The Greatest God Debate In History | Jordan Peterson vs Matt Dillahunty

[Dontaskme]

To 'you', does 'Knowing', REALLY, ONLY JUST 'imply' there is a 'knower'?

Yes.

I would have thought for 'you', human beings, that it would have been fairly straight forward and VERY OBVIOUS that 'knowing' could ONLY HAPPEN and OCCUR IF there IS/WAS A so-called 'knower'.

So it seems.

But I have no idea or clue as to what a 'knower'' looks like, I cannot even point to a 'knower' like I can point to a physical object.

THIS IS BECAUSE, as 'I' have INFORMED 'you' NUMEROUS TIMES ALREADY, that the 'knower' AND thee 'Knower' ARE BOTH INVISIBLE 'things'.

Ah, i see, that's probably why i have never seen the ''knower''

Therefore, and OBVIOUSLY, 'you', "dontaskme", could NOT KNOW what 'they' LOOK LIKE, NOR could NOT even be ABLE POINT TO 'them', with the physical finger OF 'that body'. HOWEVER, 'they' can be DESCRIBED, or ILLUSTRATE, THROUGH and BY spoken or written words, which as some would say, POINTS DIRECTLY TO 'who' AND 'what' the 'knower' AND thee 'Knower' ARE, EXACTLY?

i agree, i have only seen the 'knower' as a word, so if i am a knower, then i must be a word.

So that's why I say it's a difficult concept to grasp, because I cannot hold a ''knower'' in my hand and look at it as if it was an object.

AND TO BE SO CLOSED and BLIND to think that ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' IN the Universe is visible with the human eyes, made up of 'matter', and/or is ABLE TO BE HELD in the human hand, like physical objects can IS BEYOND ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY.

BUT, 'this' IS the RESULT OF False AND Wrong BELIEFS, and 'CONFIRMATION BIAS', itself.

i cannot hold in my hand an invisible thing, nor can i see an invisible thing, that's all i'm saying.

I know the concept of ''knowing'' but I cannot see the form this 'knowing knower' takes physically, like I can an object...that's all I'm saying.

BECAUSE 'it' does NOT and WILL NEVER TAKE THE physical 'form', like a (physical) object.

If 'you' EVER JUST START TO CONSIDER AND COMPREHEND 'this' IRREFUTABLE Fact, then 'I' can START REVEALING TO 'you', EXACTLY, HOW and WHY 'your' OTHER BELIEFS ARE IN FACT ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct.

But, UNTIL THEN 'I' LEAVE 'you' STUCK in those False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect BELIEFS that 'you' HAVE here.

ok ok, i get it..the knower is invisible, it takes on no physical form.
i am an invisble knower...ok fine.

[bahman]

What's your synopsis?

Yes, I would like to know that as well. I listened to a small part of the video and I lost interest. You know, the Bible, evolution, etc. is not my take.

[Dontaskme]

Conversation like this are incredibly important because we need to convince the better part of humanity that it's possible to live the best life possible without recourse to divisive nonsense.
And where we draw the line between divisive nonsense and reason the necessary discourse is what we're we're bickering over and I think I think it's important that we continue.

What Happened With Jordan Peterson? Matt Dillahunty & Douglas Murray


Duration:11:23 mins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw9yYoXWNDQ

[Age]

I don't know who or what is this I

THEN I SUGGEST THAT 'you' do NOT USE the letter and WORD 'I' TO REFER TO "your" OWN VERY LITTLE and INSIGNIFICANT 'self' here.

I know the concept I ... but I have never seen an I except as a letter in the alphabet.

WHY do 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'you' have NEVER EVER SEEN an 'I', except as a letter in the alphabet?

Also, were 'you' AWARE that 'your' reply here does NOT have ACTUALLY ANY 'thing' to do WITH what 'you' quoted 'me' as SAYING here?

I do not know what or who I am and so I use this letter I as a reference to my not-knowing self, as a known self in this conception that is happening in the form of letters of the alphabet.

Well 'I' WILL SUGGEST TO 'you', ONCE AGAIN, what the Accurate AND Correct LETTER and WORD IS TO USE here. That LETTER and WORD IS 'i'.

Can 'you' NOW SEE and SPOT the DIFFERENCE?

All I know is that the I appears to manifest as happening here in the image of itself as it appears as a letter of the alphabet.

