Christian Leaves Atheist SPEECHLESS With His Answers! (Peterson VS Dawkins)

This was one of the most thought provoking Christian VS Atheist debates I have ever seen. Peterson is on a new level here.

I feel that this verse sums up this debate... John 3:12 "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

0:00 - Intro
2:11 - Do You Believe?
9:17 - Cultural Christianity
16:09 - The Ressurection
21:32 - The Writers of The Bible
24:27 - Debate Breakdown

THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO WATCHES AND SUPPORTS!

#christianity #atheist #debate

[ChiefMessenger]

Was Dawkins out of his league here? Put your thoughts below! ⬇️ Thank you everyone for watching and GOD bless you!

[tontonses]

I think you got the goal of Dawkins completely wrong. He was just trying to come to an agreement that bible is not a literal documentary so they could move on to the next topic. Peterson for whatever reason refused to admit that Cain is no more real than Raskolnikov and made the conversation stuck on that.

I've never seen Dawkins expecting people to believe those stories. He is usually surprised and stunned when someone insists on believing them literally.

[charvakaelysium]

Peterson came across as deranged. He was lost in a fog of his own making.

[stephenshanebeaty]

Your opinion is so biased it's absolutely useless

[lazybrick]

Peterson as a critic of “Post-Modern Neo-Marxists” is sounding damn post-modern.

[Itsam]

To this day I’m not sure if Jordan has actually answered the question as to whether he believes in god or not.

[DietWarlord]

lmao stop it, Jordan got smashed to bits and it was embarrassing to watch.

[janklosowski]

Jordan Peterson builds his answers so "eloquently" that often, you need a minute to understand what he actually said. I don't see this tactic as admirable. My mentors say, "If you can't explain something simply, you probably don't understand it well enough." In his case it's not about understanding, but it's an intentional tactic to dodge questions he doesn't like.

[marvez]

I liked the video, very nice production and timing! I also like to debate, so: I really disagree with the idea that Christianity gave us any scientific advancement. I agree that a lot of scientists in history were Christians, but I believe most scientific advancements were made in spite of the church and not because of it. Galileo is a clear example of this, the church was directly opposed to his findings. He was persecuted, and eventually sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life. Nicolaus Copernicus would've likely been persecuted too, but he died shortly after his publications. Don't even get me started on morality, if our values were based on Christianity, women would be property, slavery would be legal and cheating on your spouse would be punishable by death.

[Diggilicious]

Christianity didn't do any of the things you say it did with regard to science and medicine. Science and medicine have progressed in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Your revisionist history doesn't work here.

[edkay]

Your title is incorrect since Jordan Peterson is not a Christian. (I'd also argue that his responses were not 'epic', unless you mean epically long, incomprehensible and garbled). In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead. It's not a miracle if it's just a metaphor. Jordan Peterson doesn't believe this literally happened, so he's not a Christian. Many Christians read a lot of the Bible as metaphor (the Garden of Eden, Cain and Abel etc), but you can't treat the resurrection story the same way.

[jimmy_the_gimmick_]

Jordan Peterson never gives a straight answer on anyway.

It's nothing but word salad.

[brycestorbakken]

Analysis was on point and great production. Thanks for sharing

[anthonywestbrook]

(I'll watch the rest, but really want to share this before I forget. I'm about 8 minutes in so far.)

I see a problem of mottes and baileys, that I think Dawkins is used to dealing with, that keep him from engaging with Peterson on his own terms.

Dawkins would -- actually, I'll not speak for him, I'll speak for myself. I would have very little problem with the Bible if everyone treated it as literature. I don't think it matters who its authors were, unless the claim is that its author was God, and therefore anything it says must be accepted. It is such an incredibly different experience to read scriptures as divine or divinely inspired, than it is to read them as words and ideas that must stand or fall on their own.

I may be inferring too much -- this is your first video I've seen -- but I think that's a quad on your bookshelf, so I've got my guess about your beliefs. If correct, you can experience the difference yourself. Find a pastor from another branch of Christianity that you can respect, who has sermons or lectures based on these parts of the Bible: Job, and the Song of Solomon. Watch the job video first. You'll agree with some interpretations, disagree with some, and be curious about others. When you listen to him talk about the Song of Solomon, you might have a hard time caring either way, but even if he has a profound lesson that he gets from it, and can articulate it very well, and even if you agree that the text supports his theory, it won't matter much to you. It'll feel as important as whether or not Jar-Jar Binx is really a sith.


The problem with Peterson's defense of the Bible is that it tries to ignore the question of whether it's literature, or the word of God. If he's arguing that it be treated as literature, I've got no problem with that. I think what's closer to the truth of he were intellectually honesty about it all, and I'd love to hear him state it so plainly, is that he thinks we should treat great literature more closely to the way we treat the Bible. And I'd be less opposed to that. But I think that what he wants is to be able to believe Christianity's claims without having to own up to that fact, because he is smart enough to know that it's not an intellectually defensible position, and his ego couldn't handle people thinking he's not smart. So he obfuscates his actual position. Or he doesn't actually believe any of the divinity parts of the Bible, but won't just admit that plainly because "that's what the post-modern neo-Marxists want."

I think his actual position is mostly fine, I just don't like that he does the whole motte and bailey thing with it.

[timothyjjcrow]

Peterson says a lot of words that end up meaning nothing. Idk how you can listen to his bs and agree with it