Ben Shapiro Challenges Atheist's Ethical Worldview
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- Watch the full debate on @PremierUnbelievable : • Ben Shapiro vs Alex O'...
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/c...
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
John Early
Dmitry C.
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskept...
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
Thanks to Premier Unbelievable for hosting this debate! Watch the full 90 minutes here: ua-cam.com/video/yspPYcJHI3k/v-deo.htmlsi=2uTdYvxT22-nweTt
woweee
You should have approached the difference between absolute and objective. Accepting a god's own subjective biases as absolute, still doesn't magically make them objective. There's no such thing as objective morality, any which way you look at it.
@@Rizzy-xm7tl In the words of Spock - "Captain, life is not a dream." - The physical consistency of the world is evidence for this. It's also evidence that no being is "imagining" things into reality - reality may or may not be a simulation of some kind, but it functions to a set of extremely well defined rules that we have never observed to be broken in any rigorous test applied - this fact rules out the existence of any kind of God or Gods other than the "blind watchmaker" kind, who sets up the rules and then leaves it to run - and what is the point in believing in or worshiping such a God?
Thanks Alex for this really interesting discussion ❤
This is my perspective on moralism
ua-cam.com/video/nw8-9_SzZi0/v-deo.htmlsi=a_0ANNTpckRnVJvY
@@Rizzy-xm7tl Even if we were to accept that, what good is it to have an absolute morality system that we do not have access to?
I like how the phrasing of the title is clearly meant to attract Ben Shapiro fanboys.
Even Alex needs clicks.
Good way to trick the shapiroites into watching some alex
Such insight. Much wisdom. Wow.
A clickable yet honest title is 1. just good business and 2. a means of balancing the audience beyond your normal followers.
@@siezethebidet Yeah, it was just a funny observation to me.
When it comes to God/religion, Ben suddenly cares more about his feelings than facts.
When someone claims to be religious then all of their other thoughts can be safely ignored.
"Always has been" meme goes here
He literally said he doesn't view all religions are equal. It's a polite way of saying 'anyone who's not Jewish is not equal to me'. Unfortunately many Jews see themselves as God's chosen people, anyone else is of lesser value. Not saying that's Shapiro's stance but you'd be surprised at how many have this mindset.
@@TP-pq9xx That's way, to extreme. Religious people can have interesting and helpful thoughts and ideas. Just outside the topic of religion.
The best stance is to be an agnostic. We don't know that there is a God and we also don't know that there isn't for sure. Everyone claims any different from that is either crazy or lies!
Ben has always cared more about his feelings than fact. The facts or feeling rhetoric has always been used to convince audience that their feelings are instead fact.
How lucky Ben Shapiro was to be born into the correct religion, what a coincidence
Agreed...he could have just as easily been born Muslim
@@swingeasyguy wth nooooo🤣
@@swingeasyguy If he were, he would now be an apostate, for sure.
@@TheMargarita1948 Yes, like the Mormons
@@jesseparrish1993 I don’t put special emphasis on LDS. They seem much like any other Abrahamic sect. They all have their minor peculiarities. It is my understanding the Mormons do not consider themselves part of the Protestant tradition. Having been raised Catholic, LDS looks Protestant to me.
That said, I see Protestant sects varying across the same spectrum as Catholic sects. I don’t recognize a Catholic sect that corresponds directly to LDS; but, then, I stopped paying attention to that sort of thing long ago, at age 18.
It shows great confidence in your argument that you let Ben have the last word in your video, not many people allow their opponent to do that in these type of clips. Much respect for that.
This is n underrated comment. It indeed takes the bigger person, or one who has more confidence as you said, to allow their opponent the last word. I feel it shows Alex is not threatened or insecure in this discussion
Well, yes. The noblesse oblige aspect of it is too evident to ignore! Ben finds himself suddenly to be out of his depth. It is a perfect display of the paucity of US-American political discourse!
It's astounding how well spoken Alex is. He could be a universty professor. Such an erudite and confident person.
I started watching his channel when he was about an 18 year old undergraduate and he has been that impressive all along
It's because he's educated and actually thinks through things carefully, I would say. People who actually care for truth and accuracy do try to speak more deliberately and carefully.
Agreed. His thoughts are well laid out compared to what I had at University with professors just babbling Marxist platitudes.
I admire how he conducts his debates, like so many others just go in with this “Im gonna get you” mentality and often times it means the other person feels attacked and leaves, but he’s always just calm, patient, and debating solely with good arguments, no ad hominem, and no intention to make the other person look like a clown
He has a PhD
Funny how the religion that Ben thinks is true is the one he was "born in"...
ben is a dumb clown
how he impresses anyone is beyond me
Considering his narcissism, he, most surely, thinks of himself as being chosen by his imaginary buddy personally - therefore: Of course it has to be the religion he was born into that is the right and only one.
(Without realising that none of them are. We all are gods. Petty, mortal gods. Like the one mentioned in his "holy" book.)
The only religion that could be true is one that is found on another planet, or even better, another universe.
@@threestars2164 how so?
@@I_hu85ghjo he probably meant discovering something that humans had no influence over.
The issue with this is nearly every religion has a god that they say teaches us not to kill, but the followers of that god fo it anyway and find a way to justify it.
Even when all parties believe in the same god that prohibits killing. Its been the reason for civil wars and invasions.
Weird how the book that supposedly teaches you to love thy neighbor doesn't have a problem with enslaving, killing and maiming. There's some form of violence in every Bible story that I know of.
@@hoaxygen
They talk about this in the rest of the video.
The main points of the argument there is that the bible was:
a. Extremely humanistic for its time
b. It and judaism/christianity include core moral and societal principles that were instrumental to push society in that direction over time - even for the stuff they weren't originally good on.
And overall, as an atheist, I kind of agree.
I recommend you watch the whole video.
@@hoaxygen Im not sure if you are aware of history of mankind, but its not exactly sunshine and rainbows. The bible just records some of those actions of the time.
Same can be said about liberalism. They say respect all humans, nobody deserves to die but then these same libz go around bombing nations
Talking about America and UK, and no they are not a Christian nation
Ben Shapiro sat silently for over two minutes without interrupting or interjecting and I was growing increasingly convinced that this video was an elaborate AI fabrication.
😂😂😂
Ben claims that all of these social and scientific breakthroughs happened because the people responsible for them were religious... without mentioning that these people had to be religious, or at least claim to be religious in their times for fear of being put to death or shamed for not being religious... basically making the counter point to what he's trying to say.
The greed of mankind knows no bounds and when religion is brought into it it gives those men an all powerful symbol to take everything from whomever they want.
Human greed is the most toxic substance in the universe.
All true, but would have some of them gone above and beyond in the expression of their faith if their religiousness was just either falsely claimed or not entirely genuine? When Newton's notes were discovered it was found that he wrote more about religion and spirituality than about physics and Alex himself actually admits this somewhere in the full debate. How does your objection account for that?
@@TheNheg66 Newton may have decided it was necessary to write more about religion than physics specifically so people would think he is religious.
@@MegaLokopo now that's what I call reaching... unless you can substantiate in any way that that's the case with something other than assumptions about Newton's personal beliefs then the default assumption should be that the statements he made about his beliefs were accurate and made in earnest.
@@TheNheg66 Why would the default be that he was telling the truth?
Also how is my claim more reaching than op's claim?
Also you asked a question containing the words, "would have" and I answered with a question containing the word "may have". You were asking for a reason he would have done something, and I gave a reason he may have done something.
I didn't know newton personally, so my guess is as good as yours, but it is all too common today to lie about your beliefs, to protect your family, and your job.
Anyways how do you know there isn't a survivorship bias in his religious writings?
Many people today and in the past are not honest, you cannot be honest for many reasons, I would argue him pretending to be more religious than he was, was better for society because it probably contributed to him being more accepted by political figures at the time.
