Absolutely brilliant video, but Ben said something that nobody picked up on properly... about individual morality being inherently "dangerous" because and we need to believe that there is a higher power that will essentially punish us to act morally towards people outside of ourselves, but the only thing relevant in this instance is a higher CONSEQUENCE, not a higher power. For example, if you know not to do something because it has been established that if enough people do said thing, then bad things will follow... that's as effective as having a higher being to stop you... both boil down to consequence.
There is not much to talk about it. Religion was a good instrument to keep a huge amount of uneducated people in line. You can't massacre everyone who is not following your orders (even tho it was tried) but you need something to control them. So why not doing this by creaing some immortal, almighty beeing, which is very conveneniently never showing up or inteferring. At some point Religion did more bad than good, even still to this day. So was it always bad? No. Is it bad nowadays? It can be, evidentlly.
I think debates are entertaining but pretending debates are even slightly about actually changing minds and evaluating pre-held beliefs and biases is to engage in wishful thinking and shows a failure on both sides to ask what would move me on my position. I have recently came across “street epistemology” and while its effect is more of a slow release, a kind of ear worm that continues to grow and expand I still can not recommend it enough to people more interested in the subject of discussion than just a discussion. Anthony magnibosco has done a lot of examples of this Socratic approach to examine peoples deeply held beliefs and the reasons they have become so convinced and whether these reasons are deserving of such confidence. I think you would very much enjoy not only the discourse but the “community”/comment section as well. Everyone has moved beyond this misnomer that people cant respectfully disagree and that it might even be possible to change positions through valid and sound arguments with the correct approach.
Except Ben wasn't really relativizing as he explained, and did clarify that he considered those acts as immoral. I don't hold a side in this debate but I fail to see how Alex won on that point.
@@AkshatSharma-qx9wh That makes sense to me now. I hadn't made the connection that calling those acts immoral was the same as calling God immoral. Thanks.
I'm afraid the reason you cannot have such respectful and informative conversations in politics is because you have to be disrespectful to be a politician...
@@latinomarce9912 I'm of course referring to my own country, which is India, but I think it can be true of any country... What country are you from BTW??
I think the reasons are (1) politicians are usually debating with the goal of winning an election, so there’s too much on the line for them to be calm and rational, and (2) politicians are scum and (usually) idiots.
They are calm because not much is tied behind the results of this conversation. Politics has the real weight of change/action for a lot of people's lives behind each sentence. So the people talking politics will inevitably have to be more invested and pushy. You have to be a sociopath to be discussing important politics with the opposite party and not get a little passionate about it when your life depends on it.
Can I just say that Alex quoting "facts don't care about your feelings" was just a masterclass line in this debate. Whole thing is enjoyable to watch, incredibly civil discussion. I find myself vacillating between these two viewpoints almost on a daily basis.
As a theist I really enjoyed that moment! It's amazing to hear both views and be able to see how logically one could come to either conclusion. Really intelligent men from both sides of the spectrum presenting compelling arguments. I watch alot of Alex's content because it helps me see what makes my faith reasonable and what needs to be trimmed away as an argument. I'm thankful he doesn't deploy "gross" tactics, it allows for discussion that can help people make their own deductions without being told they are idiots for doing so.
Ben Shapiro's Gish gallop approach to rhetoric is instantly offputting as he makes several conclusive claims without any basis. It's a tired trick and nobody really has the balls to call him on it. It's called intellectual dishonesty.
There is nothing great about any stuff of Alex. 1 he is wrong about almost everything he says and 2 he does not believe he has a free will or choice, then it can not be Alex who is to be credited for any great stuff, but who or whatever it is which predetermined Alex to be a self-delusional self-contradicting atheist.
@@jasonantigua6825 I have not bashed any bibles, but you sure as hell is doing a great job trying to avoid all the points I was making because you are defensive about your druggie friend Alex pretending to be a intellectual while he is bashing what few brain cells he has haha
@@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution 1. No, you just BELIEVE he is wrong, 2. Your conclusion is illogical. He can still be credited with it. Let me explain. I assume you believe in god and most gods don't view animals on the same level as humans (they don't have a soul etc.) which is also to some point true biologically (human brains are indeed the most developed compared to other species). Do you believe your dog has free will in a same way as you? You probably wouldn't. But you still give your dog a name, you care for the dog (at least if you're a good person but i'm an atheist and I don't believe in objective morality so I accept that you may view it differently). let's say your dog's name is Ruby. you buy Ruby a toy and it is Ruby's toy. and look, Ruby brought you a stick that you'd thrown! well, Ruby may not have free will but you would still talk about Ruby's actions like it's this dog's actions... because 1) language. it makes sesne linguistically but 2) more importantly - they ARE the dog's actions, 'cause the dog exists (I believe the world is real while there are philosophers who don't but I feel like me and Alex are on the same boat when it comes to free will). Alex also exists. his views and what he said in this debate are a consequence of millions of connnected events, decisions and outside influences but that doesn't make what he is not him and what he says not his. just like me writing this comment right now is a result of millions of influences and choices that started from my birth and led me to this moment. why am I writing what I am writing? why did I choose the dog analogy? what in your comment made me wanna reply even? why am I even replying to you while it's unproductive and you're probably not even going to reply? why did I even watch this video in particular? I clicked it in suggested section. but why? it had a catchy thumbnail? or because I don't like Ben shapiro ? but why was this video even suggested? because the algorithm operates based on videos I watched, liked and commented on previously. why did I watch all those videos? oh, i am interEsted in philosophy. but why am I ? and you can go like that indefinetely. the lack of free will doesn't mean you as you don't exist. it's just accepting that who you are is not entirely up to you. and while you may change, the extent of said change is also not entirely up to you. also, the difference between dogs and humans is humans have a mental capacity to recognize all this altough ignorance truly is blissful sometimes. me? the ultimate lack of purpose of my life is actually freeing. there is nothing expected of me and I choose that meaning for myself... kind of ;) more like all those pulls and pushes that made me me are choosing but still... i'm on Earth to enjoy the ride and make other people enjoy their rides more if i can
I’ll give Ben credit, he outperformed my expectations, but he still failed to adequately address the important issues around his “escape hatch” and moral relativism.
47:00 watch as Ben completely destroys his own argument, claiming the lack of knowledge is not substantial enough evidence, even though that is almost entirely his claim. There's also the fact that morals are not purely a religious thing, there are atheists who have morals, and yet they don't follow any religion. Ben kept using his statement, that atheists morality is based on Judaism and Christianity, without acknowledging that societies and cultures exchange ideas all the time depending on social needs and wants. It's suggesting that without religion there would be no morals...wich I believe is incorrect, as society would still evolve as a concise unit as long as they share the same goals, such as building a society. Those goals do not have to have religious purpose, he is undermining the intelligence and determination of the people who aren't religious. Though this is just my point of view...feel free to share any thoughts on my comment! Have a great day!
I may be erroneous in my assumption of your beliefs surrounding the "escape hatch", but my argument predicates on it so I will make it regardless and it's that it appears as though you are over-trivializing the significance of the "escape hatch" and it's deeper meaning. The pursuit of truth, which is why this video is being made in the first place, is a fundamental tenet of religion. Ben Shapiro not knowing certain things surrounding the ultimate truths of life is natural and not simply a mechanism to avoid having to address the issue. People laugh at Jordan Peterson for example for not being able to answer certain questions surrounding religion, however this is foolish for the reason that what religious figures literally do is search for the answers as opposed to finding them. If we had the complete answer, then this video would be unnecessary.
@@immortal6451 There appears to be a couple of errors with this point of view although I may be false. The first is that you say that atheist's morality isn't based on Judaism and Christianity for the reason that, "societies and cultures exchange ideas all the time depending on social needs and wants", but this doesn't refute the point but rather provides the mechanism as to how this occurs. The other issue is that you seem to delineate the idea of "building a society" from a "religious purpose", but the issue is that building a society may have religious underpinnings in itself like for example through the idea of "divine order" or the "ten commandments" in which a "society" is meant to mold around.
@@jttj742That’s not what a going on at all. Stop. People are humbled to get to talk to others on the same level. Alex was very much on guard at the beginning to see what type of liar Ben was….and then Ben said something(something about understanding the mind of God)that completely disarmed him and made him realize he was talking to someone in his level and could have a actual conversation. Because generale thats all people really want. To be understand and have connection. And it’s a wonderful thing to find people that you can talk to on your level.
@@colingundel8779College students are not kids. They are adults, and their age is not an excuse for their terrible reasoning ability. They are the next generation, soon they'll be in offices, positions of power. They BETTER have someone to initiate discussion and critical thinking.
