the age of 18. For anyone who doesn’t know what I’m talking about, go and read a book called “king, warrior, magician, lover”. It will help you understand the plight that men in this age face to become healthy masculine men.

They essentially think JP is a huckster to dummies who eat it up… but they are being nice

Someone also needs to teach Matt what a woman is 😂

Peterson is a product of his upbringing in small town Alberta, the most right wing, conservative part of the most right wing, conservative province of Canada.

Douglas is so profoundly succinct and incisive. As to the Peterson question, I do listen to him. He has an awesome fatherly insight, except when it comes to God where he usually derails.

Dillahunty, "I have a perfectly acceptable moral framework" 1. don't be so sure about that, 2. that just means that you adhere to the social religion of the day - as Murray alluded to with his statements about the vacuum - the void has been filled.

"If a word can mean anything to anybody, then it means nothing " Matt Dillahunty Enters: "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman". 😐

Skeptics here seem to imply that Jordan is wrong because he hasn’t complied to their list of invented conditions. If logic means anything then an openess to debate seems absent in Jordan’s detractors.

I never understood Jordan Peterson as a some kind of religious evangelist. I think he's right about how marvelous the text of the bible are but the same could be said about many other books and he does often talk about other books.

Dillahunty, this channel, the fans of the Atheist movement etc, consistently jab at JP, but in the same breath say “a word salad” or “I don’t understand what he’s saying” in some say saying they don’t even know what he’s saying. Sooo….you’re critiquing something you don’t even get…smooth. Maybe try to understand? Maybe watch more of his stuff that doesn’t include your own ideas or someone you’re a fan of to try and get it? If your repeating critique of an opposing message is “I don’t get what the messenger is saying” that’s just an admittance of defeat, and a repeated acknowledgement that you refuse to open your mind enough to listen. I spent years plastering my brain with heroin and alcohol and I understand JP every time I hear him speak. Tighten it up kids.

Yes, the bridge. They begin history courses now with “the myth of the great man” without first introducing what was meant by great men and how they changed the course of history. (A little thing called leadership.)

Matt is religious too. He believes in gender ideology

I enjoyed Jordans Uni lectures a lot. Lost interest when he became a preacher.

Psychology is a joke and Peterson is religious not spiritual.

These two say nothing