If you had a smartphone in that time you would be attacked for witchcraft they weren't exactly the most accepting people back then.
So they were religious not athiest...good to know!!
You have secured a life of digital nomadism, being able to move freely in the world while monetising your pursuit of philosophy. I'm so, so proud of how far you've come Alex. Here's to 1million subs!
But it goes nowhere. His complete view on life is “nothing matters” “it’s all in your head” “nothing has value”
@@JakeyD23 so nihilism, idealism, and moral nihilism. He holds none of those views
@@JakeyD23
He’s an atheist that doesn’t believe in objective truths. That doesn’t mean that he says nothing matters and it’s “all in your head.” That’s a complete strawman.
@@roems6396 but that’s literal the definition if nothing is true or false nothing is everything. It all falls apart immediately. If there is no objective truth there is no objective lie. So all is correct, all is wrong, all is all. From Zoolander 2 remember? lol “All is all”
@@bigol7169 exactly he holds no opinion. All is all. Everything is nothing. Nothing is everything. All is true, all is false. All is all. A genuinely depressing state of mind
It’s reassuring to think that there is someone who is able to carry the mantle of reason that Christopher Hitchens is so tragically unable to do now. Kudos to Alex.
The difference is that Hitchens was charming and likeable, not smug and annoying.
@BigDome1 I think you may have that backwards.
“Lex Fridman is dangerous” 16 min inspirational video on UA-cam ends w the poem “if” by R Kipling. Which is best, Law abiding citizen, forest gump, green mile 51st dates Hancock click or Stepbrothers?
Poster of the video should’ve interrupted quickly to agree (as Ben did) when Ben said how it was more common for people to kill for reasons other than religion than dictation by god, and maybe added that religious people can kill for non religious reasons also
He's articulate but I liked his comments the first time, when they were in a collection of Hitch-slaps.
I love how Alex is incredibly calm the entire time. He is probably the most respectable man in Great Britain.
He has the patience of a saint. LMAO
Shapiro with his gish gallops can confuse the listener and thats his intention. Alex does not let himself get distracted by bluster and irrelevance.
Richard Dawkins is another example of this.
@uncoiledfish2561 Dunno mate - calm? Yes. Respectable? I'ma differ. He's being intellectually dishonest every time he attacks trans people (a thing which is fully acknowledged in biology to exist - he's a biologist, yeah?). I'm saddened that he gave in to the "Old Bigot" trope. He helped me deconstruct, so to see him align with hateful sorts is deeply saddening.
@@AmberAmber when Di Alex attack trans people??
Great conversation. I see a lot of comments are eager to state a winner or choose a side. I see it more as a privilege to listen in. I'll add that i believe it important to remember that atrocities happen in both the presence and absence of a belief in God.
but those caused in the name of religion are far easier to justify ...to those who are religious. for the rest of us, it is just more madness
Ben describes the advantage of religious morality as having you stop thinking about your moral traditions, as if thinking issues through would somehow tend to have you end up at worse conclusions instead of more reasonable and consistent moral positions.
"Consistent" with respect to what?
Consistency isn't a moral virtue. Heinous and attrocious immoral positions are perfectly capable of internal consistency.
@@tgenov Who gives a fuck? This changes nothing about what he said.
@@negkoray It literally undermines the presupposition of his argument.
The premise being that more reason and more consistency necessarily implies more morality.
Reasonable people understand that undermining the premise changes everything. Perhaps you aren't reasonable?
@@tgenov It doesn't undermine anything - read it in context.
More reasonable and consistent - and now compare this to the subject of religious moral positions. Those of the past and those of today.
Let's take the christian take on condoms and HIV in Africa for example. Condoms are bad because no procreation, the suffering and death of hundreds of thousands people due to HIV in Africa are better. Because of love. Those are neither more reasonable nor consistent in terms of morality.
@@tgenov "Consistent" meaning "without contradictions". Christian fundamentalists' morality is riddled with those. It claims that the book depicting a bloodthirsty sadist with no respect for free will is instead an objective moral authority, and justify most of the described tyranny as being the consequence of his victims' will. "Look at what you made me do to you" is the typical logical constipation of an abuser, and to make a large population submit to that precept is to disable their critical reasoning and to encourage and make them vulnerable to further abuse.
I agree that internal consistency does not automatically make something moral, but the Bible does exemplify frequently that the opposite should disqualify a system from claiming any kind of objectivity or authority.
And I'm talking about fundamentalist Christians here because those seem to be the most popular group aligning with Ben's political interests. I know that many Christians deny the blood-dripping old testament on the basis of Jesus somehow denying the law instead of fulfilling it, but the new testament still defends the concept of defining love as people being physically tortured for explicitly arbitrary obedience. If you deny the parts of the Bible that I listed, you're only cherry-picking the parts that align with your pre-existing values, in an attempt to resolve the inherent inconsistency that would follow from following the book directly.
And at that point, you've already started using secular reasoning to pick your moral standing, instead of the blind obedience that Ben wants from you.
Ben's point that religion effectively helps people behave correctly reminds me of a famous quote from whom i forget but goes...
If a person needs religion to tell them right from wrong that person lacks empathy, not religion.
Religion didn't just show up yesterday, lol. Go research as far back as possible from the inception of our species. Why has "religion" survived along with "man" over the millennia?
I used to think that way too, and there’s certainly a lot of issues with religion, but religion helps people by having a community. We are social creatures, it only makes sense.
@@Timbo360 you can have a community that isn't solely based on interpreting one religion. Why only learn from one book when you can learn from them all? It's actually mighty fun debating or wondering about things without having to constantly force yourself to rhyme how it fits the narrative of a single 2000 year old view.
@@nicok8203 absolutely you can, I’m not saying one should follow only one. Some communities have pockets of different religions and I wouldn’t force them to change their ways. I’m spiritual but non practicing jew and I learn a lot from the different people I hang out with that are muslim, catholic, agnostic, etc. Also from my religion, our worldview is almost 3800 years longer, but I digress
@@nicok8203 and I agree it is fun to debate and question things rather than adhere to the same old story.
Alex is what Destiny thinks he is.
Bro what an underrated comment, hilarious 🤣🤣🤣
What does that even mean?
Glad someone said it.
So well put!
@@youtubeviolatedme7123
What does this comment even mean? In what way does Destiny wish he was alex?
I love Alex but it's just impossible for me to sit through Ben Shapiro yapping his maw
His gish-galloping deflections are annoying AF…
The unbelievable irony of the “facts don’t care about your feelings” liar. You should see the video of Shapiro discussing Milton. He literally destroys his “libertarian” philosophy before he realizes that he’s calling himself, satan. It’s absolutely hilarious.
I never got the “morality can only come from god” thing.
Every moral you can glean from the bible has an opposite moral teaching.
(The one exception is “don’t you dare have another imaginary friend)
And any person can interpret the words anyway they wish, rendering any moral subjective.
You can commit horrible atrocities against humanity with a clear conscience, if it’s in gods name.
The morals of the bible are so poor, even the most religious have adopted secular morals(I.e. slavery, smashing children on rocks, etc) in order to be a good person.
What are you talking about?
@@elijahknox4421 if only he knew
@@elijahknox4421 I’ll use smaller words for you:
Secular morals are superior to religious morals.
From which god? Because 95% of humanity has never heard of that specific god.
Replace the word "god" with any social virtue.
You can commit horrible atrocities against humanity with a clear conscience, if it’s in tolerance's name.
You can commit horrible atrocities against humanity with a clear conscience, if it’s in inclusivity's name.
You can commit horrible atrocities against humanity with a clear conscience, if it’s in the name of peace.
You can commit horrible atrocities against humanity with a clear conscience, if it’s in moral progress' name.