@@tubsy.The issue is that Ben goes to these colleges with the knowledge of their philosophical inadequacies and exploits that through “gotcha” moments. They are adults who should know better, but “winning” a debate against them is not a good demonstration for the truth of your claims. A discussion like this is a much more rigorous and intellectually honest format
I massively appreciate the calm, intelligent, and respectful way that both Alex and Ben conducted this debate. After all of the polarisation we’ve seen in media recently, I’d almost forgotten how a civilised, intellectual debate actually looks like. Well done. I hope to see more of this in the future.
I'm not very scholarly but I do agree with your observations. Respect is the best way for good communication, no matter what the subject is. Peace to you from Florida USA
The problem is, respectful intelligent discourse doesn't get as many views or attention as the inflammatory shouting and name calling. So the media will always prefer making and showing more of that content
Remind me again, who made a career out of reducing debates to "roasting SJWs, thug life destroying feminists, drinking liberal's tears etc." ?? Oh yeah that was Ben shapiro. This person literally became famous FOR turning debates into mockeries. He literally sold branded merch mugs with "liberal tears" written on them. He helped deteriorate the state of internet debates. Reducing everything to "owning, destroying, wrecking" his college age opponents.
@@I.Reckon Some of Ben's commentary on "wokeness" and other political stance get millions of views in days. If it bleed, it leads. Compare to an hour long debate, algorithm much prefer a 5-10 minute video as there's a higher likelihood that people will click and play the video.
@@Reignor99 I'm not sure that's the reason. And I also don't think that question is particularly hard to answer - at least in terms of providing plausible options that don't involve God.
Alex is truly one of the great atheist thinkers of our generation. Not only is he brilliant and well studied, but he's so emotionally collected. Just an absolute pleasure to watch.
@xpsm249 subjective. Christianity is overloaded with tens of thousands of denominations, sects, splinter groups, you name it. And they all disagree with one another on at least one doctrine or another. So you calling him "incorrect" doesn't mean much.
Boy, it's amazing to hear Ben pretty much completely walk back his justification of Biblical slavery since his discussion of it with Jordan Peterson. How his two positions on the subject are even remotely reconcilable is beyond me. And that is the beauty of having to sit across from someone who's not already on your side. We need more of this and not less.
Right, someone like Frank Turek or Paul Copan has better positions on Biblical slavery, concerning the OLD law, in the OLD testament, which is no longer a thing for Hebrews, and never was a thing for Christians.
@@youtubespag He actually didn't say to keep the old law forever. I'm pretty sure you're referring to "17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill (Gr. Plerosai). 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled" Quite right, the fulfillment of something means its completion. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, covering all sin, and fulfilling the law. "Romans 8:3-4: 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Romans 10:4 for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." The law was fulfilled and we are not under it, nor were we, as Christians ever under the law.
@@youtubespagUnfortunately, they also missed the most recent events of slavery in history where slave owners would read certain parts of the bible to their slaves in order to keep them as... well.. slaves.
The way alex is always calm and sincere seems to be infectious. It seems most of his debates encourages his opponent to take an equal calm and sincere stance. With an exception to Peter H in his interview lol
@@karion99My take on that interview is that Hitchens felt "caught-out" ("if I knew you were going to talk about the Portuguese drug paradise, I would have..." and then had to default to the position that Alex had "brought [him] on false pretenses and behaved badly." Am glad Alex posted it, at any rate.
Still, Alex lost the first point fairly decisively, and he knew it. Alex got too caught up in making the point on free will's existence, while Ben stayed focused on the actual topic, which is "Is religion good or bad for society" and was able to make the point "You can't build a functioning society off telling everyone they have no choices". Alex understood this, I think, which is why he interrupted the host at the end to ask "If what Ben says is true, who's believing the delusion." The issue is, Alex just walked straight into sociology spanning from Socrates to Luckmann. I wish Ben had known more about the sociology of societal formation, because it would have been good to test Alex's claim against Socrates's noble law and modern-day constructivism.
@@angusmcculloch6653 the free will discussion is essential for whether religion is good for society. Its a shame the host made them move on before they could get into details. But ultimately alex still made his points while pointing out the flaws in bens argument. Im not sure ben really touched the topic of if religion is good for society, but his arguments in this discussion didnt seem as thought out as alexs.
As an atheist/agnostic, Ben's suggestion about how to raise your kids is exactly what I do. "I don't know, you'll have to make your own mind up." This is also how my parents raised me when I asked them. And it is the same for all my non-believing friends. I wonder how many religious parents give THEIR kids both sides of the story, or leave it entirely up to their children to form their own views.
This is what I will do I am a very strong Eastern Orthodox, will slowly teach them all the arguments for and against and also bring them ti charitable activities so if they stay Eastern Orthodox Christian they will actually be a good one
I fell away from my Catholic upbringing around 6th grade after I was told that my "God given" free will would not allow me to choose my own path and that my non-believing best friend was destined for hell unless he got baptized. 35 years later my wife and I decided to send our unbaptized boys to a progressive Catholic school so that they at least get exposed to a moral groundwork with minimal religious indoctrination-(since that was all we knew), then let them decide.
Respect is a strong word, I would say, courteous or considerit. They did politely acknowledge to each other that they would consider the other delusional. Rightfully so... Ben is talking with an imaginary ancestors imaginary friend for guidance in his life. The only way to reach someone who is that lost in their delusional beliefs is through calm, rational conversation. Would not want a fight to the death with them, as Alex pointed out.
@@Donetravlincourteous and considerate describe respect. So they were respectful of one another. Calling each other delusional was qualified by each, in describing the ways one can be delusional. therefore to be delusional just means that they don’t agree on what is there. They believe the other is under a delusion. How can it be otherwise between someone of faith and the other of limited fact.
@stephenl9463 being respectful and respecting or having respect for a position is two different things, especially in a situation where you do not respect their position, yet you will be respectful while you converse with them Ben doesn't have any grounds to consider Alex delusional & that is why Alex was phenomenal at being respectful which will increase the chances of getting through the self absorbed brainwashing & cult indoctrination Ben has puts himself through.
The problem with this debate is that it never mentions anything about the miracle birth of Jesus Christ or what Jesus teaches and it was Jesus who said all these things shall be fulfilled. So, they still are going on today.
@@jeremiah6540 That's just Ben being Ben, he can't help himself. It's his spiel, his stock-in-trade method of engaging in debates. He does it all the time.
I actually didn't hate Shapiro as much as I though I would. He didnt convince me on anything but he gave food for thought and actually made some interesting points. I went into this debate thinking "Go Alex" but thank you to both participants for once again teaching me to value reason and logic for the beauty of logics sake over tribalism and cheerleading.
Ben and as another example Peterson are both intelligent, there's no question. They just each have a few very questionable beliefs and their otherwise eloquent logic makes it easy for people to fall prey to these more extreme arguments.
i dislike Ben almost as much as another human can dislike another human, BUT i agree with you. i came into this with the foreknowledge that was going to hate everything Ben said, and was completely taken aback by some of his statements and his congeniality in this debate. was happy to be wrong. that said, i still do NOT like this man!
@@jeffwatson7345 completely agree. I'm just happy this debate again broadened my horizons and gave me plenty of food for thought. And while Ben presented himself surprisingly admirable here unless he actually gets his mind changed by Alex on a couple of very key points of his philosophy... I don't see myself liking him anytime soon.
You didn't hate him as much as you thought you would? What does this even mean? From what I take from it is that you have a preconceived view of Ben from your peers. Open your own eyes.
Ben is incredibly intelligent and full of interesting ideas outside his low-hanging-fruit political day job, nice to see others capable of recognising this and not just shutting his words out because he's said things you disagree with.
This should be used as an example of how contestants in a debate should behave. Their clear mutual respect along with their well-defined positions makes this one of the most informative debates I've seen. Well done!
MAGA and BLM/Woke listen to reason equally, which is to say not at all. Both of them should be gone from political discussions, because it is just all feelings based.
@anheuser-busch MAGA and BLM are not the same in societal destructiveness. MAGA wants to save America as founded, while BLM wants its destruction. Comparing the two is indicative of a lack of understanding and shallow analysis of each.
@@anheuser-buschbro did you just equate a global protest movement - one of the biggest in human history, to random MAGA conspiracy theorists? And then equate that to “woke”? Do you have a definition of woke that isnt just “things i dont like”? This is mental illness.
I did not expect ben to basically admit that free will might not exist but rather that its better to live as if it does. This was shocking to watch. Definitely a testament to just how good Alex is. Also a demonstration that ben is at least honest enough to acknowledge the truth of good arguments. Most pundits can’t manage that.
Ben and Alex shared the opinion that operating under the impression that free will exists benefits humans, regardless of whether its true or not. Ben furthered his point by stating that free will can only exist under theism, and Alex stated that free will developed as a delusion in the human mind, because it's beneficial for us to operate as if it exists.
