Reaction: Jordan Peterson vs 20 Atheists

be very very clear. I take no pleasure in agreeing with a wild eyed COMI, which is almost certainly what that kid is, the phenotype of disaster, the eyes that are bulging out of his head, and he's obviously trying to ruin Jordan's life and career. And I'm sure I don't agree with him on anything politically whatsoever. However, he pinned Jordan into the corner and just beat the hell out of him. Got to be honest about what I

saw there, and that's what happened. What I find most odd is that I, as a non Christian, I would still say I'm not a Christian. I don't know, I'm working on it. I felt as if many of these instances of challenges from these twenty atheists, I would have done a better job at contending with the arguments than

Jordan did. He continues to duck and dodge, and every time he's kind of pinned into a corner, he relents to demanding further clarification on definitions, some of which he has already asked for before, some of which he has already said what he is defining things as. And then he's asking for another variant by which he can kind

of weasel his way out of the corner. What's most weird about all of it is that he's in the position of arguing against twenty atheists and arguing that the atheists are wrong, but he's still unwilling to take a firm position as to his own belief system. And I just don't understand this middle ground that he's trying to walk, and I find myself being sympathetic to it because I am kind of in that position of being someone who probably leans towards Christianity but is not a full on

believer just because of challenges of faith. And I think that's where Jordan's at. Except he's just much more studious in this arena, and it should not be such a point of contention, and it ought to be something that he's very open about if he's going to be putting himself in a position of being a spokesman in defense of Christianity as opposed to atheism, which is essentially what this twenty person Blitzkraig was. So it seems to me that Jordan wants to have his cake and eat it too.

He essentially does not want to be held to the standards of a Christian but he wants to still have a largely Christian audience that listens to him day in and day out, but he doesn't take a declaratory stance one way or the other. And I just don't understand it. I can understand why, especially with that kid, why you wouldn't want to answer him directly. I wouldn't want to

talk to that kid at all. But I've seen Jordan do this in other settings that were much less contentious, and he still continues to refuse to give a straight answer as to whether or not he is a believer. And I don't have a dog in that fight. If he's not a believer, that's fine. If he is a believer, that's also fine. Just tell us why won't you say

if you are or you aren't. And in fact, it reminds me tie into another person that I've been documenting their decline or the demise, which is James Lindsay, another guy who pretends as if he's a Christian, talks as if he's a Christian. Oftentimes we'll make posts where he's calling upon Christian sensibilities in Christian morality, but yet doesn't

appear to actually be a believer himself. And I think that's what's most off putting to those that are in fact believers is when someone who is not is essentially holding them to the moral standards of which they don't hold themselves because they're not a believer. It's manipulative at the end of the day, and I think people sense that.

And if you're in a position of arguing the morality of Christianity in particular, and you're unwilling to be honest about your own belief system, well then I think you've already lost the debate. You've already put yourself in a

no win position, rightfully. So, I mean you're talking about and he actually, in another clip on a playe in a second, he talks specifically about truth and how that is one of the highest Christian values or morals, but he's not being truthful because he's withholding his own personal position here. And for the life of me, I just can't understand why, why withhold it? Just tell us. I don't think anyone would be upset if you said I struggle with my faith, given what he's gone through in

his life, that'd be totally explicable. Like, we get it, dude, You've had a rough go of it over the past decade. You've got launched in the stratosphere of stardom and fame and everything else and adoration, and then you had a drug addiction which almost destroyed you. You had to go to Russia and get put into a coma. From what I've read, I allegedly to get off of benzodiazepines. And then you come back. You seem to have found your footing again,

so to speak. You're now trying to walk this line of being a spokesman for religion that you will not declare your belief in or even your non belief in neither. You'll give us neither. I could be either of them. But I don't have to take aview.