Because humans are free to misinterpret any and all teachings.
And that's precisely what hermeneutics teaches you - the difference between interpretation and misinterpretation. The difference between the letter and the spirit of the law.
I love that Ben’s officially in the “yeah it might not be true, as in it is probably just stories made by imaginative people, but the social constructs tho” phase of believing. Nice to see some honesty for once.
He still pissed me off when trying to claim religion has some monopoly on morals. Scary, because religious folks fall for that argument big time.
I wonder if Shapiro even believes that stuff, maybe not, but he needs to keep his fans.
@@INTERNATIONALvids There can’t be objective morality unless religion is true. Religious people believe in objective morality.
@@johnnyboy9492morality it’s objective it is subjective. Your morals and everyone else’s are going to be slightly or vastly different.
@@hunterxcraft8328there is a deeper premise that is Assumed and not mentioned here. That premise is that in order for society to function to some degree-morality must be objective to some degree. IE in order for any society to thrive they must accept that murder is wrong. We may fight over the minutia but the idea that killing your fellow man in certain circumstances is universally accepted. Otherwise if morality is subjective than nothing matters because there are no rules. I'm of the opinion that object morality does not exist however it is an abstraction that humanity evolved to accept because it's highly conducive to survival.
@@johnnyboy9492 “objective” morality doesn’t exist, only subjective morality exists. You cant even claim it’s objective morality if a god exists, you’d have to prove you can communicate with it accurately and grasp its opinions.
You will always interpret a moral context with your human brain through your human eyes. You are incapable of anything other than “subjective” morality. (Which doesn’t exist, it’s just morality.) subjective/objective is apologist propaganda with no bearing in reality. Just step 2 in a bunch of unsupported assertions
4:10 "Any morality that can be created on an individual level is inherently dangerous because you can immediately graft that morality onto your personal self-interest"
A nice little nugget of wisdom from Ben who has just handily explained the techniques of Prosperity Gospel, of Chrisitan Nationalism and his own changeable views on murder depending on the nationality and politics of the victims (Palestinian civilians, for example).
(*edited to add the timestamp)
Pretty much every religious organisation has just used religion to justify the individual desires of certain people and or ideals
Religious absolutism can be used to defend actions considered immoral by the religion (as Shapiro points out). But it can be used to defend the immorality that comes from the religious source material.
Ben fails to realize that it doesn't matter that you can "graft that morality onto your personal self interests" because all that really matters is whether society accepts your self morality or not.
But its ironic that the only examples you can use are deviations (that you would actively admit are) from the normal framework constructed. Christians that you would agree are "real Christians" (for lack of a better description) would disagree with these 2 groups. That literally means that they have changed religious tradition to accommodate their own self interests. Therefore the flaw is again, as Ben said, not with religion, but with man's own self interest. You beautifully described why Ben is right.
@@Djmorton-go5mt - Sure, it's not difficult to tell when people are directly contradicting the very religion they claim to follow, and I was pointing out the hypocrisy that Shapiro engages in when he adjusts "Thou shalt not kill" to suit his personal preferences and ignores the scriptural endorsement of abortion found in Numbers 5.
As for people who actually do live by the teachings of their religion, such as the bible, some I like (those who focus on charity and compassion while opposing greed and the hoarding of wealth) and some I don't like (those who focus on the admonitions against the status of women, gay people, non-believers, etc).
Ben always knows he's in trouble when he's around a slow , methodical, articulate person because his word salad rapid-fire not-say-anything tactic falls apart when that happens.
I really don’t understand the idea that a creator of the universe is also somehow the most moral agent. It’s is weird. Are we just saying that “might makes right” is just for whatever reason true? If not, are we just adding “perfectly moral” as an additional happenstance attribute that we are assigning to a thing that is capable of creating universes. I’ll ignore the fact that I don’t see how it is possible for a thing to exist that is capable of willing things into existence, but regardless, where are we getting the idea that this thing is also perfectly moral?
well the being in question said it was a moral being, and since the being is a moral being it couldn't be lying.
...that's genuinely the logic we're supposed to follow
I would guess that the idea comes from morality also being one of the things that a creator of the universe willed into existence. So that the creator is the ultimate source of everything, including morality. It seems connected to the view of morality as a law as objective and all-encompassing as the laws of physics.
@@Rizzy-xm7tlhe is because he says he is? Nice circular bullshit, retard.
@@Rizzy-xm7tlwhere’s your proof that the creator of the universe is perfectly moral? I personally believe “he” created the universe and it plays out how it plays out
Also, we’re told all of these things by words written by humans themselves.
It’s so hard to find a genuine intellectual discussion where both parties aren’t yelling at each other. This was great Bravo 👏
Ben has big "let me talk to your manager" energy.
@@wabbajack2hahaha and alex has "I was born in the wrong century" energy but still interesting convo between them
I'm on Ben's side with regards to religion but argument wise I kind of liked Alex's points
It would be great to find a genuinely intellectual debate.. I've not seen one ever in my entire life.
@@joedwyer3297what do you mean your on Ben's side in terms of religion? As in your religious or you think morality comes from religion/god
@@martinwest7250 yes although I thought Alex came across better.
I am definitely a better person for having become Catholic, because drugs violence and even revenge (breaking windows, vandalising property, destroying someone's reputation etc) and more are prohibited. I, now believing in a set of unchangeable moral rules have totally changed for the better as a person and in my conduct and values.
Without that unchanging, non negotiable set of rules, morality will have to be defined by someone else and everyone has a different idea of what's right and wrong
Edit**
Sorry hahaha to actually answer your question, both of those apply
Ben seems to want a way to keep people's behaviors in check, so he needs moral realism to be true, even though what he's describing is moral subjectivism (based on God's will). He is not reasoning from first principles, he is reasoning backward from the society he wants to exist.
Thank you for your comment and for capturing the feeling and words that were forming as I listened along. It pains me to see a person fall victim to their desire for control, and it seems to me that it is that very desire for control that controls so much of what Ben Shapiro does and says these days.
Honestly, it’s fair if you have some values at play. For example, if you take it that everyone agrees in a certain sense of morality, despite it not being objectively true, the way to maximize such would be for everyone to believe that it is actually objective. Im not sure Ben is taking that “straussian” position, but it’s at least defensible.
And based on an existing social idealogical construct concieved in the abstract by men.
@@Rizzy-xm7tl go troll elsewhere
well religious people believe God's will is the Ultimate will, that there is no argument against him, no force against him etc.
that whatever he says or does is objective, because he created everything, including the knowledge that we can even know what objective or subjective means
the purity of your heart and intention got you my appreciation which i express by clicking the sub button
What I love about Alex in recent years is he is the king of good faith. He ALWAYS comes to debate with good intentions.
The power of interpretation.....that one skill means every religious book can be molded to fit anyone's reasoning. It makes every remotely vague text subjective and in the end the meaning is meaningless. Thankfully our society's laws are clearer.
even if they are unambiguous, like genesis lol
Abrahamic religions claim that only under their religion, you can have objective morality, yet they have ALWAYS been anything but objective.
It all depends on the interpretation of their book, which is always subjective. So when you ask, ok what are the clear objective moral laws under their religion, well it all depends on who you ask.
@@farrex0 In Christianity at least, it doesn't claim that you can't have or know objective morality without following Jesus's teachings. It affirms general revelation, meaning that the moral law is written on everyone's heart and their conscience bears witness of it. This doesn't mean the conscience can't be distorted, but it does mean that humanity has a generally clear understanding of the objective moral law. Also, most differences in interpretations (and resulting denominations) are not over what is the moral law. In fact the foundational teachings of Christianity are mostly focused on how everyone is guilty of transgressing that law, given from God, and how God has been gracious to us by making a way (through God's own incarnation, suffering, death, and resurrection) for us to be forgiven and for sin and death to be removed from existence. It is not primarily focused on a million laws we need to follow today in order to be "good" people or right with God.