It’s of course possible I misunderstand what he’s saying, but at 21:16 Ben says a couple times some version of Its possible/plausible that free will doesn’t exist, but that society is better as a result of people believing free will exists. I’ve watched several of bens debates on free will, for example against sam Harris who has a similar view to Alex, but I’m pretty sure I’ve never heard ben concede this point. Maybe I missed it.
SHapiro mostly does not acknowledge others arguments if they go against his own views though. There is a reason why there are videoes of him teaching conservatives how to win arguments and tells them to not use facts and attack the person doing the arguments instead.
@dakotacarpenter7702 he got escorted into moral relativism and he didn't even realize it until he did. You can see it on his face. Sure the guy is not an idiot but he ain't smert like Alex is smert.
@@Jay-pe4gx that may be so, but I for one hate with a passion the way he gish-gallops. I would not be able to keep cool when discussing with him, I'd constantly be like "yo yo, hold up, let's discuss this before you change the subject".
Yeah the alien robots who predetermined his cool, did a great job in determining that he should level up his mannerism, while still sounding like a total idiot 😆
@@idkwhattodo7170humans are made to believe in something outside ourselves. Besides if being theist is being disable then it’s the norm? But I thought disabilities were outside of the normal station of beings. So who really is the disabled. Besides without the morals of religions the world wouldn’t even function everything would be subjective allowing people to do whatever whenever:/
@@idkwhattodo7170Not the same at all, but if you aren’t intelligent enough to understand that theistic convictions are not comparable to a mental illness, just say that. The existence of God has been debated over for thousands upon thousands of years, with compelling arguments being made on both sides. Only a bitter and intentionally reductivist person would make such a comparison. I hope you see the error of your ways some day.
Yeah just kind of proves the point that Ben just enjoys watching people suffer me know because like 99% of the time he's just misrepresenting concepts and other peoples arguments as a means to push the idea of hierarchies in unjustifiable decisions that ultimately lead to more problems in the world but here he demonstrates that he actually does have the ability to learn. And I guarantee tomorrow Ben's gonna be right back to the same old stuff and probably buy some wood to prove he's a man and burn some Barbie dolls or something.
These religious debates just bore me now. To summarize ‘I believe in god but know I can’t prove he exists but you can’t prove he doesn’t so he must exist’. Knowing that it’s impossible to prove a negative. I ask you this if I said there’s a fairy living in my room, and you said I don’t believe you, who would the burden of proof lie with?
If Gallileo were an outspoken atheist, there'd be nothing left of him other than a footnote to him having been put to death for heresy. Doesn't mean he was an Atheist. Just means if he were, he wouldn't even be known in his own family.
That’s the part Ben Shapiro is maybe pretending he doesn’t understand? Reminds me of the sales lady I worked with in Salt Lake City, 1990, that said she didn’t know any gay people… It wasn’t that long ago that atheist had to hide in the closet. In some Islamic nations they still do.
There’s a modern versions of this. I remember standing in my office in Salt Lake City in 1990 and a young sales woman telling everybody she didn’t know any gay people. I’m sure she thinks she didn’t, she just didn’t realize that in her culture gays had to hide. Out of the nightmare of the AIDS decade came one positive thing, to the detriment of evangelical Christians, it showed the world just how many gay people there were and how they didn’t fit the stereotypes that evangelicals had created. For example Rock Hudson.
I definitely think Alex was more convincing, but I was pleasantly surprised by how nice and smart Ben was. It's a massive difference from his political work which I honestly find deeply problematic. Anyways, keep these conversations going. They really do a great job in combating further polarisation.
Ben plays nice when he knows he cant win. Guy is a coward. This is the person who got famous for "pwning" college students over the lowest hanging fruit of political issues.
I kinda choose both. I just don't view religion in such a strick manner. But something bigger than us or something more after death may exist. Doenst have to be God and the heavens tho. Maybe just a change of state in our energy being passed on to another dimension? Idk. That's the thing! Idk! No one does. But physics says energy can not be created nor destroyed. And our being is composed of energy. Our thoughts are energy. Our consciousness is literally electrical energy being pased over our rural networks. So literally our consciousness is a tangible thing. It's enegy. It exists. But that doensy mean it will remain as consciousness. It may very well just be passed on and spread throughout the universe in whatever many forms it takes as it transitions from being us to being just energy again? 🤷♂️
I think this conversation was brilliant because it stepped away from the typical religious discussions which almost exclusively hinge on whether god does or does not exist. This highlights the functionality of religion in society irrespective of whether or not it is true, which is a very refreshing question to hear discussed.
@martanieradka4675 If that was true then the most effective politicians would be honest. There’s a study that shows that if you talk to a person whose views are fundamentally incompatible with yours, then usually both of you will leave the conversation with more extreme beliefs. However, if you pretend to hold the other persons beliefs and frame your arguments as doubts that you are having, then you are much more likely to convince them. Lies and manipulation can be functional.
I guess despite religion's unverifiable claims and inconsistencies, something that survived a millennium or two must surely have something positive to contribute.
I think the "existence of God" debate is central. Jordan Peterson shies away from this with his word salad and never acknowledges if the events in the Bible are true, he drones on about the "meta".
This is ridiculous that this debate was so calm. This is in no way how a debate should be ran. They should be yelling at each other, calling each other names, mocking and not letting each other speak. Ridiculous!!!
But by his worldview he doesn't deserve any props, because he is only there because its biologically predetermined to be there. So he deserves no credit, afterall he is a machine born of evolution in his worldview. Do you not realize that if what he is saying is correct then he shouldn't be praised because everything he says is predetermined.
@@jasonthomas9319 you could say praise be to god for making him the way he did so that he would want to make this show. Guess theists have no free will because god made them the way he did and knows everything, so he knew what they would do and when. You can only choose to do what god knew you would do. Think about that.
in the opening he gave so much prattling and caveating as to be worrying, especially given how little time was allotted for this debate. Glad it did not continue.
I absolutely love debates on this level. High quality arguments exchanged in a civil manner. This channel is about to blow up. You're doing an amazing work!
I would have enjoyed to disassemble Bens opening my self, and i am not an atheist, i am agnostic. The relevance of a god in a belief system is totally overrated. Just a humble view over to China, the one civilisation that has outlasted so many others and is still very present on this planet, larger in numbers than the US and Europe combined, is not falling apart because of the lack of a monotheistic figure everyone can pray to. Whether one likes it or not, you can also put a photo of the great leader of the communist party onto your wall and be content with someone watching all your actions and provide judgement... And that is not even a joke, its true, but the irony though is still hilarious.
@@madrooky1398that such a horrible comparison. China had an exchange of dynasties through history and they were locked out of the rest of the world for the most part and millions of their people were killed by their own leaders (Mao). The idea of “contentment” is internally validated not externally by a authoritarian human
Yes! It’s such a rare thing, unfortunately, because these guys are exceptions on different levels. IQ and experience with debate mainly, causing them to be able to take a higher perspective of thinking. Zero judgment from either side and either side sincerely listening to understand instead of listening to respond.
What a shame Shapiro has undoubtedly played his part contributing to the flame war that is discourse today. He behaved himself here because he realised doing what he normally does would result in a disaster.
The way that they were able to immediately compartmentalize eachothers aeguments, think it out, and then provide a reponse is lightning fast! Some very high functioning minds here. So fun to have watched them interact!
This was great, not just a tiktok brained debate where "geniuses" are trying to DESTROY each other. Love both, and hope more actual debates like this happen.
That's because Ben Shapiro is in a room surrounded by people who follow him arguing against teenagers. We're just trying to like make the world a better place. I'm guarantee if Ben was talking to another adult who is clearly smarter than him with good faith, education and knowledge he would be doing exactly what you say trying to destroy him with rhetoric instead of warming reasonable argument.
@dannyraygun That's just not true, and I know it's not cause I watch him too throughout the years. He's had many hard conversations with great people, including the likes of Sam Harris, Niel deGrasse, etc. The format and aggression with babies who try to make him look like a bad guy vs actual hour long conversations and debates will always look different. He's been debating intellectuals long before Alex has, not taking away from Alex cause he did great and is growing more and more. With that being said, that's a horrible way of putting it.
I don’t know why but I find it incredibly charming that Ben and to a lesser extent Alex were occasionally chuckling throughout the video. I love conversations that are so civil that both sides can joke *with* each other rather than agains them.
If only Ben could show that kind of good nature in a context where he isn't staring total intellectual oblivion in the face. Compare the content that Ben puts out vs. the content that Alex puts out. One of these guys is actually nice, one of them is a pigheaded dickweek, I'm kind of appalled that Ben gets to pass himself off as civil.
