Jordan Peterson vs. 20 Atheists on Morality

[Deuce]

Well the dude that was trying to make it personal I wouldn't have done it for him. He was bad faith.

False. Peterson made it personal. He kept asking questions about how the atheist determined right from wrong.

Okay fair criticism I do give Peterson a wide berth acknowledge that.

There's a theme here. You keep criticizing the atheists for something that was actually being done by Peterson and not the atheists.

Because he's on your side.

Again what word games.

Peterson rapid fired out a bunch of different definitions of "God." Some biblical, some philosophical. Since Peterson is the one claiming Atheists reject God without understanding God, which of these definitions he is actually using is important to understanding Peterson's claim. Don't you agree? "Atheists reject Yahweh as an explicit entity with tangible effect on our world" is extremely different than "atheists reject inner conscience" or "atheists reject consideration of deep matters." All three of these are definitions Peterson put forward.

When an atheist called him out for this behavior, Peterson started repeatedly interrupting, talking over them, asking questions that make it personal. Peterson was eventually forced to settle on a particular definition of God. When the atheist said "ok, so you've defined God as inner conscience," Peterson started interrupting again and smugly declared it was Isaiah who defined God this way. The atheist began to acknowledge that because it's irrelevant and Peterson interrupts again and again with more biblical citing, because he realizes the Atheist has gotten him into a corner. Peterson never again acknowledges his own declaration of the definition of God. Every single time an atheist tries to bring him back around to the core definition of his own claim, Peterson answers a question with a question, interrupts, shouts over the atheist, or just changes the subject.

Peterson repeatedly makes personal attacks in that discussion.

That would mean then that he's not Christian.

He cited the bible several times to support this.

Now, it's important to note that his interpretation is deliberately disingenuous. The idea that the bible doesn't claim God is an explicit entity with tangible effect on the world is insane. Yes, you can find one out of context line from Isaiah describing God as inner conscience, but Isaiah also repeatedly describes actual physical miracles performed by God. Peterson knows this, he's just full of shit.

And since "word games" is the underlying theme of our discussion, I'll once again point out that Peterson claimed that I, an atheist, am "religious" because I know these things about the bible. Does that not garner any kind of criticism from you? Is that not a word game? He called actual Christians who believe in a literal god "sectarians" and an atheist like myself is "religious" purely because I've studied some biblical text.

Peterson said atheists reject something they don't understand. Peterson got asked to tell everything he knows about Lono, a Hawaiian deity. Peterson said he didn't know anything about Lono. The atheist asked him if he believes in Lono. Peterson refused to answer the question, saying he isn't rejecting Lono. Everyone in the room knows that Peterson doesn't believe in Lono, but he's not honest enough to admit it.. By Peterson's own standard, Peterson is is rejecting something he doesn't understand.

And you've criticized none of these word games.

I'd like for you to actually watch the video and count the number of times Peterson interrupts the atheist. You'll run out of fingers.

 

[CLAX1911]

False. Peterson made it personal. He kept asking questions about how the atheist determined right from wrong.

Seems a legitimate question

There's a theme here. You keep criticizing the atheists for something that was actually being done by Peterson and not the atheists.

Because he's on your side.

I recognize my bias

Peterson rapid fired out a bunch of different definitions of "God." Some biblical, some philosophical. Since Peterson is the one claiming Atheists reject God without understanding God, which of these definitions he is actually using is important to understanding Peterson's claim. Don't you agree?

Suppose he's using them all.

"Atheists reject Yahweh as an explicit entity with tangible effect on our world" is extremely different than "atheists reject inner conscience" or "atheists reject consideration of deep matters." All three of these are definitions Peterson put forward.

Can you define god?

When an atheist called him out for this behavior, Peterson started repeatedly interrupting, talking over them, asking questions that make it personal. Peterson was eventually forced to settle on a particular definition of God. When the atheist said "ok, so you've defined God as inner conscience," Peterson started interrupting again and smugly declared it was Isaiah who defined God this way. The atheist began to acknowledge that because it's irrelevant and Peterson interrupts again and again with more biblical citing, because he realizes the Atheist has gotten him into a corner. Peterson never again acknowledges his own declaration of the definition of God. Every single time an atheist tries to bring him back around to the core definition of his own claim, Peterson answers a question with a question, interrupts, shouts over the atheist, or just changes the subject.

What part of the argument is this?

Peterson repeatedly makes personal attacks in that discussion.


He cited the bible several times to support this.

Yeah

Now, it's important to note that his interpretation is deliberately disingenuous. The idea that the bible doesn't claim God is an explicit entity with tangible effect on the world is insane. Yes, you can find one out of context line from Isaiah describing God as inner conscience, but Isaiah also repeatedly describes actual physical miracles performed by God. Peterson knows this, he's just full of shit.

And since "word games" is the underlying theme of our discussion, I'll once again point out that Peterson claimed that I, an atheist, am "religious" because I know these things about the bible. Does that not garner any kind of criticism from you? Is that not a word game? He called actual Christians who believe in a literal god "sectarians" and an atheist like myself is "religious" purely because I've studied some biblical text.

Peterson said atheists reject something they don't understand. Peterson got asked to tell everything he knows about Lono, a Hawaiian deity. Peterson said he didn't know anything about Lono. The atheist asked him if he believes in Lono. Peterson refused to answer the question, saying he isn't rejecting Lono. Everyone in the room knows that Peterson doesn't believe in Lono, but he's not honest enough to admit it.. By Peterson's own standard, Peterson is is rejecting something he doesn't understand.

And you've criticized none of these word games.

Having a complicated definition of god?

I'd like for you to actually watch the video and count the number of times Peterson interrupts the atheist. You'll run out of fingers.

Yeah.