that room are, which is fair, totally fair. I think tons of people struggle with faith. They struggle with their own belief in religion. That's fair, that's understandable, that's human, that's honest. This is not that. Putting yourself up as an authoritative figure that's able to argue and debate in defense of a religion that you will not take a stance one way or the other one is just it's a performative contradiction. Why are you doing this? Why are

you putting yourself up there like that? Worse you, as a guy who's extraordinarily capable and very very bright, are losing two. He didn't have blue hair, but he's a blue hair leftist. We all know the type. And you're getting your teeth kicked in by him and going viral for the worst reasons possible. Defending a thing that you don't even necessarily have a firm position on yourself. Why would you even debate something that you don't have a firm position on? Why would you put yourself up as

that role? It seems as if you are a con man, and I think a lot of people are suspecting it. They're feeling it instinctually, and not just instinctually, but with evidence.

is courageous aspects of that. He also landed very much on his feet and became more wealthy and more famous, and more popular and more listened to than he had ever been before. But what's particularly odd about it is that he's defending a position very fiercely that really no one can, that no one actually lives out aside from maybe Jesus. I mean, who doesn't tell a lie if

it's necessary to save their child? And to then argue when an obvious counterpoint has been levied against your position that telling the truth is paramount, which is obviously a good lesson, certainly in alignment with Christian morals and Christian values.

Why not just acknowledge the fact that there are levels to your principles, and a higher level of principle than telling the truth is the protection and defense of your children, of your wife makes perfect sense, a totally reasonable stance to take, that is, when explained, completely understood by anybody who's being reasonable. But you would rather put your feet in the ground and defend a position that is not defensible.

Most people rightfully will tell a white lie if put in a dire circumstance where it's necessitated, and it is.

Just be honest. In fact, you aren't being honest by lying about being honest in a moment that you wouldn't be if that makes sense. I know I put a lot of thoughts together in one line of explanation, but that's the truth. We would all lie, and everyone would understand why you would lie. Well, excuse me, we wouldn't all lie to protect a friend during that circumstance. Many people write it out their friends and their family during

periods like that. We learned that during twenty twenty what a lot of your friends and family righted you out for not getting the jab or whatever, not wearing a mask, not social distancing. They didn't invite you to Thanksgiving or Christmas or whatever holidays you celebrate. It was insane. So a lot of people put in the position of dealing with this hypothetical would just answer it truthfully, which Jordan

refuses to do. What I took away from that is that I think because Jordan has been put in such a position of authority and kind of cloistered off from the rest of the world, or at least not challenged very much over the past few years, his ability to contend with legitimate arguments to counter his own beliefs has weakened. He's gotten very very fragile, very weak at defending these arguments, and I think that's a product of his own success in a tragic way. That because he's surrounded by people

that respect him so much, including myself. If I was sitting across the table from Jordan Peterson, I would struggle to be as antagonistic as these kids were to him. But these kids are thinking of themselves. I'm gonna go viral, I'm gonna dunk on this old guy. That's gonna be great. And many of them got their wish. But it didn't have to go this way because Jordan, in my opinion, is capable of defending these positions. He is capable of defending Christianity if he is honest with himself, and I

think that is the crux of the issue. That is the key problem that he's dealing with, is that he's not being honest with himself. And for the life of me, I cannot understand why he would argue in defense of a religion that he is still challenged by, that he is struggling with, that he is attempting to become a believer in. I believe that I don't believe that he is a believer at this point, because if he were, many of these gotcha moments go bye. Bye.

he gets into semantics and definition bargaining. It's stupid. It comes across as totally disingenuous because it is because he's not being honest with the audience. He's not being honest with the panelists, and he's not being honest with himself.

to die for it. That's something that you might say to motivate a young man, but it's not actually the honest answer belief in things like I believe in gravity, I'm certainly not prepared to die for it. What I mean, this is just nonsense. And I think because he's been cloistered off from Normi's he's not or he hasn't at least been challenged on these kind of profundities that he creates that he concox to sound very intelligent and interesting,

which he is. He just hasn't had to contend with pushback. And he's like, he's saying these catch phrases, you don't actually believe unless you are living for it and willing to die for it. Well, that's nonsense. I mean, you're basically talking about faith in religion, not the broad definition of belief, which is separate from that. And you can believe in lots of things and not be willing to

die for them. I believe that my name's Clint. If someone calls me something else, I'm okay, not not fighting over it. I'll let that go, you know. I mean, it's just weird. It's just a weird stance to take, and it's I think it's really a product of just not having to deal with challengers when you're going off, you know, in your superfluous, flowery diatribes, which I love. By the way, I'm not not trying to be a hater.