I think they were chuckling knowing they are debating questions with no knowable answers, and how mixtures of both points of view is reasonable and equally valid. Considering they are unknowable and non-deterministic.
unfortunately a lot of people think he propensity to "speak quickly" is indicative of intelligence. Its actually just to aid his gish gallop where he throws out too many claims for you to debunk and as you spend minutes just trying to refute one wrong thing he said, it leaves the other 5 wrong things to linger in the minds of the listener.
@@MLior311 Some people do speak more quickly than others, but I have watched Ben Shapiro and having studied formal logic I see how he engages in gish gallops. He throws out claims like "facts don't care about your feelings" but then goes on to argue his feelings with a few scanty facts and interlocutors are unable to untangle the web of fallacies that he knits. If he spoke more slowly, it would be easier to catch his BS. Maybe he doesn't do it on purpose, but he definitely does it. Sorry to you if you thought he was genuinely an intellectual with a 10 pound brain. Notice how much slower he is talking here vs his normal cadence of his cant.
@@MLior311some people do, but Ben ABSOLUTELY uses gish-gallop tactics to sound like he's making a profound point, while saying very little of substance.
Such a refreshing conversation to listen to. This is a proper way to have a discussion around important/interesting matters, not the drivel Piers Morgan puts out as a "debate" with the solo purpose to produce short viral clips. Thank you Alex and Ben
The big conversation ( and he kind ) Andy Kind is the winner of the debate .I love the entire show, and both guests are inspirationally , delightfully,energizing,for me,and my continued, well being.
If only american politics could conduct themselves in such a respectful and genuine way. Truly a beautiful example of how most political and philosophical disagreements should be done.
American politicians appeal to american voters unfortunately and I don't think the majority of the population in any country is substantially different.
Define religion. The aims of religion? I.e. love your neighbor and love you enemies. Or the failures of religion? Pedophile rings in sovereign churches.
26 minutes in, and I thoroughly enjoy this discussion. They seem to not be taking past each other but actually interfacing with eachother's commentary. Refreshing to witness.
@@misimiki i dont know if thats true. My assumption would be that its always been this way in a similar capacity. Only now we have a much larger amount of access to those more ugly interactions
@@deanought3695overall, social media (and much of the internet in general) perpetuates echo chambers of people’s existing opinions and world view and promotes intolerance to accept or collaborate with opposing ideas imo. Definitely more prevalent nowadays in my observations. Would be an interesting debate topic on it’s own though
@@jmd489 yeah, I'd like to see that debate. I imagine that one side might make an argument for historical communities that act like echo chambers due to little information getting in. I'm speculating of course. It may be the case that echo chambers are more prevalent now. It's so hard for us to tell exactly how it used to be in the past. I personally get tired of 'the good ole day's sentiment'. I never buy it outright. People usually refer to their childhood, or a generation ago thinking that this or that used to be better. I find most claims too hard to quantify
Really solid debate. Interesting to see Ben Shapiro debate someone who’s actually intelligent. Also really nice how both were very respectful of each other (something rare to see today)
“Respectful of each other” NOPE!! TRY AGAIN!! That’s just laughable. Sorry but “RESPECT” requires a conscious agent/freewill and choice, that is rationality itself? But as “Mr Sceptic” of the elite university of Oxford helpfully pointed out freewill and choice, that is “RESPECT” and “MORALITY” is nothing more substantive than a delusion under this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism. Sorry but it’s self refuting as its truth implies it’s falsity and it clearly undermines morality and rationality itself!! Let’s just think about it rationally for a second. Because the fact is that under this strictly reductive, casually closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction “Mr Cosmic Sceptic” the conscious agent does not even exist??? Equally, “COSMIC SCEPTIC” never actually had over 70 million people “rationally” choose to view his arguments that freewill and choice doesn’t even exist because according to cosmic sceptics standard of “logic” conscious agents/freewill, that is RATIONALITY ITSELF does not even exist. Just hold that thought for second. Just keep holding that thought? Sorry you can’t hold that thought can you? Not even for a second because you apparently aren’t responsible and have no freewill or choice? According to this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction…. “People who rape and murder children are not responsible or accountable for their actions as they are not a conscious agent??? that is they don’t have freewill or choice”??? Glad we cleared that one up!! And they mock other peoples beliefs!! Yeah not dogmatic at all and perfectly “safe” and “sane” and perfectly “moral” and makes perfect sense!! About as much “sense” as bothering to turn up at a debate you had no freewill and choice about!! Well i hope that all you APEISTS are enjoying the delusion because your sense of the “SELF” including your constant very ironic claims to the “MORAL” and “RATIONAL” high ground are now officially nothing more substantive than an ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS ILLUSION. That is nothing more substantive than determined brain chemicals, that is nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda accidentally bubbling over. The BRAINS ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS USER ILLUSION OF SELF, that is nothing more substantive than SIRI ON STEROIDS!! Nothing more substantive than an ultimately MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL MACHINE, a determined chemical and biological robot on steroids!! Just brain chemicals, an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur, that is an ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE on steroids with the illusion of the “MORAL” and “RATIONAL” high ground LOL!! It beggars belief that anyone could subscribe to this total and utter b…sht!! It is clearly a blue haired, Oxford graduate, that is left wing elitist apologetic for paedophiles and child murderers!! Definition of APEISM… “HOLLOW AND ULTIMATELY SOULLESS APE MAGICALLY HAVE VALUE BECAUSE HOLLOW AND ULTIMATELY SOULLESS DETERMINED APE SAY ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE HAVE VALUE .” [Atheism/Nihilism]. Definition of Apeism/nihilism…. “ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL ASSISTANT SIRI HAVE MAGICAL VALUE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL ASSISTANT SIRI SAY ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL ASSISTANT SIRI HAVE VALUE” [Apeism]. Am i close? Am I close or “a long way to go” LOL? I’d bet my sanity and my life that I am pretty spot on there with those definitions of APEISM!! Atheism/Nihilism in a nutshell. I rest my case!!
“Respectfully” this is actually Mr “COSMIC SCEPTIC” hand picked from the elite university of Oxford’s “best” graduates. And basically his best argument was the self refuting claim that we can’t see into the minds of the plethora of self professed Judeo Christian scientists including the plethora of Judeo Christians who were actually the heroes of the civil rights movement such as Dr Martin Luther king JR who was actually an ordained Christian pastor who was assassinated for peaceful protest? Therefore they may have been atheists? We can’t see into the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless determined motion of brain chemicals, that is we can’t see into the minds that don’t actually exist in the first place under this strictly reductive, causally closed atheist, nihilistic fan fiction because the conscious agent/freewill that is rationality itself does not even exist?? It’s illusory??? Yeah makes great sense!! And they mock other people’s beliefs!! We can’t see into the mind of the brilliant Rabbi Johnathan Sacks who worked tirelessly to prevent another genocide against Jews and prevent genocide against all races through intercultural dialogue!! Therefore he may have been an atheist. Equally, we can’t see into the mind of Anne Frank? Therefore religious expression is evil and dangerous??? We can’t see into peoples minds therefore atheism, that is therefore fatalism and epistemological nihilism is coherent and true??? This is an unbelievably weak argument and a red herring, an irrelevancy fallacy, and a total and utter non sequitur!! We can’t see in the minds of all the heroes of the civil rights movement such William Wilberforce and Rosa Parks who were also self professed Christians right? The numerous people who campaigned and died for human rights during Liberation Theology Ok? We can’t see directly into their minds right? So they may have been atheists??? Does that mean that self professed atheists everywhere who do good things could secretly have been Judeo Christians because we can’t see into their determined brain/mind either ? Using the same “logic” this means that all the self professed Christians from the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts and all the Muslim terrorists could secretly have been atheists in disguise? That is a wolf in sheep’s clothing!! Therefore Judeo Christianity is True by default, that is therefore the fundamental nature of mind/consciousness/The One/Monotheism/Conscious agents/freewill, that is rationality itself is True by default!! Because we can’t see into everyone’s mind right? This is just laughable and is clearly an unbelievably weak argument. Is this actually the best that the elite from Oxford university can produce to deconstruct faith??? We can’t see into the mind of the plethora of Judeo Christian scientists and the plethora of monotheists who did good things for human rights and actually even formulated the scientific method itself, and even analytical philosophy making amazing break throughs in logic and mathematics. We can’t see into their minds therefore determinism/atheism rules? That is therefore fatalism and epistemological nihilism rules??? Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally nihilistic, totally fatalistic and totally and utterly self refuting!!
