I couldn’t stay silent after witnessing the jaw-dropping exchange between Jordan Peterson and a young, smart-ass atheist. If you haven’t seen it, it was part of a Jubilee event that originally went by the title “Christian versus 20 Atheists,” with Peterson positioned as the token Christian. But anyone paying attention could tell that label didn’t quite fit. Eventually, they changed it to “Jordan Peterson versus 20 Atheists”—a title that, frankly, hits much closer to reality.
The young atheist employed a tactic that honestly surprised me—I’m stunned Peterson didn’t catch it. If you watch closely, you’ll notice how the atheist gradually shifts from inquisitive to aggressive in his tone. Right from the start, he steers the conversation by getting Peterson to outline the debate rules on his terms, completely ignoring Peterson’s own footing.
Then came the trap: the atheist asked for Peterson’s definition of “worship,” and Peterson listed three components. Seizing on that, the atheist locked Peterson into that brief reply, insisting that anything Peterson said afterward couldn’t count, because it wasn’t part of the original definition he had just given.
It’s a classic move you often see from cultural Marxists in debate. They box you in using your own off-the-cuff definitions, then use that incomplete framing to dismantle your broader argument. The best way to beat that tactic? Don’t play into it. Simply raise your hands and say, “I’m not going to let you weaponize a quick definition I gave in passing to disqualify everything else I say. That’s not how serious conversation works.”
But I fear that the atheist’s aggressiveness and outward disrespect for the so-called Christian threw Peterson for a loop.
WATCH:
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNELNo matter what they called it, the exchange was intense—and frankly, kind of brutal. It’s the kind of moment that sticks with you. One sharp commentator nailed the takeaway when they said this wasn’t so much about one Christian debating twenty atheists. It felt more like—“20 atheists crushing another atheist.”
That critic went on:
“Jordan Peterson may have stood in the room as Christianity’s representative, but he left biblical orthodoxy at the door. His God is a useful metaphor, not a holy creator. His view of man is self-serving, not self-sacrificing. His scripture is psychological literature, not divine revelation.”
It wasn’t 20 atheists debating a Christian—it was 20 atheists crushing another atheist.
Jordan Peterson may have stood in the room as Christianity’s representative, but he left biblical orthodoxy at the door. His God is a useful metaphor, not a holy Creator. His view of man is… pic.twitter.com/f33TV2OWUr
— Tod Ashby (@TodAshby) May 26, 2025
Whether or not you agree with that analysis, there’s no denying that Peterson stumbled a bit. His tendency to hedge when it comes to affirming Christianity—sometimes even denying it just to make a rhetorical point—seemed to backfire here.
But what if he’d gone a different route? What if he’d stood his ground and answered with clarity and confidence, without giving up his usual nuance? Here’s a version of how that moment could have gone:
When asked point-blank, “Are you a Christian, yes or no?” Peterson could’ve simply replied:
“Of course I’m a Christian. And not only that,”—looking straight at his atheist opponent—“so are you.”
Yes, I’m a Christian—and so are you. So are likely all the others who describe themselves as atheists in this room.
One of the biggest misconceptions in the Peterson debate—and really in most debates about religion—is the assumption that religion is just a personal preference. As if it’s no different than choosing between going to church, a book club, or a weekend Netflix binge. But that kind of thinking completely misses the mark. It’s not just a mistake—it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what religion actually is.
Because here’s the truth: very few people actually take the time to ask, what even is religion?
Anthropologists have been digging into this for over a century, and here’s what they’ve consistently found: religion isn’t mainly about your personal, internal beliefs. Now, don’t get me wrong—what you believe about God in your heart absolutely matters. I’m not talking about your personal connection with the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. I’m saying that religion goes way beyond that. At its core, it’s about how human beings build and sustain social order. Stick with me—this gets to the heart of everything.
Religion, in the most foundational sense, is about the “sacred.” It’s the rules, rituals, and values that a society holds up as non-negotiable. These are the things that bind people together into something greater than themselves.
Think about how we treat something sacred. In many homes, there’s a family Bible—sometimes generations old—that’s never just thrown on a shelf or used casually. It’s placed carefully, maybe even on display, and only opened on special occasions or for moments that matter. Why? Because it’s set apart. It carries weight, memory, and reverence. It’s sacred.
Rituals do the same thing. They mark the boundary between the everyday and the exalted. And when a community embraces those sacred values as absolute, they don’t just guide behavior—they become the framework that shapes how we live, what we honor, and who we are.
You can’t just rewrite the moral code because you don’t like it, any more than you can decide to move a property line because it’s inconvenient. These boundaries aren’t negotiable. They define us. We don’t define them..
That’s why it’s no exaggeration to say that religion is the backbone of civilization. The very word culture comes from cultus, meaning worship, and religion from religare, to bind again. At its core, religion isn’t just a part of society—it’s the glue that holds it all together.
So let’s circle back to that debate. If we live in a culture that is still largely shaped by Christian values—and we do—then in a very real sense, everyone in that room, including those self-identified atheists, is a Christian. Societal culture in Christian nations brings the same benefits to the very people who argue against the very way of life that lets them live in peace and prosperity.
Throughout history and into the modern age, Christianity gave us science and technology, medicine, the arts, architecture, politics, literature, music, philanthropy, philosophy, ethics, humanism, theatre, and business. Christian influence is as diverse as it is enduring, so much so, that many atheists don’t even realize that while they are enjoying the fruits of Christianity, it makes them cultural Christians in a sense.
Richard Dawkins—yes, the same man who built his career trying to uproot the tree of Christian belief—recently admitted something striking in an interview with Rachel Johnson on LBC News. Reflecting on the growing Islamification of London, Dawkins confessed that he genuinely missed the “distinctively Christian character” of British society. He specifically mentioned the beauty of carols, hymns, and the traditions surrounding Christmas. In a moment of unexpected clarity, he even referred to himself as a “cultural Christian.”
In that moment, the young atheist perfectly illustrated the very dynamic we’ve seen time and again throughout history. He tried to stand outside Christianity while using all the tools—reason, morality, individual rights—that Christianity gave him. You can curse God all you want, but you’re still standing in His house, on the foundation He built.
Again, Peterson should have said, “Yes, I am a Christian. And so are you.” The atheist wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on if Peterson had answered boldly—but that wasn’t his goal. He wasn’t there to debate Christianity or defend atheism. He was there to take down Jordan Peterson, and he played the game like a sniper, not a scholar.
#jordanpeterson #culturalchristian #debatetrap