@@minor00 "In Christianity at least, it doesn't claim that you can't have or know objective morality without following Jesus's teachings"
The bible in it of itself might not explicitly say that. But 98% of the time I hear that claim, it is made by a Christian, especially apologists.
But the actual claim, to be precise, is that they say that without God you can't have objective morality. And almost every discussion about anything involving atheism 98% of the Christians I have met end up saying "but you have no basis for your morality". Even if the discussion has nothing to with morality.
So at least from my experience, it is the complete opposite, Christians are the ones making the claim the most.
@@rogergalindo7318
Ben likes religion as the cult and tool for social power that he knows full well that it is.
Don't all church leaders?
Yep
Yeah - when you look at who he is happy to take money from you can see exactly what he thinks about power, socioeconomic equality, belief systems and propaganda.
According to the cult of Franfurt School and postmodernism.
But what do you mean by "cult" ?
And what do you mean by "tool"?
Most religions look for transcendence and by that I mean they look for goodness, kindness, gentleness, love which transcends a human interest in catering for self. Those transcendent qualities undermine your claim for tool for social power. And yes over the years, we have had priests of various religions where we recognise the priest is acting to preserve the power of his own kingdom or acting out of his own self-interest, but that is in opposition in those transcendent qualities.
So I disagree with you.
It's funny how Ben confuses correlation with causation every time that it's convenient to his thinking
It's also funny to watch people use "correlation v causation" to imply correlation has no explanatory value, when entire fields of academic research in economics, political science, finance, etc. revolve around regressions and that regression models can, themselves, become statistical proof. For people who read this comment, if people use some sort of catchphrase in their responses without explanation, please ignore it and go do your own research. Correlation / causation is an extremely complex and interesting field. It may be worth your time to do some basic reading to acquaint yourself with aspects of it so you don't fall victim to 'argument by mantra'.
@@angusmcculloch6653 sure correlation and causation are a complex subject. That's exactly why it's surprising how Ben uses it so lightly. I thought it was obvious why there's a problem in Ben's argument here, though (Ben doesn't even explain causation here, he assumes it. For instance, he attributes the scientific revolution to religious principles ignoring all the other factors, even when the scientific revolution clashed with religion so many times). But going back to the point, you can't use "argument by mantra" every time that someone gives an argument that others have misused in other contexts. I don't think you see the irony here. Argument by mantra is exactly what you just did.
@@fmgs31 No, sorry. If I gave argument by mantra, I would say something that had no explanation or depth. That's not what happened. I critiqued your argument by mantra "correlation not causation" by showing that correlation, in fact, can equal statistical proof--i.e. I can run a regression that provides statistical proof that variable y does this *because* variable x did that.
In other words, the exact opposite of what people are trying to say when they use "correlation not causation". Now, see, here is where you lose definitively: you can say that's not how you were using the argument and there's no way to say for sure, because you relied only on a mantra. In other words, you made no actual argument and so you can claim it means whatever you need it to mean here in the moment--not unlike the criticism you gave Ben.
@@angusmcculloch6653 as I said, I thought it was obvious in this case. But it seems it was not, so I gave an example about what I meant.
You just explained why correlation can sometimes explain causation, and we all agree there. But it's unrelated: "sometimes" says nothing about this particular case. You said nothing about the use of Ben's assumptions of causation, though, which was the actual point.
@@fmgs31 I don't have to defend Ben's point. I never made any claim that Ben's point is correct. The discussion isn't about Ben's point. It's about you got caught flippantly throwing around a mantra, and now you're trying to gaslight your way out of it instead of saying, "You're right, Angus."
And, I'm sorry, but you trying to say you thought this complexity and nuance of correlation and causation from saying, "X confuses correlation for causation" was obvious is such a bad faith point I'm actually surprised you had the gall to try it. On top of that, the way you wrote it doesn't even make sense with what you're now trying to say you meant.
So, I'm sorry, but I just don't accept what you're saying, and hopefully others who see this will be intellectually honest enough to admit that what you did is bad form.
Now, all that being said, if you'd like to make the argument, using causation and correlation for why what Ben said confused them, I'll be happy to read it.
As a true Atheist I will never say : "' I do not believe in God". I will always say: "I do not believe that God exists"". That is the core meaning of being an Atheist.
@@marcusshakur3481 wise words my friend, the moment you say "There is no god" or "I do not believe in God" you have now shifted burden of proof to yourself. Since God can mean so many things you've dug a huge hole for yourself. Better to be agnostic and say I don't know what created the universe but your religion is BS. how long have you not been religious? 25 years for me.
doesn't that essentially mean the same thing?
If I want to be technical as an atheist I say "I do not believe in any gods".
Good one. Words are so important.
@@cyrusp100Maybe "I do not believe any gods exist" would be the optimum line?
@@songlove7777 No I don't think that is optimum. As an atheist I don't care if any gods exist or not. I know in some religions like Hinduism they consider rivers and mountains to be a god. I know that the Ganges river exists - but I don't believe in it as a god.
It makes me happy to see a civil debate like this. No shouting, no oneliners, no bias. Thank you Alex!
Well there is bias though, the atheist and religious viewpoints. The rest is true tho and I’d definitely agree
I'll contend that debate "civility" is merely an aesthetic to provide a veneer of credibility to this specific target audience. Alex presents himself in a way that would be most palatable to Shapiro viewers without compromising his personal integrity. If Ben were too debate teenage children, as he has done many times in the past, he would use a lot more shouting/one liners in his speech, because that's the intent of those videos.
it's not civil when one guy believes in magic coaster hats
Pretty obvious bias. Shapiro's a bigot
omg its civil. fuck truth tho
Ben has incorrect stats. Religious people do not, per capita, donate more or better. In the most atheist countries, societies, have the healthiest , most charitable aspects. 👍💙💙💙🥰✌
but but but then Ben has nothing. 🤣😂🤣😂
and what sources
@@FVLMEN Is it that hard to google "happier nations index"?
"United States has consistently been ranked as the most generous country in the world from 2009-2018, and in 2022, Americans gave $499.33 billion to charity. Americans also voluntarily donate about seven times as much per capita as continental Europeans." I hate shapiro. But youre wrong on this one
@@thatguy2244 ok, sorry, my info was from up to 2006. Yet, (just to be perverse), religiosity has gone steadily down in the US, so maybe that is why the 'uptick'. Though those still religious are much louder and heading backwards, hence the Christofascist Nationalists we're seeing too much of. 💙🥰✌🏻
I enjoyed this on both sides. I think Ben's final notes on the shift in cultural behaviours being linked to reduced religious beliefs I think it's a bit heavy handed though, there are several other factors outside of religion that influence cultural behaviours such as increased suicidal ideation or lower birth rates...such as the state of the economy, for example. But overall, a good debate!
Yes, the combined stresses of a polluted environment, capitalism screwing everyone to wall and the ever increasing pace of the information age, would have nothing to do with it, Ben.
I’ve always thought of religion as man’s best attempt at recording how to best respond to uncertain external forces in order to survive, as well as to optimize our well-being as a species.
In it we see both notes of human brilliance and clumsiness.
As a result, the more accurate our revelations advance, the more of the old paradigm can be purged. Also, though, it’s important to not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I really enjoy Alex and his input.
When minds like his and Shapiro’s connect, we all win in one way or another. Same with Peterson and Harris. This is my opinion.
Interesting to me to see how such a conversation like this video presented can breed the sort of comments I see in the thread. It’s like people didn’t listen to exercise thought but to practice confirmation bias.
With a topic like what to do with religion, we have a duty, I believe, to hold ourselves to the utmost respect of one another in spite of how ridiculous we think opposing perspectives may be.