You must never watch Ben’s Sunday special because he’s had very in depth conversations with many intelligent scholars from Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or William Lane Craig. It’s really not too much different than this discussion
How about the moderator doing his job practically perfectly! Stayed out of the way but also stepped in on minimal occasion to move the conversation forward. Excellent debate here, all around!
Okay the delivery of the line "facts don't care about your feelings" by alex in response to the claim that a purposless life isn't a very good way to look at it by ben is awesome
For many, religion allows people to live a purposeful life. This is good for society and that is the topic of the debate. The truth of religion is not the topic.
I've been wanting this for so long. I love how big Alex is getting and how respectful Ben is to people he finds intelligent. They should do a show together lol
😂 except Ben literally works for right wing propaganda companies with the same societal perspectives shared by David Duke. He is genuinely one of the worst figures when it comes to thinking objectively and self-critical thought. The fact that he genuinely has no respect for even those he percieves as less intelegent is evidence of him allowing his moral shortcomings to dictate his ability to reason. Hes by definition a bad faith actor and a political shill.
What im saying is, this is no "meeting of great minds" this is "political tool, good talker and thiest attempts to prove known fallacies and absurd ancient claims to be true by the hand of a well educated, well spoken, self critical atheist."
@@adamchristensen8566No one does that, what are you on about. For instance if you are disrespectful to me, you're getting disrespect back, because being respectful is one of the qualifiers I require in order to be respectful. If you don't deserve respect, you're not getting it. Period.
thank you guys so much for this great conversation, positively grinning the whole way through :) I'm glad the comments reflect this, this is the kind of debates people need to see and expect, not only more productive but way more enjoyable. And Andy Kind, what an absolutely wonderful host!!
If Ben hadn’t had a hand in contributing to the current state of discourse in the world I’d have been more willing to give him some respect. All I see here is a guy who realised he had to behave himself if he didn’t want to make himself look bad.
@Runthemjewels I'm not sure anyone of almost half a million viewers changed their mind and that one side even significantly nudged more people than the other in their direction. If that could be shown I think that would be the metric to see a clear "winner".
@@Runthemjewelsnobody was, really. The whole first segment came down to “who do you believe” and both of them acknowledged that that was the only reasonable end point of that discussion.
Nooo i didnt want it to end that was by far one of the best debates i have ever watched i could watch these 2 talk for days this was incredible i have had a similar discussion/debate myself years ago it was just one of those moments where you just have to sit in silence and just contemplate what was said by both sides its actually difficult for me to put into words what it ment to me and this video brought some of that back to me thank you
In addition to being a fantastic conversation, the production quality of this video is superb. Great lighting, nice use of camera angles and movement. Well done to everyone involved.
@@albertbecerra My moral belief that human suffering should be avoided whenever possible makes slavery wrong for me. But if you're implying that religion provides objective morality, I'd disagree. The morality that is provided by religious texts is just the subjective moral opinions of whoever wrote the text. Even if you believe in a god, any morality provided by a god is also just their opinion, meaning subjective.
@@MrVonzine but that is subjective. If one king or war lord or whatever, conquers one group or community or whatever the setting, logically it be smart to imprison the now conquered as they would look to regroup and retaliate, as it is common to for man to seek retribution. And it would be the same result vice versa.
@@henry306 religious morality isn't solely based on subjective opinions. Some argue it's grounded in a broader framework, suggesting a divine source or higher purpose. This perspective contends that religious morality provides an objective foundation, beyond individual viewpoints, offering a more universal basis for ethical principles.
@@sheevpalpatine8243Ben's most favorite fallacies are gish gallop (most favorite), he just speeds through talking points knowing you can't address all of them which for less experienced debaters overhelms them. Less common for Ben is the motte and Bailey, he will state a premise that is super objectionable but have a ridiculous conclusion based on the premise. Ben is a bad faith actor, he constantly misrepresents scientific data (like using the 40% suicide rate for trans adults) to support his narrative but never unpacks what those numbers mean. He just throws the number out there but doesn't expand as to why. I use that as a specific example because I work in mental health, I have a degree in psychology, got published multiple times in undergrad, now I'm in grad school becoming a therapist. Another example is Ben saying that atheism is a materialist pov when that isn't a claim of atheism. Atheism just rejects the claim that a God or god's exist.
@jwomackandcheese73 This is a conversation on whether religion is good for society. It is not wise to digress too many layers down a premis, i.e. explaining the nuance in scientific data when the effect is the point. One could go on many hours on the topic of transgender effects, however, it's not the topic at hand. I know you have an interest and unique knowledge of this field. It's how I feel when arm-chair philosophers talk of how to win wars.
@@chrisvandermerwe7111 I didn't say it was the topic of conversation, I was using it as an example of Ben is a dishonest actor and can't be trusted to discuss in good faith. All of Ben's social prescriptions come from his religious ones to one extent or another. Now Ben was surprisingly calm and reasonable here, but I can go to any of his shows after this debate took place and find deplorable things he says, the point of that being he doesn't live by the values he claims to. His interview on thr BBC a few years ago shows my point on that. Ben doesn't do well when his behavior is pointed out to be inconsistent with his belief.
I feel honored to watch these kinds of convos. These are the convos I have in my head being realized and articulated in such a beautiful dance of disagreement
Alex was bang on with catching Ben in some moral relativism. Amazing convo. Needed twice the length please. Why did it need to be rushed to finish at the end?
This is the finest debate I have seen in some time. Props to the moderator who was cool headed, genial, reserved and funny without taking sides. Big props to Alex and Ben, both of whom I could listen to for ages. Both men were respectful and articulate. The best debates take place without an audience, I think. It's nice to see neither party devolve into cheap tactics like trying to get a big laugh at the other's expense or chasing mic drop moments.
I like how much these two seem to like eachother while discussing something personal to themselves as a topic, but still seemed to stay playful and honest and conciliatory. I think this may be the best example of a good faith conversation I have seen in my life, and it was completely captivating start to stop. Excellent talk, I enjoyed both Alex and Ben beforehand and i appreciate both more afterward.
There is a lot going on in this conversation but it feels like they know they have far more similarities than differences and are able to comport themselves better because of it. Even when in such stark disagreement about the topics.
@williamappleford148 His talk with Peter Hitchens went sideways, but that was no fault of Alex's, this was the dead opposite, extremely pleasant even around a topic where each party has all of their eggs in one basket, and thats a tricky thing to do well, but it was really obvious Ben was having fun, and as stoic as Alex tends to be, it seemed he liked the nature of the chat too. In my experience, these kinds of people make good friends. 👍
Finally!!! This is exactly what I've been waiting for! It's about time that atheists and people of faith come to the table and debate with honesty using truth as their compass!
Yes but only ONE can be true! The bible and Christianity is true. Atheism is wrong. America is built upon the bedrock principles of the Holy Bible. The Christian faith is what has made this the greatest country on planet earth. It takes a FOOL to say we need to remove religion from human society.
I believe in free will become things like depression, anxiety, guilt, sadness, shyness, anger, sorrow, and so on, happen at any and all times during our daily lives. And those emotions will cause us to act COMPLETELY differently in that situation than if we were feeling anything else.
If only political debates could go like this for the voters to choose. Idc that they didnt change eachothers minds. They hashed it out respectfully and laid out their case. The rest is for us as the audience to choose for ourselves. Love it.
stop being mesmerized by civility politics and the veneer of "respectful" exchanges. Ben was justifying god allowing slavery because he didn't want to disrupt the social cohesion of biblical times. Engage with the actual points these two were making rather than responding to the tone of their voices like a dog.
good lord these inane comments make no sense ben essentially justified slavery bc he doesn't have gods mind a circular rebuttal that could be applied to almost anything
The question wasn't whether God existed or not, but whether religion was good for society. In this regard, Bens arguments were far more sound and ironically grounded more in the natural-materialistic world view that Alex claimed to have. Ben actually made references to the necessary evidence, in regards to social sciences and historical contexts, that affirm his claims -Religion is necessary for a functioning society. Most of Bens point naturally undermined Alex's arguments and it seemed he mostly just spent his time in defense, in the rebuilding of his arguments and finding flaws in Bens arguments as oppose to actually answering the question. My votes on Ben.
Ben’s beliefs can really get in the way of his thinking. It was great to hear Alex use the “facts don’t care about your feelings” line to characterize Ben’s saying “we need to believe in free will” whether it in fact exists or not
I always find it illogical when religious people say in response to a question : The good thing with my religion is that there are many things you can't explain and just accept that. It is by definition being satisfied with never knowing or seeking the truth.