It falls flat when you're actually dealing with genuine counter points, which he was.

just telling the fucking truth. And I think I've said this in prior episodes, but this is what makes Dave Smith so good at debating. He doesn't have to lie about any of these things because he just tells you what he genuinely believes, and his ideas happen to be right, so it's very easy to defend them. So he can do so publicly time and time again without ever getting caught up in a lie because he's not lying. Now.

He might be wrong about some things, and I might be wrong about some things too, but I never have to intentionally obfuscate my beliefs because I just get to tell the truth as I see it. And I think Jordan is in a position where he's not able to

do that, and I don't know why. I don't know if it's a laye that he's decided that he needs to fill, that he's got some agent or something, some pr person who's telling him, hey, we think you're best at this, you need to stay here, or because he works for the Daily Wire, if they're telling him, look, we're losing a lot of Christians over this whole Israel stuff, and you're our guy, so you Matt Walsh, the other, dude, we need you guys to be go harden the paint

in defensive Christian values, because then we get to say, look, daily Wire employs all of these very loud and proud Christians when he's not one. I mean, he's a loud one, but he's not a Christian apparently, because he's not willing to say if he is or he isn't, so I have to assume that he's not. Now, I don't want to pretend as if every single contender that sat up

there and hammered him with questions just destroyed him. Many of them were amicable, and some of the answers that he gave were insightful, so it's not as if he's completely in shambles. I'm taking the segments that are the most worthy of being discussed further. But there are some

good moments. And in fact, there's this one girl who apparently he liked the most in terms of her questioning of him, and he invited her to do a length the year five minute segment at the end, and I'm just going to show you one segment of that so we can break it down.

truth in an ontological historical sense. As a historical fact, were there two people like that we're specifically referenced.

and you're going to Heaven. So if we cannot make like, we cannot say that we know whether or not certain historical facts in the Bible happen, like even as just like events, like does the events matter? Because again, God dying for our sins on the cross was an event. If we can't say that we know these things happened, these things did or didn't happen, this then leads us to kind of like the conundrum of how do we know what we are meant to believe, what the Bible

intended for us to believe. And this can be very very important to like our fate.

I have faith that Jesus died for my sins and he is the Son of God. For some people that's fine, and for other people that's not enough. It's challenging to take that leap of faith. And Jordan, without saying it explicitly, is telling you everything.

an answer to that? Why would you get up there and put yourself in a position like that if you can't say yes, it is true if you want to argue in defense of there being a creator through the complexity of the universe or something to that effect, that seems totally recent. But he's really putting himself up there as a defender of the Christian faith of Christianity itself, and he cannot do so because he is not a believer. Because the same question she asked him. He can't answer

because he is a wash in doubt. And I think that's a very human position to be in, one that I think people would have sympathy for, especially given what he's gone through, if he could just be honest about it. But he can't and he won't be and I can't help him beyond that, other than to say I wish I could help, and I mean that sincerely. He helped me with so much as a young man to kind

of find my footing. I want nothing more than to give that favor back, and I can't because I don't have the reach to get to him, and I'm not sure he would listen even if I did. But I hope that he knows that there's a lot of people rooting for him, that despite the fact that this this episode will be titled something like Jordan Peterson gets flatlined in debate, at the end of the day, there's no malice here. I'm rooting for the guy. I hope that he finds his faith. I hope that he finds that

source of strength and belief. He seems so desperately in need of it, seeking of it even and I think we all are some more than others. I'm certainly on the path myself, and I think even those that have found true belief in their faith, they still are more than willing to have patience with those that are struggling, those that are trying. And at the end of the day, I think that's quintessentially a Christian value, a Christian moral even,

which is something that Jordan ought to embrace. Have grace for yourself a little bit and that might help ease the concerns the struggle that you're dealing with, and I hope it will. Welcome to Liberty Lockdown, Let's come to Park Hove, to Liberty and Company.