Jordan Peterson's ATHEISM EXPOSED by Sam Harris

Jordan Peterson's ATHEISM EXPOSED by Sam Harris

#jordanpeterson #samharris #god #jesus #bible #atheism #jordanpetersondaily #christ #christian

Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson - Vancouver - 1
Moderated by Bret Weinstein
06/23/2018

This is the first time Sam & Jordan appeared live together on stage. This event took place at the Orpheum Theatre in Vancouver BC Canada on June 23rd 2018 in front of a sold out audience of 3000 people. The event was produced by Pangburn Philosophy.

[reveivl]

Peterson doesn't like it when Harris threatens his grift.

[Daniel-ldzi]

Christian: "We are all confused about the nature of divinity"

Also Christians: "But we know if you don't accept the Lord as your savior, you can burn in hell for all eternity"

Sounds fair lol

[bas]

"I was as clear as I possibly could be."
Dude is literally irony incarnate.

[Charon]

At the end Jordan plays victim “You won” as if Sam is somehow playing a win/loose game and Jordan is not. Jordan made his name with “gotcha” debates, he is just out of his league against Harris.

[traviskeeler]

Jordan Peterson's core philosophy: If you can't dazzle em with brilliance...baffle em with bullshit. And NOBODY does it better than he. Embarrassing. For him.

[lonergraphics]

Jordan clearly knows what Sam is trying to point out here.

[xavier]

I don’t think he’s exposing Jordan’s atheism. I think he’s exposing most Christians atheism.

[vodkarage]

I think Jordan is playing to the Christian crowd for money. It is the same reason why his manager or whoever that was told him not to debate with Matt Dillahunty. Jordan is very smart, but like so many others, when it comes to religion, he turns into an absolute fool. He lost me when he told Dillahunty that he wasn't really an atheist. Anyone who makes a claim like that is full of themselves.

[ItsjustBeth-wkqi]

Peterson says at the end “that’s a fine answer” but what he meant was “that’s a financer” bc he makes his money off of those who believe that he is a “believer “ in the way they are.

[kwameadu]

I am Christian but I'm glad Harris did this. Peterson is a grifter but not for money (even though he's made an absolute payday since he exploded on the scene). He suffers the complex of many cult leaders. He has a desire to be seen as brilliant and important.

[monarxk]

Jordan tries so hard to play both sides, its honestly kind of embarrassing.

[TheLastWalenta]

“Look, I’ve never made the claim that what I’m talking about is like what other people are talking about. I mean it is in some ways but I’ve never made that claim.”

- Jordan Peterson, modern Yoda

[jessewallaceable]

Too much money on the line for JP’s televangelist schtik.

[panchopuskas]

JP knows which side of the bread the butter's on. He's become an ideologue hero of the far right and makes a nice living out of it. Of course he doesn't believe the BS he comes out with, although it's fun to watch him trying to square the circle.

[kravitzn]

Jordan is honest when he says he's using theological terms in idiosyncratic and ambiguous ways. If only he would simply be clearer and use his own made up terms for his made up definitions. It's always safe to assume that when JP is talking theology, he doesn't mean what he seems to mean. That's because he's a clever liar, you see.

[berizont]

how often did this clip get re-uploaded now under another title? 10? 20?

[Oneironaut]

I'm just peering in to thank you for saving me 5 minutes or more with the thumbnail chosen.

[squareswing]

Peterson thinks he's the artful dodger, but he's not fooling most and looks the clown.

[OurIntrepidVampires]

There's a much simpler way to critique this. If you have an idea, and you refer to that idea as "God", you are making a claim that your idea is equivalent to the older ideas that have historically been called God. There's some room for nuance but not as much as JP is claiming. There's a reason why JP doesn't refer to his belief as Allah or Jesus, because his belief doesn't relate to those things. He calls it God despite it not relating to any traditional idea of God, and that's either dishonest, or it's a one-man attempt to appropriate the weightiest term mankind has to offer - and that's strategically impoverished.

If JP wants to redefine God like this, he's talking to the wrong audience. He wants to talk towards atheists and say God isn't really that big of a claim because it's just this cloud of stories and moralism. But if he wants the word to work that way in conversations with other human beings, he needs to talk to theists and tell them they are wrong about the nature of God. He uses their term to shield himself from their critique.

[umblnc]

Jordan Peterson's ambiguous answers about his belief in God intentionally exploit the Zeigarnik Effect and Curiosity Gap, keeping people intrigued and continuously engaged. By not providing a clear answer, he maintains an enigmatic presence that keeps his audience coming back for more, driven by the desire to fill the information gap. I see this strategy as deceiving the audience, as it keeps them hooked without ever providing a definitive answer.