I've listened to a lot of Alex's philosophies. I'm an Atheist myself, however I'm one that believes in free will. His philosophies about free will have never resonated with me as being even possibly true. Maybe I'm just too low IQ to understand fully what his arguments are lol, but it honestly just does not add up
@@filiprochette7793But science does the same thing doesn’t it? For example, it is assumed that consciousness is physical/material (made up of atoms like everything else) but it can’t be measured or observed in any ”scientific way” in terms of being empirical. The scientific stance is essentially that it has to be physical, since all that can be scientifically proven to exist is observable (or deduced from physical things to necessarily exist). But, of course, scientists don’t say that consciousness doesn’t exist, just that it ”can’t be explained”.
Every child inherits a sin nature from his or her father, needing no further instruction in how to sin. The challenge for every parent is to break the child’s will, without breaking the spirit. Most atheists seem to have missed this in their upbringing.
We need more conversions like this. I've been watching Alex's UA-cam channel since his early days, and it's been an absolute privilege watching him grow up into this productive, brilliant, mature, and respectful human being willing to engage in these conversations in a civil and respectful way. And good for Ben for having this conversation in good faith. I've also been watching him for may years, and this is the version of Ben that I prefer because he isn't pandering to his audience to demonize those with opposing views.
This is the side of Ben I prefer too. Almost forgot about all the terrible things Ben has advocated for prior to this debate. It made my stomach uneasy remembering how I was initially drawn into his content because of his niceness.
@@moonandstars1677 Ya, I was a fan boy for a good while, until I realized he rarely concedes good points in arguments. Moreover, in any other debate aside from this with Alex (or Sam Harris, if you've watched those debates), his ongoing tactic is overwhelming his opponents with gish galloping and talking points to "own the libs". As smart as Ben is, I believe he's massively out of touch with his influence and importance with bridging the gap between both sides because he's benefitted on a national stage his brand of content to the far right masses.
Don't confuse respect and being respectful. I don't think Alex has a grain of respect for that clown, nevertheless he keeps his composure and respectful manner, despite Shapitos constant attempts at drowning debate in water salads.
Such an amazing conversation... It's nice to see the deconstruction of the high level ideas down to logical blocks. This really shows there's so much to think about and so much to consider in topics like these. There's so much to learn from this conversation... not only on the topic itself but on how to actually think clearly and "dance" around the ideas while being grounded by logic.
The problem is that Shapiro can explain away the illogical parts by using his 'escape hatch'. This doesn't leave much room for 'reasoned debate' when reason keeps leaving the discussion after a certain point.
Don't say deconstruction, people might just accuse you of being a postmodernist-neomarxist-woke-culture-war-social-justice-warrior. Even though most of those don't really understand what deconstruction is.
@tothespace2122 'dance' around ideas, in inverted commas implying so-called, because you're talking figuratively. You aren't quoting anyone with those quotation marks. And we'd still know without the inverted commas that you were speaking using an analogy. My comment is "grounded in logic" according to the rules of written English. 😉
I am about 50 minutes deep and as a Christian I got to admit that Alex is definitely doing an excellent job. As much as I may be biased to Ben. This is a really good discussion and both of them are fully displaying their great minds. That being said my biggest issue with this is the fact that it is only an hour and 20 minutes. Philosophical debates like these between such great minds require so much more time in order to fully explore the arguments being made and lines of thought being presented. 3 hours seems like a much more reasonable timeline which is much more respectful to the guests who clearly have much to say and flesh out with one another. This feels like an insult to be so short. Regardless I am very thankful we get at least this. Very pleasant and easily digestible!
I agree, it feels like they are forced to move off from each point before they have the chance to dig deeper and get to the bottom of it. This length is good for an interview where there is minimal pushback, but when there is this much back and forth its a little short!
The more the you are open to arguments the less religious you will get, counting on if you are honest to your self and smart enough to understand concepts
This should've been longer, but hell this was good, Alex really had the upper hand here , he is a damn brilliant mind and i hope to see more of him for years to come
@ambarlostinthewoods3080 If your computer evolved through a series of random and unguided accidents, would you trust it to give you accurate results? What about your brain? 🧠
@@boliussaWell if you really want to be a true atheist, you'd basically have to concede every debate. Because ultimately if you yourself are meaningless stardust, than what makes anything you say have any substance?
@@TheLetterJ-c8nan Atheist would respond how they are simply acting in what their will/drives desire. And to enjoy life because it is stimulating and fun. Idealism is fun to play with as it is tied to human nature, and it’s what keeps us going. Obviously if everyone thought everyday what they are doing is meaningless they will commit suicide, so they don’t bother with that and continue being hypocrites of their own material worldview
I actually don't follow. The existence of absolute moral principles does not preclude the existence of changing moral standards. For example, rape is wrong, but our understanding of what is rape has definitely changed over time. Another classic example is that chastity is good, but our standards for modest dress vary based on society.
@@bellgrand That is just trying to downplay the paradox. You cant have this perfect being and his must follow book and then be like 'well, we gotta adapt some of the things it said because we know better now.' It is matter of how being perfect is a chain that bind god. If his word only said 'dont be a dick', and OUR understanding of what being dick is changed with time that is on us. But that isnt the issue, the problem is all the clearly wrong and outdated things preached by the bible. Is why people hate the 'well, but what it meant was-' / 'But during that time...' argument by theists. They try to gaslight people. It is f'ed now, and hopefully we can all OBJECTIVELY agree it was also f'ed up then.
@@barriakarl Except that's how it has worked for thousands of years? I mean, your entire argument is a strawman because you're saying that the Bible is wrong because Jews and Christians do not interpret the Bible in the manner you do. This is despite the fact that you seem clearly hostile to the Bible to begin with. Slavery is wrong. But you do in fact see regulations in the Bible as well as a tradition taking place over thousands of years, both inside the text of the Bible and outside of it, that led to its global abolition in the Modern era. The Jews stopped practicing slavery well before then, and even Christians banned the enslavement of other Christians in the Middle Ages. The same could not be said for any other world view.
Great debate; thoroughly enjoyable and I appreciated the mutual cordiality they showed each other. I think Alex missed a gotcha moment at 20:21 when he said "I'm speaking for myself there" and Ben acquiesced. 😊
Huge respect for both of them for the courage, the eloquence and the manners by which they conducted this fascinating debate. Regardless of agreements or disagreements, their listening capabilities and their composure are truly admirable.
I hate it so much when people comment about the tones of people talking with each other. Are you a dog that can only understand the vibes of a conversation?
And of course when they're NOT face-to-face with each other, they have been known to say horribly rude things about each other's ideologies (Ben much much more so than Alex). So that adds a juicy sub-layer of kayfabe/artifice to this "nice and polite" debate. And then there's the fact that Ben is currently cheerleading the mass erasure of the Palestinian people. "Oh but Ben was so nice to that atheist he debated!". Yeah he was, but he's also a deeply amoral human being who is causing real harm in our world
Ben Shapiro repeatedly says that he can’t pretend to know the mind of god, yet he also repeatedly assumes that god has some progressive strategy to morality which explains away the clear endorsements and prescriptions for slavery. I wish Alex would have capitalized on this clear contradiction central to Ben’s claims. I know he asked Ben who was the moral relativist, but the central reason for Ben’s relativism is caused by 1. first claiming ignorance of God’s grand design and intention, and 2. then proposing and arguably attempting to defend God’s design and intention. We need a part 2.
Knowing the mind without knowing what was decreed are two different concepts. Say an omnipotent being thinks vs the omnipotent speaks. One is unknown while the other is. It also isn't about Judeo-christian religion specifically, it is about religion in general vs atheism for morality and/or society
It seems to me that we are putting more than one concept into the same basket which leads us to the Judeo-Christian religion rabbit hole, in any case, I think it has to do with knowing the cause (mindset of God) and knowing what the scripture says (decreed), which ultimately will end up in Ben arguing that time/era is a factor along with the hermeneutic. Listening to Ben makes me feel that any intent of rationalizing religion (faith) falls apart due to the fact that God, by definition, it’s what transcends us in every aspect. This is why he never defends his faith nor feelings, obviously, but facts. Personally I don’t see any utility for religion-social topic debate Alex capitalizing the moralism relativity argument as Ben never argue to impose religion on anyone (and I think Alex thought of this beforehand and didn’t keep poking in) When Ben explained Alex to offer the kid the two philosophical arguments atheist and theism and let him grow and choose, Alex says and nods agreeing from its core and also realizing a little bit more deeply Ben’s values (Ben’s faith, if you will, which is the pre course of his moral ground, therefore his values) Alex notices that the bridge they are trying to build between them, for some reason, requires a God only knows (un ironically) how much more complex engineering.