Many people just need help getting over the wall of reductionist thinking and would do well to not be insulted for their misled perceptions. Others wouldn’t listen even if you laid out a perfect argument. In either case, you win as an individual if you can resist the temptation to be smug even though you may be right.
Also, consider that you could potentially be wrong yourself. Or at minimum a little off in your assessment of such a complex topic. We are all human, and therefore susceptible to our fair share of intellectual clumsiness. Especially when we *know* we are right.
For what it’s worth.
Interesting insights, thank you. I see religion as a force for control and believe it was invented for such reasons.
Ben sort of sidesteps the fact that men will kill out of self-interest with religion as a foundation for that self-interest. Plus, he shifts the goalposts from "moral absolutes" to "a society with moral absolutes." That's not a moral absolute.
That may be true of Islam, but show us where in Christian or Jewish doctrine or theology it would ever prescribe just killing someone for self or group interest? That person would be using the religion in vain and under a false pretense. That person would not be truly Christian or Jewish. Self-defense aside, there is no circumstance in which murder is acceptable in Christian or Jewish doctrine. It seems your argument is predicated on a truly non-Christian or non-Jewish person acting.
@@DMB_14 where? I mean, literally everywhere!! There are literally writings on when to utterly destroy an "enemy," when you could enslave people for labor or as sex slaves, and how to manage them as property. You cannot ask a question like that unless you e never actually read either the old or New testament.
@@DMB_14 You haven't read the OT/Tanakh.
@@PhilusteenI know that is in the Quran, but if it's literally everywhere in the Bible please share with me the book and chapter and verse from the Bible and you will successfully change my mind.
@@DMB_14it's nowhere as bad in the Bible as it is in the Quran. The instances in the Bible that I'm aware of talk about what to do with your adversaries after a conflict/conquest rather than instructing the conquest in the first place. It was actually adressed in the full debate, maybe you'd enjoy listening to it :)
All we need to teach is the importance of empathy in humanity. That is all.
if we're not on the same page of our bases for what right or wrong is then we wont agree what empathy is..
Everybody is inherently selfish
@@zenmodi2614luckily we are a social species, and thus do have a basis of what's right and wrong as far as harming one another. Do we need a supposedly Holy book or supposedly Holy Visions to know not to kill our own children? I'd say humanity is on the same page on that issue.
Amazingly, not even all achristians are on the same page. Have you noticed some churches are afraid of honosexuality and others are chill about it? That seems to indicate the holy book doesn't align people that well
@samwize28 catcallers and masochists love the golden rule.. also zero consideration for others .. because not everyone will automatically like how you would like to be treated..
@samwize28 Why do you need to specify “modern” and “western” for someone to have common sense and manners?
Ben Shapiro doesn’t realize that religion is not a deterrent to immoral actions.
Bad people will do bad things and good people will do good things, but it takes religion to encourage good people to do bad things.
Empathy is the important thing here regarding morals, not religion.
Religions can be a moral code or guide, and 1s such be a deterrent for immoral actions. However, you are correct, it is often outdated and a little bit off and sometimes condone what a law abiding citizen of the 21st century would consider immoral.
@@etistonethat is all i think of it as. A guide.
If you waist your life on religion you'll become a monster. If you waist your life on yourself and on Athiesm, you'll become a better human being with no regrets.
@@wantedsavage7776 Actions that improve oneself and society is not a waste of time.
@@2l84me8 poor choice from me. But yeah I agree.
So, the response is basically, we need moral absolutes provided by religion but then confirms that religion actually only offers the illusion of moral absolutes on account of being demonstrably fluid in its interpretation over time and across cultures. Fantastic discussion and highlights a clear hypocrisy unaddressed by apologists.
Yes I noticed that Ben said we should not or cannot have our own subjective morality yet the giver of morality, religious text is open to subjective interpretation.
Ben is funded by billionaires, and he thinks that alone makes him intellectually equipped to participate in a debate like this.smh
he grifts because his love of ill-gotten money is his greatest motivation
truth and ethics shall not get in the way of Ben's material wealth
he is no where near adequately intellectual to be debating with Oxford Philosophy graduates on these type of things. And nor, as a religious believer, does he serve as the be all end all religious debater.
@@all-caps3927 Wait, wait, wait. Harvard Law grads aren't intellectually capable of debating Oxford Philosophy grads on whether religion is good for society? Where did this assertion come from?
I bring up Shapiro's education, because you say it is explicitly Oxford Philosophy grads that been is not intellectually adequate to debate. So, since the specific credential you say Shapiro is intellectually incapable of debating is an Oxford Philosophy undergraduate degree holder, I'm wondering why a Harvard Law credential makes one intellectually incapable of debating an Oxford Philosophy undergraduate degree holder
@@all-caps3927 Oh of course, a Harvard Law graduate has no right to argue against Oxford philosophy graduates!
Yeah, sure, I agree; it is so obvious that Shapiro is stupid and of low intelligence.
I watched the whole debate. It was excellent 👌
You did better than me. I lasted ten seconds of Ben's voice before the feeling of a rusty hacksaw across my skull was too much. There's just something about his smug, nasal tone that I cannot take
@@angrypom well, that says nothing about the contents of the debate and everything about your ability to dispassionately engage with content. If i dragged myself through a 1,5hr discussion between Alex and Slavoj Zizek then an hour long debate with Ben should honestly be a cakewalk.
But what do I know, maybe you're just not as able to stomach irritable voices than I am... or, what's in my opinion much more likely is that you're a lot better at coming up with reasons not to be confronted with arguments from people that you hold negative preconceived notions about than I am
@@TheNheg66 this “content” is the modern equivalent of medieval theologians debating on the sex of angels. Perfectly fine to enjoy it but no reason to be condescending to those who prefer to skip it.
@@TheNheg66 I did not at any point express any opinion about the content of the debate - to do so would be a form of ad hominem as I'm sure you would have pointed out. Perhaps I will watch the debate on mute with subtitles on and be amazed at the intelligent opinions of the man who thinks that the solution to coastal erosion is to sell the land, presumably to people who are setting up some kind of impressive magic trick. If I do I'll be sure to let you know so that you can reassure yourself of your intellectual superiority
Dear Alex,
Ben Shapiro isn’t in a position to question anyones moral worldview, anywhere, at any time, for anything. 3 months of unrelenting defence of genocide have made that clear. I have absolutely NO idea why you, Alex, waste your time with narcissistic psychopaths. Do your and my intellect a favor and discuss ethics with people that have ethics themselves. Norman Finkelstein is said to be an extraordinary partner for a conversation. Thank you.
Ben is a massive hypocrite. and a de-humanist. but hes powerful and we need to try to change his mind
@@GrungeMaster92,
That won't happen. What needs to happen is to convince his blind, deaf, sheep that's he's a self-serving know-nothing charlatan...
@@GrungeMaster92 He’s paid not to
Oh I 110% agree. However, you need to broaden your scope to take Alex's finances into consideration. He too needs to feed himself and sadly that involves riding on the tail coats of corporate cults such as the Daily Wire.
@@TryingtoTellYou lol
I find it oddly comforting to think that once I am gone, there is nothing. I don’t want an eternal afterlife and here is why. Say you have a chocolate bar for the first time in your life. It’s amazing, the texture, the flavour, etc. the following day, you get the same chocolate bar. It’s still just as amazing as the first. Now it’s day, 9,999 and you’re sick of the chocolate bar even thought objectively the quality of it hasn’t changed and although you may be sick of it, you have to eat the chocolate bar. The beauty of life is that, the struggle makes me appreciate the success. I like the challenge and the uncertainty. Having eternity to just do whatever makes me quite uneasy.
I think it's even worse than having eternity to do "just whatever". From my understanding, what you are supposed to be doing is simply worshipping God for ever and ever and ever.