So, what MAKES 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'you' can be ASSOCIATED WITH and/or SPEAK FOR 'I'. AFTER ALL there IS ONLY thee One and ONLY 'I', and if 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'you' ARE 'It', then 'you' ARE, SADLY, VERY, VERY MISTAKEN "dontaskme'.

The ONLY 'one' that 'you' can REALLY SPEAK FOR IS 'you', the LITTLE and conceptually separated individual 'i', ALONE.

Ok, I suppose I could use the other I then, the little i ... i can do that, i can be little i suppose, not that it matters, because it's all just letters strung together to make sentences and words that appear to tell a story, at the end of the day.

BUT DIFFERENT WORDS, and thus DIFFERENT LETTERS ALSO, can and DO MAKE A VERY HUGE DIFFERENCE.

See, the little 'i' FAR BETTER EXPLAINS, and, literally, SPEAKS FOR and ABOUT the ILLUSORY Nature of the 'selves', which REALLY DO NOT EXIST. As 'you' FREQUENTLY WANT 'us' TO COMPREHEND, and UNDERSTAND.

A story that just happens to be happening and appearing out of silence and mystery and imagination and ???? I've just run out of words.....

As 'I' have MENTIONED BEFORE, 'I' AM here FOR 'you', "dontaskme", AND FOR ANY one "ELSE", who would like to be ABLE TO BETTER EXPRESS 'their views', so that 'they' CAN BE BETTER, and/or FULLY, UNDERSTOOD.

See, 'you' here "dontaskme" ARE SO CLOSE TO REVEALING SOME OF the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth OF 'things' here. Just like MANY "others" here ARE.

ALL of 'your views' just NEED TO BE COMBINED/UNITED, TOGETHER, for the ACTUAL Truth TO COME OUT, COME-TO-LIGHT, and thus BE REVEALED. Which WAS ALWAYS GOING TO HAPPEN, and COME ABOUT, ANYWAY. BECAUSE 'this' IS what IS HAPPENING and OCCURRING, HERE-NOW.

All I know is it's happening,

'you' MEANT TO SAY and WRITE, 'All 'i' know is 'it' IS happening'.

Well not really, that i wasn't happening. The I was happening.

and that's all I can know.

ABSOLUTELY False AND Wrong AGAIN. FOR two reasons:

1. 'you' ARE NOT 'I'.

You is not I ...you is you. So I agree.

2. 'I' CAN and ALREADY DO KNOW FAR, FAR MORE than JUST 'it' IS happening.

Yes, and that statement claim is also what's happening.

[Age]

To 'you', does 'Knowing', REALLY, ONLY JUST 'imply' there is a 'knower'?

Yes.

I would have thought for 'you', human beings, that it would have been fairly straight forward and VERY OBVIOUS that 'knowing' could ONLY HAPPEN and OCCUR IF there IS/WAS A so-called 'knower'.

So it seems.

But I have no idea or clue as to what a 'knower'' looks like, I cannot even point to a 'knower' like I can point to a physical object.

THIS IS BECAUSE, as 'I' have INFORMED 'you' NUMEROUS TIMES ALREADY, that the 'knower' AND thee 'Knower' ARE BOTH INVISIBLE 'things'.

Ah, i see, that's probably why i have never seen the ''knower''

Therefore, and OBVIOUSLY, 'you', "dontaskme", could NOT KNOW what 'they' LOOK LIKE, NOR could NOT even be ABLE POINT TO 'them', with the physical finger OF 'that body'. HOWEVER, 'they' can be DESCRIBED, or ILLUSTRATE, THROUGH and BY spoken or written words, which as some would say, POINTS DIRECTLY TO 'who' AND 'what' the 'knower' AND thee 'Knower' ARE, EXACTLY?

i agree, i have only seen the 'knower' as a word, so if i am a knower, then i must be a word.

But 'this' would be like SAYING and CLAIMING, 'i' have only seen the 'wind' as a word, so if the 'wind' exists, then the 'wind' MUST BE a word.

Hopefully, the NONSENSICAL and ILLOGICALNESS of 'this' can be SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD, here, now?

So that's why I say it's a difficult concept to grasp, because I cannot hold a ''knower'' in my hand and look at it as if it was an object.

AND TO BE SO CLOSED and BLIND to think that ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' IN the Universe is visible with the human eyes, made up of 'matter', and/or is ABLE TO BE HELD in the human hand, like physical objects can IS BEYOND ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY.