Ben doesn’t deny all capacity to understand God. Obviously, he can learn about God from the Torah. That doesn’t mean that he will know everything about God, as the Torah doesn’t reveal everything about God. There’s no hypocrisy.
alex is sooo smart, i love his reasonings. i was watching his videos 4 years ago when he was just a youtuber at home and his explanations and ways of thinking have helped me understand the world without believing in god as I was transitioning. i was scared of so many things like hell in the beginning even though i didn’t believe in it anymore, it’s common among atheists. i also felt meaningless without god before realizing a lot of things I was already doing didn’t need me to believe in god whatsoever. i was scared of a world without free will, but i realized i shouldn’t. i am much happier now and I feel free to make my own judgements without the chains of religion
The fact that both have completely different views about a crucial element of our lives and still can hold a civil conversation for an hour is giving me hope in humanity.
@@hampter8992 Yes, it should be expected. Yet you don't often see high profile societal/political commentators engaging with their peers on opposite sides of issues because they're perfectly happy sitting in their echo chambers playing it up for their audiences who they don't want to ever see weakness in their arguments and risk losing their precious clicks and views. That's the downside of modern alternative media. Just pull up a clip of something your opponent said and refute that without actually addressing the person directly and giving them a chance to clarify and counter. Then bask in those easy cheers from your fans addicted to confirmation bias. Hence, it can be refreshing for people to see this. If you find that "cringe", well, others probably feel the same way that you don't naturally understand something that simple.
Demonstrates the toxicity and hatefulness of the modern right wing that the divisive, ‘destroying’ persona of Ben Shapiro is the one which got all his followers
Ben is typically not a good faith debater. He will use every debate club trick in the book to delegitimise, denegrate and embarrass his opponents. No matter how low quality his argument is, no matter how bad faith it is, no matter what type of logical fallacy it uses. Ben's style is to command and conquer.
I think Alex was a really interesting bring for the debate, not just because of his dedication to philosophy and theology, intelligence on the subject matter and eloquence, but also because he isn't, like most atheists like me, a strict utilitarian. He brings a very unique set of positions to the debate that I really appreciate, without having to represent a "one true Atheist monolith". Also, I appreciate that Ben was actually willing to engage with the debate. Very unlike a lot of the content I've seen with him.
Is Alex arguing against free will now? Is this a position he has endorsed for a while? I find it terrifying to see religious extremists promoting that their systems are somehow more liberating than that of atheists and the atheists agreeing... what the hell happened?
@@johncaccioppo1142 He seemed to be specifically referring to free will as an amaterial concept, as in consciousness being something that can't just be described as neurological activity.
@@RasmusVJS Seems like a pointless distinction to make, except as the worst possible propaganda. After all, here he is, debating about belief... yet he's defending an idea so absurdly deconstructionist, that is fundamentally destructive to the very understanding of belief, motivation and morality... you might as well have a mime or a suicide bomber arguing for his side.
@@johncaccioppo1142 I don't see how the belief, that human decision making is a series of neurological reactions, is "fundamentally destructive". It's a fairly common and acceptable idea in atheist circles. What else would it be?
@@RasmusVJS We can accept that we cannot define consciousness without entirely dispensing of the idea. This seems like a fairly obvious point. We are composed of numerous influences, we are surrounded by limitations to our perceived ambitions. Why eliminate the player from the game with this equally amaterial yet existentially threatening concept of determinism?
Amazing debate, amazing people! All three, thank you. It may sound strange to some, but the debate made me 1) optimistic (that’s not the strange bit), and 2) religious, atheist aspiring to be religious. All religions are wrong but so have been all non-religious moral systems. One has to accept that we are wrong and that one part of the purpose of our life is to rectify our never ending wrongness. Whether evolution or God made us, we were not made perfect, we were made OKish, but there is a constant need for improvement. On an individual level, the ways to become better are various, and searching for the best way is part of the individual improvement, atheism may work for some and religion for others. On the society level though, I found Ben Shapiro’s argument more convincing. And this is where I am becoming religious - I believe that we should be looking for a modern religious system rather than removing the concept of free will and subordination to a higher meaning. The opposite proposition - negating free will by calling it "an illusion of free will", a product of evolution that simply has proven useful nevertheless it is merely an illusion - I find difficult to accept that on an individual level as well as on the level of utility for building the society for the future. I wish Ben Shapiro would be able to see that he (Judaism) is wrong just as everything and everyone else is wrong, and he would then deploy his cognitive potential to define a new moral code, a non-Judaism religion, a contemporary religion. If I was to remain the atheist, I would be an Alain de Botton kind of an atheist, somebody, who learns from religions and who gives religions credit for the wisdom in them and for the utility that they practice to put the wisdom in practice. This debate made me realize, that the lectures from religions perhaps cannot be learned, they have to be practiced. Dalai Lama suggests a post-religious or a beyond-religious moral system for the future, and it is a relatively easy move for him as Buddhism is not a theistic religion. OK, I am changing my position, the debate did not make me religious, at least not theistic, I do think that theistic religions are anachronism, but at the same time I believe that atheism does not offer an answer. I think that a few people should get together; they should start with acknowledging that they are wrong and that they want to learn from others in order to work on the basis for the future, perhaps a non-theistic religious moral system for the future. And I am going to suggest Dalai Lama, Alain de Botton, Ben Shapiro, and definitely also Ladislav Hejdanek (except he has died and he did not write in English, but that is not going to be the biggest problem for this enterprise, this should be solvable). I would like to see a physicist in the group too, and I am going to suggest Roger Penrose. One more recommendation, guys, when you get to it, make the new system fun, like serious, of course, but fun too. You will also need to employ a good storyteller in the end, Paulo Coelho or Anthony Doerr, and a promoter. Come up with a catchy name of the system and good merchandise.
@@benjaminjenkins2384 And yet...if legislative policy was discussed, thus expected from those debating, by those voting, AND it then either materialised or disappeared, we would like have a slightly more robust democracy. Surely?
This is a very low stakes conversation. When power is at stake, then the point is not to develop ideas, but to convince people to give power to you and deny to the other. Rhetoric and sophistry lend themselves as much more effective tools for that.
Cringe comment. If you have something like this then you don't have Trump. You need a personality that can win over hearts not professional people being professional. These two are so nice and professional yet they would not be able to win over a nation. People would die for Trump and other historical figures. Nobody dies for these two.
At first, I actually tought this would be one hour of full trashtalking and I can't say how surprised and delighted to see such a respectufull and constructive conversation.
Why? Debates like these especially between 2 public intellectuals normally don't spiral out of control. Both Alex O'Connor and Ben Shapiro have a very professional way of conducting themselves, I definitely wouldn't have expected this to turn into name calling... I don't know why you thought this would be unprofessional.
@@roems6396 very rarely. But again the format and understanding their personality types and emotions and human interactions in general, there was no way this was gonna turn into “namecalling“. That was completely clear to me.
@@REALdavidmiscarriage Of course, but that is largely due to Alex being completely unflappable. Ben will get angry and confrontational at times. Alex never does.
@@roems6396 Yeah I know what you mean. I also think Alex has too much respect for Shapiro to try and provoke him. Again my point was mainly how I couldn‘t have seen this turn nasty.
Actually, I witnessed quite the opposite. Seeing an Athiest point to the fact the OLD TESTEMENT mentions slavery and other sad behaviors of sinful mankind, isn't an argument against God its an indictment of man's evil nature. Clearly, Ben won the day and I couldn't help thanking our American forefathers for welcoming Jewish People! Conversely, the worst thing Germany and much of Europe did was to chase out the Jewish people! Look at Science, Technology, and Law, without the Jewish people America wouldn't be the Super Power it is today!!
@@jbsweeney1077 how is modernism dying? Also technically modernism is an art style, not a ideological viewpoint. I’d argue if anything that modern, socially progressive views have done nothing but increase in popularity, and more traditional conservatism has strengthened among its supporters, but it has lost many supporters particularly in younger generations.
Today's Survey: who's persuaded you? Let us know in the comments below 👇
Ben Shapiro, and not just because he’s hot
The bot above me.
Alex
Ben
Absolutely brilliant video, but Ben said something that nobody picked up on properly... about individual morality being inherently "dangerous" because and we need to believe that there is a higher power that will essentially punish us to act morally towards people outside of ourselves, but the only thing relevant in this instance is a higher CONSEQUENCE, not a higher power. For example, if you know not to do something because it has been established that if enough people do said thing, then bad things will follow... that's as effective as having a higher being to stop you... both boil down to consequence.
Goddamn is anyone talking about the actual content of the debate and not just how respectful it was???
There is not much to talk about it. Religion was a good instrument to keep a huge amount of uneducated people in line. You can't massacre everyone who is not following your orders (even tho it was tried) but you need something to control them. So why not doing this by creaing some immortal, almighty beeing, which is very conveneniently never showing up or inteferring.
At some point Religion did more bad than good, even still to this day.
So was it always bad? No.