Interesting, I see eternity as being an experience that is ever changing and full of challenges along the way. I am not religious and at the moment I am not even sure if I believe God exists, but I do believe everything is eternal. Something cannot be that has never been. We are and everything is because it always has been although I believe things can greatly change form and substance. Likewise something that is cannot simply become nothing.
Ben stating that morality without god can be grounded in self interest as if implying that religion has never been structured in self interest is perhaps the most preposterous thing I’ve heard him say.
Is Christianity structured in self interest? Is denying the lusts of our flesh in our self interest? Is giving up mother father brother and sister to follow Jesus in our self interest?
@@gabeemaynard was it not in the self interest of the church fathers to come up with the precepts of the church, or to accumulate and exercise power so at to hold people to them?
Poor Ben really has to be right. He seems quite emotionally invested in his beliefs.
ben is a clown
if your not emotionally invested in your beliefs, you don't truly have any beliefs.
@@forrestfurry6113 belief should follow evidence, not emotion.
you still havnt done a reaction video to this debate. it would get many view, i am curious to hear your thoughts about the debate
I like how Ben just ignores the untold millions of people who've died a horrible death in the name of religion throughout history (and even today) and instead says that the only reason a man would want to murder you is because of his self interest (spoiler alert, religion and man's self interest is arguably the same thing)
If you’ve ever truly studied Christianity, you’d know that it isn’t appealing in the sense of following our self interests.
People sin .... bible talks about it and how God judges those society's after they do so
Yet you ignore the many, many millions more who-in the last century alone-were killed due to the rule of Communism which is utterly godless.
Alex has grown and grown over the years into a tower of an intellectual. I’m not sure I’d say the same for Ben.
No offense, but Alex is not a tower of an intellectual. He sounds like a student in an undergraduate seminar. They didn't even define what they mean by "God". Moral-ethical thought and development is hard-wired in our brains as social creatures. Alex doesn't seem to know about that. Also, morals _develop_ as one ages... the classic on this is Lawrence Kohlberg on the Stages of Moral Development. Neither of them seem to be even remotely familiar with that whole area of study, research and scholarship.
Next to Ben he is 9 feet tall
@@nsbd90nowso you’re a tower of an intellectual then?
@@Lutoria99 Yeah, pretty much, in the areas I've studied on a graduate level. Spent massive amounts of time, effort and money to get there. And unlike grifters like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson, I don't pretend to know things outside of my areas of focus.
@@FVLMEN Yeah... Ben mostly just says the same stuff over and over again, and wins debates because he can think and talk really fast. Lots of things I've heard from him make no sense at all.
But it's also pathetic to see people in the comments pretending Alex is the next Socrates or Chanakya or something. I also can't stand his smug manner in his videos (not in debates with people).
"In his famous dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, a philosophical quandary is posed thusly: *“Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” Known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, the problem boils down to this: If something is morally good simply because it is commanded by God, then morality is arbitrary. God could decide tomorrow that murder and rape are morally acceptable, and voilà, it would be. On the other hand, if God commands what is already morally good, then morality exists independently of God. He is not the source or creator of morality, not the one who determines right from wrong, but merely one who dispenses a system of ethics that transcends his own authority.*
In response, theists attempt to wiggle their way out of the dilemma by suggesting that God’s very nature, or character, is good, so that he would never condone such wicked acts as rape or murder. But then all one has to do is reformulate the question, à la philosopher Michael Martin: “Is God’s character the way it is because it is good, or is God’s character good simply because it is God’s character?” The dilemma stands, as God’s character remains subject to an external definition of what is moral or good. *Why is this? It’s because morality is an abstraction, or social contract, produced collectively by sentient beings, and to which all sentient beings are subject. And it’s something that naturally arises on a pragmatic basis for the sake of order and harmony within any civilized society. God, therefore, is neither the source of morality, nor a necessary explanation for its existence.*
*But imagine for a moment the sheer absurdity of suggesting that the biblical God is the supreme author of morality.* A God who demands the extermination of men, women, and children (1 Sam. 15:1-3), who delights in the retaliatory act of seizing infants and dashing them against rocks (Ps. 137:8-9), of raping the wives of Israel’s enemies (Is. 13:16), even orchestrating the brutal death of dozens of children by savage bears, merely for having mocked one of his prophets (2 Kgs. 2:23-24). *This is a ferociously partisan, bloodthirsty, and vengeful deity, not one bound by any high-minded or all-encompassing moral code.* Theists will typically defend such verses in one of three ways: 1) by suggesting that “those were different times,” thus invoking moral relativism and destroying their own case for an objective morality stemming from God; 2) by appealing to context, of which there simply isn’t any to justify the depravity above; and 3) by pleading, “that was the Old Testament,” or, “Jesus changed all that,” tacitly admitting that the God they ostensibly worship was once horrible and in need of change, which further contradicts any claims to the immutable and unchanging character of God (e.g., Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8; Jm. 1:17).
*Suffice it to say, neither God nor the Bible serve as the basis for morality."*
*"Is God Necessary for Morality? | atheologica"*
---------------------------------------------------------
Also look up:
*"God is the Source of Morality. (Not.) | atheologica"*
*"Morals Don't Come From God: For This I Know Because the Bible Tells Me So"* - Dr Steven DiMattei.
*"Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies | Psychology Today"*
Excellent addition to the comments and worth reviewing and analyzing
Great contribution thank you
If you don't take God serously don't read what I have to say next cause its a waist of time.
If we are the image of God. Then its to say that what comes from us comes from God. And what we do as humanity highly reflects who God is. Christian God is a God of the souls and hearts. At which he reaches towards them in there current state.
As some one who doesn't have much faith in God of the BIble. I base my life on practicality, contentment, doing whats best, and caring about myself the first. Everyone else is secondary. The bible and church is secondary, God is secondary. But with little faith that I have in God. I use that to push myself to go above and beyond when things get tuff.
Have you considered you maybe twisting Scripture to suit your pre-determined beliefs? Imagine that this analysis you have just made is fool proof. What is a superior alternative to God and the Bible?
Me like. Well stated.
Always nice to see shapiro take a question\proposition, change it, and then answer the question he wants to answer.
LOL! That’s his shtick… What a joke.😅
Ben hardly answered Alex's question as it pertains to religious morality. Instead, he took the "men kill other men for self interest more than they do for God, therefore your question focuses on the exception and not the rule."
Then he word-vomited.
The "Judeo-Christian" tradition takes way to much credit for what is ancient Greek philosophy/tradition. This includes the concept of equality under the law that Shapiro brought up.
To be fair, the Judeo-Christian tradition basically grew up in a Greco-Roman framework, from the Hellenism that pervaded the Eastern Mediterranean following Alexanders conquest to the Roman Empire under which Christianity emerged, it was always clashing up against - and taking influence from - Greco-Roman philosophy.
In a sense, it has really been underlyingly Hellenic for more than two thousand years.
@@wezzuh2482 To be even more fair, the ancient Israelites were influential in the region, and their system of ethics also influenced the Greco-Roman framework.
As for evidence for the truth of their writings, see the vid called Number patterns in the Bible. It's by Redeemed... something.
@@wezzuh2482 To be even more fair, the ancient Israelites were influential in the region, and their system of ethics also influenced the Greco-Roman framework.
As for evidence for the truth of their writings, see the vid called Amazing number patterns in the B. It was made by Redeemed.
Ben is propping up a false conflict between being a theist and acting in one's self-interest. Most theists are acting in what they believe are their self-interests (note: not the same as selfishness, lacking consideration for others) and you can also find some examples of non-theists acting not in their best interests. These two ideas do not exclude one another. Alex is right in underlining that hardcore theists cannot be debated out of their faith - "You cannot reason someone out of what they didn't reason themselves into." - but non-theists can be persuaded to act differently by illuminating how their current behavior actually goes against their best interests.