BUT, 'this' IS the RESULT OF False AND Wrong BELIEFS, and 'CONFIRMATION BIAS', itself.

i cannot hold in my hand an invisible thing, nor can i see an invisible thing, that's all i'm saying.

BUT 'you' ARE ALSO 'TRYING TO' CLAIM that BECAUSE 'you' can NOT SEE nor HOLD SOME 'thing', then 'that thing' MUST BE just AN ILLUSION.

I know the concept of ''knowing'' but I cannot see the form this 'knowing knower' takes physically, like I can an object...that's all I'm saying.

BECAUSE 'it' does NOT and WILL NEVER TAKE THE physical 'form', like a (physical) object.

If 'you' EVER JUST START TO CONSIDER AND COMPREHEND 'this' IRREFUTABLE Fact, then 'I' can START REVEALING TO 'you', EXACTLY, HOW and WHY 'your' OTHER BELIEFS ARE IN FACT ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct.

But, UNTIL THEN 'I' LEAVE 'you' STUCK in those False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect BELIEFS that 'you' HAVE here.

ok ok, i get it..the knower is invisible, it takes on no physical form.
i am an invisble knower...ok fine.

[Dontaskme]

i agree, i have only seen the 'knower' as a word, so if i am a knower, then i must be a word.

Age wrote:
But 'this' would be like SAYING and CLAIMING, 'i' have only seen the 'wind' as a word, so if the 'wind' exists, then the 'wind' MUST BE a word.

Wind is a word. .otherwise, what would wind be known as ?

[Sculptor]

JP has nothing to say, as usual - just verbosity to the point of verbal Diarrhoea.

MD gentle eviserates his empty words.

[LuckyR]

What's your synopsis?

Yes, I would like to know that as well. I listened to a small part of the video and I lost interest. You know, the Bible, evolution, etc. is not my take.

You and me both, brother. Though many feel that providing a one liner and a link is befitting for you to invest more than an hour in a random video of unknown quality.

[Harbal]

What's your synopsis?

Yes, I would like to know that as well. I listened to a small part of the video and I lost interest. You know, the Bible, evolution, etc. is not my take.

You and me both, brother. Though many feel that providing a one liner and a link is befitting for you to invest more than an hour in a random video of unknown quality.

So, instead of investing your time in watching the video, you are investing your time in talking about not watching it?

[LuckyR]

Yes, I would like to know that as well. I listened to a small part of the video and I lost interest. You know, the Bible, evolution, etc. is not my take.

You and me both, brother. Though many feel that providing a one liner and a link is befitting for you to invest more than an hour in a random video of unknown quality.

So, instead of investing your time in watching the video, you are investing your time in talking about not watching it?

Uummm... not so much. I posted 3 words, everyone else lost their 5hit about it. Since then I haven't been talking about it, rather responding to them/you talking about it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Conversation like this are incredibly important because we need to convince the better part of humanity that it's possible to live the best life possible without recourse to divisive nonsense.
And where we draw the line between divisive nonsense and reason the necessary discourse is what we're we're bickering over and I think I think it's important that we continue.

What Happened With Jordan Peterson? Matt Dillahunty & Douglas Murray
Duration:11:23 mins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw9yYoXWNDQ

After listening to debates re Jordan Peterson, I find he is a 'weasel' and 'eel' in becoming an theistic-religion apologist.

A snippet from the discussion above [from the script and not properly formatted];

MURRAY: I think that he [Jordan] has a a real fear of saying something which he thinks would cause damage in a way if he did it

DILLA: well that's one that's the one question that I asked him that I had prepared ahead of time based on what I knew and that was
what is it that you fear we will lose if people give up a belief in a God and
he started with well we'll lose the The Narrative the metaphorical substrate of the narrative blah blah blah
but that doesn't tell me anything because it doesn't tell me what of the narrative is a value that we're losing and then
when when I pressed on that he just said art
as if there's not t well the problem is is that I could say there's tons of art from from atheists except that he also doesn't seem to think there are any atheists right
he thinks everyone is religious and that people are just professing atheism but they've made none of this messs with certainly certainly
it reminds me when I'm in debates with Christian apologists and they say um oh you're not really an atheist you you actually are just uh publicly denying that you exist You You Believe in a God uh or you you actually know that a God exists
and that comes from I mean I did a debate with saen bugen Kate who's a presuppositionalist and that's his big thing we we all know that God exists including you you're just you know lying or whatever and he mocked for it and yet in reality
Jordan did exactly the same thing essentially saying you are all a you are all you atheists are professing atheists that you know a real atheist would would be a cold blooded killer who would you know rationalize and justify this way you can't have a moral Foundation that is secular and
he tried to use a anyway I don't want to go through the whole evening
but it was essentially the same thing I get from unschooled uneducated apologists on behalf of a much more strict view of religion and
that's why earlier you may be right about what he's afraid of and I tried to get to what he's afraid of but when you were talking about suggesting that we may have lost something and encouraging people to go back to church for that..

