Видео

No contradictions, even the ones Alex pointed out. For example, the case for "why women discovered the empty tomb"? If their account was to have some credibility, and it's known women did these funeral arrengements, a man could be placed there as a guardian for them. It's very early in the morning, just out of a holliday, probably a cemitery was not the most secure place in the city. The point of the travel to Egypt. Complementary accounts. Mathew has a very long time skip, after their return from Egypt. Luke also doesn't include Jesus' first years. Both of them were not witnesses to these events. Mathew could have the opportunity to interview Jesus and his parents (at least Mary). Luke may have spoken to James, Jesus' brother, but for certain spoke to many about Christ's early life. What if those inquires didn't include their travel to Egypt, but when asking about Jesus' circuncision, he heard the account about the priests? He's making an effort to bend the texts as means to input motivations not clear in them. Oh, they could be manipulated. But all four? The point of the Gospels is: Christ was born from a virgin, lived a sinless life, preached moral truths unthinkable in his time, even against major understanding to his counterparts regarding the same texts they studied for centuries, died a horrible death he didn't diserve, was witnessed ressurected after his passing and through him we can gain eternal life with God. Not all profecies are covered in all the Gospels. They are complementary points of view. If one of them said "Jesus never traveled anywhere until his 30's", the other said "Jesus went to Jerusalem once every year", and other said "Jesus came to Israel from Egypt and a child", they still wouldn't contradict each other, because the point is not to be a monolitic description. One of those are wrong, obviously. But that doesn't discredit the whole account. That's simply how people observe and tell events. Each one pays closer atention to one event in detriment of another and then speaks precisely about one thing and wrong about the other. Dinesh tried to bring light to this fact but it was ignored by Alex, and aparently by the majority of of commentors of the video.

I think maybe Jordan is on adderall.🥺

Alex is a bible scholar. Anyone who reads the bible has a high chance of becoming an atheist. Catholics and christians usually just go to church, listen to the priest about what he wants to discuss then repeat.

Eating mushrooms lol , yes Dinesh

This guy thinks the greeks were the first scientists when the Greeks traveled to Africa to study. Smh

[Unificationism, Rev Moon] *Jesus resurrected spiritually.* Matthew, Mark, Luke and John contradict each other - they differ in how many people saw Jesus and how he appeared. Also, humans can touch angels that are spiritual (ex. in Sodom the people had sex with angels, an angel unlocked the jail cell for an apostle, etc). This explains Thomas's experience. The book of John is different in that it is the only book that says that immediately after Jesus's death on Friday afternoon, the priests oiled Jesus's body, and we can assume in a rush, because Friday evening is when Jewish Sabbath starts, and it is illegal to do any work all Friday night and all Saturday. So, the priests would have to oil and bury the body quickly by Friday evening, because the stench would have been too great. So, Jesus was in an unguarded tomb all Friday before the Roman soldiers came Saturday night.

Dinseh utters many words while saying nothing.

That wasn't god. It was annunnaki . Supreme beings pretending to be god. Given men these instruction.

😂 did you guys even watch the entire show? Commenting on one clip without listening to the retort.

Jesus is a historical figure period. And many offered up their lives for their faith in him. How can this be explained?

This is such a silly argument. “You’re trying to divest yourself of the ethics of the church while being a product of the ethics of the church” yeah that’s called personal growth and self-criticism

this is your brain on religion

I think JP had studied Matt while he takes calls from stupid theists on his show and thought it would be a good idea to try to use matts tactics against him... bad mistake 😂

If god purposely mellowed in the New Testament then he is not infallible. Checkmate Abrahamists.

Jordan Peterson looks like an idiot here. Butting in and making stupid comments

This is painful to watch.

When the #metoo wave happened, Lobsterboy Peterson said something like, "we should be looking at whether we should allow women in the workplace." So did God and Jesus and Christianity make Jordan Peterson misogynistic and an apologist for sexual predators?

Listening to Dinesh D'Souza is like enduring a series of underwhelming analogies and subject changes, leaving you frustrated and disoriented. It feels like your brain is slowly dying inside your head as you try to follow his often incoherent and evasive arguments.

He really didn’t though

pretty cool to see two adults talking to each other with respect lol if only politicians could do that then I might take them seriously

Mr. Petterson you do owe Matt a thing he cannot use in a proposition.

I enjoy both of these guys…both very intelligent and it’s nice to see two people having a discussion without it turning out like a James Tour ranting

I feel like dinesh is the worst type of person, and he is not unique. These tactics are common. He doesnt care about the issues, only to redirect indefinitely.

D'Souza: "Who will fund the deniers of climate change?" Literally the oil companies! They've been funding misinformation for decades.

Well its proven, not even Jordan Peterson can make me believe in God . I doubt anyone making funny coments would have made better arguments in defense of the excistance of god in a debate

Its such a shame that Jordan Peterson and his entourage have closed communication with Matt immediately after this debate. It speaks volumes of the rigidity and fragility of his position.