"theists cannot be debated out of their faith...but non-theists can be persuaded to act differently by illuminating how their current behavior actually goes against their best interests.
That's a great point, they *can* be. I see two problems with it though:
1) Just because faith doesn't prevent non-theists from being persuaded into changing their behavior does not give us any information about how likely such persuasion attempts aimed at them can be/are.
2) What do you appeal to when the immoral or societally dysfunctional behavior you're trying to dissuade a non-theist from committing actually *is* in his or hers best interest?
I like Alex but I think Ben actually makes a fairly legitimate point about which extreme is more likely as far as "debating" someone out of their motivations. In general, is it more likely that someone religiously grounded in belief in the objective value of human life would try to kill Alex or someone who has deluded themselves into radical secular subjectivism to the extent that harming others and living nihilistically is not morally objectionable because objective morality does not exist? A lot of these edited clips kind of take away from the actual full debate which is not even about whether God, objective morality, etc. exists but rather that whether "religion is good or bad for society". Alex himself once admitted in an interview with Genetically Modified Skeptic where Drew said "is religion good or bad" (to which most athiests would say bad) is a meaningless question because you could equally say "is politics good or bad" because politics has caused wars and genocides too. Or "is agriculture good or bad" because agriculture contributes to climate change for example.
@@m0RRisC2319 i watched that conversation with Drew from GM Sceptic just a few days ago too and found it both funny and sad that the two most prominent atheism content creators on youtube are significantly tamer in their critique of religion than both a significant portion of commenters under their videos and a significant portion of the atheist community at large.
When would an Atheist ever do anything out of self interest?
@@TheNheg66 from at least Drew's perspective, he finds a lot of the "athiest community" (like r/athiesm on Reddit) to be quite toxic and has created an echo chamber for obnoxious narcissists who have convinced themselves that they are deeply wise intellectual thinkers simply because they don't believe in God and use that as a justification to be disrespectful to cultures and religions in the world who do
He just can't talk about his moral philosophy without mentioning how trendy it is
Have you ever noticed that Ben can spearmint for 5 minutes and say absolutely nothing
He’s tied with Jorden Peterson with the amount of word salad they feed the audience.
Did Ben even make an argument?
Alex was saying you can't convince a person out of killing you if their God told them to. Ben was saying you can't use God to convince an Atheist to not kill you for their self interest. Not really conflicting points initially but Ben then said probably most religions pursue peace and a lot more people are killed out of self interest (Ben used the ideas of stealing that person's land of getting revenge for killing your kin) than killed in the name of God
@@elijahknox4421 Ok, so Ben made an assumption, not an argument. got it.
@@archkylewhat? 😂 really, you consider the starement that it's historically much more likely to have been murdered out of someone's self-interest than in the name of god to be an assumption? That's clearly a statement of fact, not an assumption.
he never does
@@TheNheg66 That's not what a fact is, It's literally an assumption. Facts are based on evidence. He's made a declarative statement as if it was fact. You should be embarrassed.
Loved this debate! Good job Alex and Ben.
11:52
Wow... "The evolution of interpretation..."
Well that's a nice way of saying that I can never be held down or be required to Define and uphold a standard when I can change the interpretation whenever I want... 1
I have no idea if I will ever be noticed here because I’m not stern or decisive enough for the masses to cling to.. But I consider myself agnostic with a religious lean.. I am biased to desire that the message of the New Testament is true. So usually I would be shown Shapiro content, but I do crave the alternative point of view. The fact that Alex has had a conversation, formed a debate, and titled it in a way that his content came into my algorithm is so very impressive to me. This dude is steps ahead of me lmao.
I noticed
I noticed
Alex's face looks like he's thinking, "This guy sure uses a bunch of words to say very little... Look at his tiny head bop around... His lips barely move... Oops.. I need to pay attention."
I havent warched the entire discussion but oh my is it a relief just hearing two people being polite and respectful, letting eachother finish, not raising their voices etc. Its almost like they actually wanted a discussion!
Certainely different than stupid 20 minute "debates" like on other shows where they constantly interrupt, raise tbsir voices and insult one another
His ideas about morality being determined by god and thus preventing people from killing someone because god told them to not kill, has aged like milk in light of Gaza.
I hate the argument that people within religious communities donate more to charity. It completely ignores that giving to churches is also considered giving to charity. At least, that's how it is in the United States which, I assume, is where Ben pulled his information.
That isn't counted as charity in the United States to however any money the church gives to other charity causes us counted
@@Bic-daxc69 Church tithing is tax deductible because it's considered a charitable donation. Read the US tax code before saying nonsense.
@@darrelsapp1232 a charitable donation is not the same thing as considering giving to charity
@@darrelsapp1232 also in general yes most churches spend all of their funds on charitable donations and causes outside of sustaining and personal funds
@@Bic-daxc69 For the purposes of this discussion, it most certainly is. There's only two ways you could come to Ben's conclusion: either it's based off tax deductible donations to tax-exempt entities (i.e. churches) as the IRS classifies charitable donations or through the "trust me, bro, I donate" anecdotal (meaning completely useless) evidence.
Your choice on which you'd like to assume it is.
Once again, you can't know the mind of god...except Ben claims that he does. There should be a card that you should hold up. God gives us the texts but he knows that we are going to interpret them this way or another...*holds up card*
Ben is god. In his own mind anyway lol
It’s funny how the mind of God always happens to fall right in line with what Ben thinks is right and wrong…
If god affirms Bens intuitions, he knows god. If god contradicts Bens intuitions, he doesnt know god.
God can neither confirm nor deny anything. The point is, he claims not to know the mind of god but then contradicts that by claiming to know God's intentions ergo that he knows the mind of God.@@rewrewrewrewr2674
I think inviting Ben Shapiro is intellectually quite lazy. You're not really being challenged by this guy, instead, he's a straw man debate partner. A partner you invite, if you want to portray how "utterly superior" you are in your views. Ben Shapiro is a straw man argument in the flesh. Actually, I think I'd be doing a better job at making his bad arguments. His arguments are not only bad, they are also badly portrayed. Not an interesting or challenging debate when this guy is involved.
Alex has done other debates I’m not very sure but I think one or the other challenged each other
its a necessity, with how big shapiro is. if he isnt drug out and challenged, his view spreads unchallenged
It's funny how Ben comes across as a hard facts and logic guy as long as he isn't talking about religion 😅
Ben Shapiro likes the sound of his own voice.
He's someone that laughs at his own jokes.
oof...rusty tin ear 😄
At least someone does
I on the other hand do not.🙄
not sure why. it's so shrill and hurried.
Part of what is so interesting about this is that Ben Shapiro can come across as so thoughtful, respectful and charming in this setting... and then turn around and become a smug, insufferable, bomb-thrower on his own show, seemingly only interested in polemic.
He is a pay to play conservative and he knows what kind of rhetoric with his audience gets him talking head spots on TV and speaking gigs at/for well funded conservative 'think-tanks' / propaganda organisations. He can't use the same approach here as he is smart enough to know it'll completely alienate the viewers and he'd get torn to shreds dealing with people much smarter than he is.
ben loves money. he's a liar and propagandist that loves material wealth above all else.
truth and ethics will not get in his way.
Bench Appearo
GOT 'IM!!! 🤣
@@BLSFL_HAZEHe'll never recover. 😎
China perfectly contradicts Ben’s argument in the last part of this debate.
Korea and Japan too. East Asia has had their own profound moral systems without any appeal to a god-given laws
Alex is so brilliant; he talked right over Ben’s head.
Yeah no he’s not. Ben is probably way smarter than I am and I understand what he’s saying perfectly fine. Actually that is in part because Alex is brilliant and can break down his argument to relatively simple and logical points.
