Destroyed by Matt Dillahunty
For all his bravado Peterson really has no good argument on the existence of God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbxL-MGSem8
Dillahunty is a fat headed, uneducated jackass.
shareYet he crushed Peterson in the debate.
shareI wouldn't say crushed but yeah.
This is the first video in which i see JP trying a head on approach to "does god exist" question. Not very successful.
I normally don't comment on non-movie stuff here and I don't think I will reply anymore than this: but I watched this debate and looked through the comments on youtude and saw all the "Dillahunty destroyed Peterson" or "Peterson is a charlatan" type of stuff and I was what are you talking about; the problem was they were not debating the same topic at all and neither one of them got that or attempted to correct their approach so they just talked directly past each other. Dillahunty was just as guilty of this as Peterson was but the problem with Peterson was he was actually trying to debate the strongest aspects of Dillahunty's approach and respected his 'system' of skepticism were as Dillahunty did nothing but argue against a straw-man position that Peterson does not actually hold.
Peterson treats the question "does god exist" as a fundamentally false starter and should not be the focus of the discussion of the idea of god existence and the usefulness or 'goodness' in a belief system that focuses on God. Dillahunty was simply arguing that the 'southern baptist' God 'who created the world in 7 literal days' doesn't exist; which is the must simplistic understanding of what "God" even means, which is why Dillahunty was focused on this Strawman. Peterson does not even believe in a God that created the world in 7 days, so Dillahunty was arguing against someone that was not there
JP doesn't really believes in a god. Period. But he is too blinded by his narrative of "if it's useful is real enough" to not even realize it.
Dillahunty was trying to bring the discussion to the topic: does god exists or not? Any sort of god. And more important: how to prove if a god exists or not.
This will be my last comment; because your comment is valid but I did not come to a movie chat site to discuss this topic. But I will say Dillahunty's topic is a silly premise to start with; the question of the existence of a creator cannot and will not be answered. And he is not really asking if god exists, he is asking if the person believes god exists and then, if so, prove it. Which is a preposterous question: "Prove to me you believe in god and why?"
The fundamental flaw in Dillahunty's (and many atheists) arguments is they are often arguing against what people's beliefs and religions interpret as their god and/or creator and not properly discussing the subject on if it is even possible. This is something Sam Harris even admitted to in a debate with someone (can't remember who at the moment); that he doesn't take issue with people that practice a faith in a God and they do good and live in harmony with the science and reason that we have available. His concern is with people that take the most fundamental aspect of their religion and try to apply it over science and reason; which is a good thing to be concerned with; but at the same time they tend to apply this generalization to all peoples of all faiths; which is not reasonable or right.
Somehow you managed to get the exact wrong and opposite take away from most debates.. Its kind of astounding you missed the entire point that atheists are trying to make...
TO say something is possible, something as specific as "my christian Baptist god" you have to provide evidence. I don't know a single leading atheist whether its Dawkins or Dillahunty who would say it isn't possible. they would say provide evidence
Who is applying this generalization to all people of all faith? have you even listened to dillahunty? im thinking not now.
Matt Dillahunty is arguably the best living atheist debater alive. having watched all of Hitchens and others content id say he is one of the best ever.
Easily manhandling all their fallacies and insane assertions
I have never seen anyone beat Dillahunty in a debate.
shareHis ability to handle gishgalloping (even by intellectually dishonest rats like disouza), not take bait, stay on topic, and not be distracted by rhetorical devices is truly impressive.
I loved Hitchens, but I felt he kept going "back to script" no matter what his opponents said. Matt seems to take their arguments, dismantle them and not let them get away with any nonsense.