Here is a comment from the link I agree with, except the point in [].

[I love Dr. Peterson, and listening to his lectures has helped me tremendously.]

However, I do have to say, Mr. Dillahunty exactly identified the three main problems I also have with Dr. Peterson.
(1) He is very hesitant to admit, that religious dogmatism can go too far, let alone that many people who call themselves religious are in fact very rigid, dogmatic, cannot think critically or independently, believe their particular holy book to be entirely, absolutely, and literally true, and feel quite justified to force their own views onto others. True, many of these criticisms equally apply to many adherents of left-wing ideologies, but they are non the less also true on the religious front, and it is frustrating to not get an agreement on this point.

(2) He uses the word “religious” different from most other people. Most people mean by religious that someone believes the things a particular religion generally preaches or at least enacts its rituals and holidays, but Peterson uses the word to mean that a person has any strongly held convictions / axiomatic beliefs about reality or ethics. Examples he uses are the orderliness and intelligibility of the universe or the sanctity of human life. Thus he ends up calling self-proclaimed atheists religious, or claims that atheism will automatically lead to murder and genocide, which understandably angers and confuses many people.

(3) He refuses to clearly state, that men cannot come back from the dead or that virgins cannot give birth to children. It lets one wonder, what he actually believes about the structure of material reality and on what shared basis one is actually having a conversation. I think Douglas is, as ever so often, right, Peterson is afraid, that people could lose their faith in the stories that underpin our civilization, and that this could lead to the fall of western civilization (see Nietzsche’s point about the death of God). But still, his refusal to clearly state, that these stories are purely metaphorically true, makes high level intellectual discussions difficult.

[Dontaskme]

So, instead of investing your time in watching the video, you are investing your time in talking about not watching it?

LuckyR has previously stated a no interest in watching Youtube videos. .Yet seemingly is fascinated to know why DAM watches Youtube video's and what she gleans from watching them.

Work that one out if you dare! [scratches head]

[Dontaskme]

You and me both, brother. Though many feel that providing a one liner and a link is befitting for you to invest more than an hour in a random video of unknown quality.

So, instead of investing your time in watching the video, you are investing your time in talking about not watching it?

Uummm... not so much. I posted 3 words, everyone else lost their 5hit about it. Since then I haven't been talking about it, rather responding to them/you talking about it.

Just an idea.
Why don't you start a new thread on the topic 'YouTube Watching'? and maybe you could title it ...
( I can't be bothered to invest my time watching YT and does anyone else feel this way? ) or maybe just come up with your own title.

By the way, what's a five hit?

[Dontaskme]

Here is a comment from the link I agree with, except the point in [].
[I love Dr. Peterson, and listening to his lectures has helped me tremendously.]

Thanks for your comments, which I have read with interest by the way.


From what I've noticed when I've listened to a few of JP's YouTube videos ....is that it does seem as though JP is very popular among the younger men in our society who seem to look up to him as a some sort of heroic saviour God figure.

JP seems to be a clever expert at drawing in the sort of audience who are already disadvantaged intellectually, who are young on the path to enlightenment, who are gullible, who are probably mentally challenged and quite vulnerable, who are also very easily persuaded and influenced by people like JP.

It seems all too common today that people are willing to make Gods and Idols out of people like JP just because they are very good at putting on an act of capturing an audiences attention with their so called knowledge seemingly acting as they know exactly what they are talking about. And people are just drawn in hook line and sinker. People will believe just about anything, when they are desperate enough, so it seems.

[Dontaskme]

Yes, I would like to know that as well. I listened to a small part of the video and I lost interest. You know, the Bible, evolution, etc. is not my take.

You and me both, brother. Though many feel that providing a one liner and a link is befitting for you to invest more than an hour in a random video of unknown quality.

So, instead of investing your time in watching the video, you are investing your time in talking about not watching it?

I'm perplexed as to why two people: LuckyR and bahman ..have taken the time to pop into this thread topic... already knowing they have no interest in investing their time here.

Is it me, or am I missing something?