That, sir, is called confirmation bias. Both sides made sound arguments but it's quite obvious Ben is sharper.
From 10:00 on, I hear Christopher Hitchingson, reborn. Love this, keep it going! We need a new voice of reason!
Came here to say that about the “but don’t you know” parts.
Atheism and reason are not compatible.
what happened to Ben? He is weirdly down to earth... oh right he is not facing socially awkward kid on campus
very interesting. informative detail blends well with overall big points.
Ladies and gentlemen - This is how 2 people with different views should talk to each other. Ironically enough, this gives me faith in humanity regardless of the topic.
Debating with Ben is like debating a graffiti to go back in to the can.
Ben's moral rectitude aged like milk.
This is the classic case of let’s see how many words we can use to complicate what is a rather simplistic discussion. Of course the implications are cataclysmic for humanity. But at the end of the day, the underlying question is of whether dogmatic unfounded beliefs are still adequate in an age grounded in scientific empiricism. And honestly, how could they be? What does a religion person have to argue for other than mere fantasy and personal convictions?
It is difficult to be a religious intellectual, because you have to disguise that your beliefs are not logically based but are in fact emotionally driven, by complicating your argument as much as possible. Jordan Peterson does this all the time. And Ben Shapiro does is here. Of course, Alex O’Connor is better, but he still drags out his argument, rather than point blank asking Ben why he believes what he believes, and how he could possibly justify them in a logical argument.
Of course, I’m not saying that science is the only answer. In fact, I think that pure materialism is also problematic, as it suggests that the universe is composed of dead, meaningless stuff, which needs to be understood and bent to our will. When as a matter of fact, the very if ideas of material and stuff are products of language, just like everything else. Science is a very useful tool, but there are also spiritual tools, which can be used to change one’s personal experience, without denying science and divulging into dogma. Zen Buddhism and other related eastern spiritualities can in fact function in this way, as they emphasize that the ultimate reality can not be reached through linguistic argument. It is only through personal experience that we can begin to experience it, for the concept of us being exterior observers of the universe is an illusion. For we are the universe. And science agrees with this position…
벤 샤피로에게
'팔레스타인을 응원하라😠'
Empathy is a very real function of the brain. We can literally feel, to some degree, other people's pain. I challenge anyone not to physically feel something when they watch a person get horribly injured, or see a child in genuine distress. We know just by looking or even hearing the cries what real grief and emotional hurt feels like. There is very good evolutionary reasons as to why this is. We also don't like pain, whether physical or emotional, again for very good evolutionary reasons. Because of empathy we have an innate understanding of what hurts and what doesn't, and from this there is a shared understanding of what is right and what is wrong. From there we construct moral frameworks as a consensus within wider society. Such consensus can take the form of religious commandments or secular law, but they both serve the same purpose as agreed morals. It is not being atheist or being religious that creates or validates morals, it is part of being a functioning human being. There is a name for people with no morals - psychopath. A psychopath has a dysfunctional or complete lack of empathy, and they therefore don't have the same innate sense of what is right or wrong which is why they so frequently end up committing crimes.
Atheism: Killing is objectively wrong.
Christianity: Forgives for certain Killing.
Islam: Killing in the name of Allah. 👍
I'm an Atheist and it's untrue to claim that Atheism states "killing is objectively wrong."
The 👍was the cherry on the cake😂
UA-cam Commentor: Killing truth with dogshit aphorisms.
killing is objectively wrong? since when we established that as an axiom or a fact? by whom? on whose authority?
@@Napoleonic_S Objectivity is the authority.
The only real authority that there could be.
Any dressing for Ben’s word salad?
I’d recommend the Peterson dressing, but it will first ask what you mean by “salad” and “dressing”
The difficulty (or at the very least "a" difficulty) in Alex's proposal is that it is fundamentally illogical. It is not a religious framework that endangers Alex in his hypothetical scenario but a flawed understanding; a failure in nature of epistemology. Asking how the will of God is known is a perfectly legitimate line of enquiry. It does not, however, free the materialist from the need to provide a model for morality that does not ultimately reduce to fallacious appeals to force or number. Until such a resolution can be established, atheism remains a fundamentally flawed and wholly illogical proposition.
Ah, a presuppositionalist.
Do you enjoy being hilariously wrong?
"faith" is defined as "belief without evidence".
"moron" is defined as "person of faith"
Ben shapiro has wild eyebrows
Alex is becoming more intelligent with every week that goes by. His podcasts are absolutely superb.
Yet he still promoted the vaccine. He is smart, but lacks critical thinking
@@kansmansen8609 "cRiTIcAL ThINkInG" Every anti-vaccine view has been thoroughly debunked. Where are all those young people dropping dead in the streets lol. 100 years from now you people will be blaming the vaccine
Man, Ben really had to make quite the long sidestep to get around wrestling with Alex's original example.
Q: But didn't religion get morality wrong?
A: Yes, but we've always moved the goalposts.
Ben Shapiro only debates with college students and when he debates an educated person he loses😂
Frank Turek uses the same tactic.
Comes off a bit preachy from Alex but honestly how else do you have this conversation. Feels impossibile and necessary at the same time.
_“He’s just another college student. This should be a breeze!”_ - Ben
Shapiro’s expressions are exactly like the “average Redditor” from those slappable jerk skits
That guy the goat fr
I love it Alex, the thumbnail will drag in, actually I'm at a loss to describe Ben's followers. I'll try "shameless" .
I've drank regurgitated vomit that tasted better than his bullshit.
Thank you Alex for knowing Rule 303.
Much love from Ireland 🇮🇪💚☘️🍀🌈🌻
Ben is right about somethings. Try to open your mind a bit to understand other’s perspectives. In order to do that, you may need to step off your high horse.
@@thatgirl3960WTF, just because someone is right about something (very few), it does not logically follow that they should be taken seriously when the majority of their Gish gallop is ignorant sophistry and bullshit.
@@gerhardgiedrojc991 Your first reaction to "understand other's perspectives" is "WTF"? kinda cringe
I disagree ith most of hat Ben says, but especially in this whole interview he's giving really well put arguments and addressing each point in a better put way than I've heard before from him.
You can really see great minds clash here.
And importantly, Ben isn't able to get away with some of the bullshit he would otherwise word in a way that an opponent doesn;t realise the flaws behind it because of Alex being one of the few people I know that's even quicker and more precise in his rebuttals.
btw I do agree that a title pondering to Ben's followers is a good bet. Hope this gains more traction still, as it's an amazing debate
@@gerhardgiedrojc991maybe if you took them seriously you would learn something rather than rely on confirmation bias to drive you in the wrong direction
Alex actually respects the people he debates. Get over yourself. This is exactly the kind of bullshit arrogance that Alex hates about the athiest internet community.
Ben Shapiro: "Facts don't care about your feelings"
Ben Shapiro: "I believe God invented the Moon"
Ben seems pressured and nervous with his own nonsensical response.
This video's worth a watch just to witness Ben Shapiro sitting in silence for two and a half minutes. What a breath of fresh air.
Correlation is not causation, Ben... The fact that there are lower birth rates now can be easily explained not by less religion but more right-wing economic policies, which is majorly driven by conservative/religious voters and politicians. In regards to common morality in society, evolution has a stronger hypothesis over your greatly subjective religious doctrine in saying how a society can have and maintain morality without religion.
Alex is superb in arguing from his point of view. Following in the great Christopher Hitchens style. Bravo.
Why would the almighty god pass down principles of morality that are open to evolution of interpretation. Seems like hes just seeking to confuse mankind more than anything. Its obvious that these principles were written down by humans during the times they lived in
No matter who I agree with it's just nice to listen to two people who know how to have an actual conversation.
well said