I really wonder why anybody give Peterson any time at all, he is basically trolling his opponent every time he debates.

"The depends on what you mean be 'believe'"

Peterson clearly shows his eating disorder here. He is so uncomfortable, repositioning his body, tapping his feet, his voice high pitched and desperate, he looks like he is in actual physical pain.

For anyone who is an atheist and has a sincere desire to know the truth rather than argue, just know that what he said about the Bible is very misleading. And combining the Quran and the Bible together like they are the same is even more misleading. If you noticed, he spoke about the awful things that the Quran says and that Muhammad did and then transitioned into "therefore, Christians...". I don't know if meant to be sneaky about that, but it came off sneaky. Not all religions are created equal, and I hope any critical thinking atheist can see why that is a logical fallacy to put all religions in the same bucket.

I always have such trouble listening to Bret. He reminds of the kid in the back of the room who thinks his thoughts are so exceptional but really they are pretty mundane and asinine. Adaptation at the level of lineage is just a new of saying “social Darwinism”. It’s Darwinism bastardized by low-level sociology.

As much as Jordan comes off as overly animated and he’s interrupting the guy, he’s right to the very last point. You obviously can’t support the claim that death is preferable to life in any meaningful sense because we don’t know what death or life is

Jebus christ....how is anyone enamoured with JP? He's a pretentious, bad faith, grifter.

Dinesh got bodied again

it's insane. A reasonable person having an argument with a complete Loonie

Underrated side note of this. Matt's choice to wear cowboy boots. I remember seeing Peterson in Cowboy boots before, but he didnt want to wear them on stage next to a Texan. 😂

Jorden Peterson is clearly challenged in this video - you can tell from his body language

this was so painfully unbalanced….

the holy spirit is a guide and those who have not received this gift read the holy bible without a guide the way the truth and the life amen

The lack of faith or lack of belief in the existence of god -- which is ALL that atheism is, and no more -- can be exploited by power hungry megalomaniacal dictators. Totalitarians, such as this, will forcefully impose this sentiment onto the population and substitute themselves for any competitive gods or other ideologies, requiring endless praises and genuflections toward the Dear Leader -- resebling a religion. There are other characters (likely, fictional) that do this and one of them, is the god of the the Bible. And he bears virtually ALL the characteristics (and much much more) of an Earthly totalitarian dictator whos only TRUE interest is for you to feed his massively turgescent ego. But with this god, you have self-aggrandizement through a ostentatious act of self-immolation on a cross to satisfy his own fastidious O.C.D. issues and exigent "moral/judicial" requirements. And all for a rigged "moral" experiment that he snared or entrapped the 1st two humans into (and, by extendesion, all of their progeny ... that means all of us) to fail his nefarious test. You know, because sin spreads like a disease, so he made sure that we all got infected with this so called, "sinful nature".

Dillahunty is pure BS. His entire rejection of God is founded in his desire to play post office with men in dresses. That is what made him storm out of another discussion.

Alex accent makes him trust worthy, so, maybe if I stand up people will take notice of my BS

I cannot share Peterson's claim of the deep profundity of the Cain and Abel story. It is one of the rungs in the ladder of Genesis 1-11 leading up to the introduction of Abraham. It cannot stand alone. Genesis 1-11 is a refined narrative that was produced through many minds and hands.

Total meltdown

D'souza and his dishonesty has no end to it

Fantastic videography skills, looks so crystal clear that I can nearly tells who's who

This was painful. I thought I was going to live this when my friend recommended it to me... But then... I started to feel sorry for Jordan. He kinda fell into Matt's trap. Matt's only strength is talking about atheism. Jordan should have tried to guide the conversation toward philosophy of mind, and away from epistemology.

Many of Jorden Peterson's videos are interesting because he can occasionally clarify an argument, but in most of his debates he continually tries to break down the the arguments of his opponents by interupting with distracting arguments that appears to be a clarifing philosophical questions, but are really attempts to change the focus of the argument to his philosophical safe ground. More simply put, he always throws philosophical shit into the conversational fan and will then follow those ideas that stick to the wall that his opponent distractedly has to immediately refute. And when his opponent does, he always finds another turd for the fan to complicate the original discussion. It almost always detracts from the discussion and makes much of it very much an epistomological argument of just how people actually know things. A true egghead with no real feet on the ground.

this debate is utterly embarrasing for dinesh. like, it should be career ending.

Oh man. Dinesh. Buddy. You uh...you aren't being intellectually honest. You're doing the thing that you hate where someone asks a yes or no question, and then not answering it. I watched your movie. There were some very decent points you made, and I thought you did a pretty decent job. Some of the facts were a little misleading, but overall I thought you made a pretty decent & convincing case. What happened? This is the absolute most infuriating thing about public figures these days. They don't maintain consistency, the second it crosses social/political/religious lines.