Is it bad nowadays? It can be, evidentlly.
I noticed this a well. Its annoying.
@@wreck-creation Because the comments get deleted...
People aren’t used to seeing two sane people talk to each other 😂
I think debates are entertaining but pretending debates are even slightly about actually changing minds and evaluating pre-held beliefs and biases is to engage in wishful thinking and shows a failure on both sides to ask what would move me on my position.
I have recently came across “street epistemology” and while its effect is more of a slow release, a kind of ear worm that continues to grow and expand I still can not recommend it enough to people more interested in the subject of discussion than just a discussion. Anthony magnibosco has done a lot of examples of this Socratic approach to examine peoples deeply held beliefs and the reasons they have become so convinced and whether these reasons are deserving of such confidence. I think you would very much enjoy not only the discourse but the “community”/comment section as well. Everyone has moved beyond this misnomer that people cant respectfully disagree and that it might even be possible to change positions through valid and sound arguments with the correct approach.
Alex telling Ben Shapiro "Who is the moral relativist here?" when Ben was defending God's immorality was so good. Great job Alex. I am in complete awe
Saw that bait from a mile away, and Ben walked right into it
Except Ben wasn't really relativizing as he explained, and did clarify that he considered those acts as immoral. I don't hold a side in this debate but I fail to see how Alex won on that point.
@@schizophrenicenthusiast Because then Ben has to concede that a blatant immorality was permitted by God.
@@AkshatSharma-qx9wh That makes sense to me now. I hadn't made the connection that calling those acts immoral was the same as calling God immoral. Thanks.
@5m5tj5wg dismantling in what way😂😂
Imagine what our country would look like if political debate were this honest and respectful
I'm afraid the reason you cannot have such respectful and informative conversations in politics is because you have to be disrespectful to be a politician...
What country are you referring to?
@@latinomarce9912 I'm of course referring to my own country, which is India, but I think it can be true of any country...
What country are you from BTW??
I think the reasons are (1) politicians are usually debating with the goal of winning an election, so there’s too much on the line for them to be calm and rational, and (2) politicians are scum and (usually) idiots.
They are calm because not much is tied behind the results of this conversation.
Politics has the real weight of change/action for a lot of people's lives behind each sentence. So the people talking politics will inevitably have to be more invested and pushy. You have to be a sociopath to be discussing important politics with the opposite party and not get a little passionate about it when your life depends on it.
Can I just say that Alex quoting "facts don't care about your feelings" was just a masterclass line in this debate. Whole thing is enjoyable to watch, incredibly civil discussion. I find myself vacillating between these two viewpoints almost on a daily basis.
Why did God give the Indo-European Celts more truth in regard to gender equality and egalitarian attitudes. 😂 The Abrahamic religions are all false!
I like ben shapiro, in terms of personality, but that quote is something that will continue to bite him in the ass for all of time.
As a theist I really enjoyed that moment! It's amazing to hear both views and be able to see how logically one could come to either conclusion.
Really intelligent men from both sides of the spectrum presenting compelling arguments. I watch alot of Alex's content because it helps me see what makes my faith reasonable and what needs to be trimmed away as an argument. I'm thankful he doesn't deploy "gross" tactics, it allows for discussion that can help people make their own deductions without being told they are idiots for doing so.
Ben Shapiro's Gish gallop approach to rhetoric is instantly offputting as he makes several conclusive claims without any basis. It's a tired trick and nobody really has the balls to call him on it. It's called intellectual dishonesty.
@@FarmerClarence I don't know why and when he said that, but you can't just take someone's sentence and take it out of context.
This is a prime example of how to discuss with someone you disagree with. Lovely conversation!
Ben Shapiro seems to be very good at this. I can't stand his monologues or show, but he is great in conversation
Ben was leagues ahead
@@MetatronLux-pk6joWould you like to elaborate?
@@MetatronLux-pk6jothat was a strange statement he’s above what ?
@@MetatronLux-pk6jo was he? I will say Ben has good debate skills, but I feel like Alex did as well. As far as content, I side more with Alex...
"Who's the moral relativist now?" Great stuff Alex. Morality is objective until the book says something we don't like
There is nothing great about any stuff of Alex. 1 he is wrong about almost everything he says and 2 he does not believe he has a free will or choice, then it can not be Alex who is to be credited for any great stuff, but who or whatever it is which predetermined Alex to be a self-delusional self-contradicting atheist.
@@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolutionsays the bible basher! Haha
@@jasonantigua6825 I have not bashed any bibles, but you sure as hell is doing a great job trying to avoid all the points I was making because you are defensive about your druggie friend Alex pretending to be a intellectual while he is bashing what few brain cells he has haha
@@jasonantigua6825 You are delusional dude 🙄😂
@@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution 1. No, you just BELIEVE he is wrong, 2. Your conclusion is illogical. He can still be credited with it. Let me explain.
I assume you believe in god and most gods don't view animals on the same level as humans (they don't have a soul etc.) which is also to some point true biologically (human brains are indeed the most developed compared to other species). Do you believe your dog has free will in a same way as you? You probably wouldn't. But you still give your dog a name, you care for the dog (at least if you're a good person but i'm an atheist and I don't believe in objective morality so I accept that you may view it differently). let's say your dog's name is Ruby. you buy Ruby a toy and it is Ruby's toy. and look, Ruby brought you a stick that you'd thrown! well, Ruby may not have free will but you would still talk about Ruby's actions like it's this dog's actions... because 1) language. it makes sesne linguistically but 2) more importantly - they ARE the dog's actions, 'cause the dog exists (I believe the world is real while there are philosophers who don't but I feel like me and Alex are on the same boat when it comes to free will). Alex also exists. his views and what he said in this debate are a consequence of millions of connnected events, decisions and outside influences but that doesn't make what he is not him and what he says not his. just like me writing this comment right now is a result of millions of influences and choices that started from my birth and led me to this moment.
why am I writing what I am writing? why did I choose the dog analogy? what in your comment made me wanna reply even? why am I even replying to you while it's unproductive and you're probably not even going to reply? why did I even watch this video in particular? I clicked it in suggested section. but why? it had a catchy thumbnail? or because I don't like Ben shapiro ? but why was this video even suggested? because the algorithm operates based on videos I watched, liked and commented on previously. why did I watch all those videos? oh, i am interEsted in philosophy. but why am I ? and you can go like that indefinetely. the lack of free will doesn't mean you as you don't exist. it's just accepting that who you are is not entirely up to you. and while you may change, the extent of said change is also not entirely up to you. also, the difference between dogs and humans is humans have a mental capacity to recognize all this altough ignorance truly is blissful sometimes. me? the ultimate lack of purpose of my life is actually freeing. there is nothing expected of me and I choose that meaning for myself... kind of ;) more like all those pulls and pushes that made me me are choosing but still... i'm on Earth to enjoy the ride and make other people enjoy their rides more if i can
I’ll give Ben credit, he outperformed my expectations, but he still failed to adequately address the important issues around his “escape hatch” and moral relativism.
Yup
47:00 watch as Ben completely destroys his own argument, claiming the lack of knowledge is not substantial enough evidence, even though that is almost entirely his claim. There's also the fact that morals are not purely a religious thing, there are atheists who have morals, and yet they don't follow any religion. Ben kept using his statement, that atheists morality is based on Judaism and Christianity, without acknowledging that societies and cultures exchange ideas all the time depending on social needs and wants. It's suggesting that without religion there would be no morals...wich I believe is incorrect, as society would still evolve as a concise unit as long as they share the same goals, such as building a society. Those goals do not have to have religious purpose, he is undermining the intelligence and determination of the people who aren't religious. Though this is just my point of view...feel free to share any thoughts on my comment! Have a great day!
I may be erroneous in my assumption of your beliefs surrounding the "escape hatch", but my argument predicates on it so I will make it regardless and it's that it appears as though you are over-trivializing the significance of the "escape hatch" and it's deeper meaning. The pursuit of truth, which is why this video is being made in the first place, is a fundamental tenet of religion. Ben Shapiro not knowing certain things surrounding the ultimate truths of life is natural and not simply a mechanism to avoid having to address the issue. People laugh at Jordan Peterson for example for not being able to answer certain questions surrounding religion, however this is foolish for the reason that what religious figures literally do is search for the answers as opposed to finding them. If we had the complete answer, then this video would be unnecessary.
@@immortal6451 There appears to be a couple of errors with this point of view although I may be false. The first is that you say that atheist's morality isn't based on Judaism and Christianity for the reason that, "societies and cultures exchange ideas all the time depending on social needs and wants", but this doesn't refute the point but rather provides the mechanism as to how this occurs. The other issue is that you seem to delineate the idea of "building a society" from a "religious purpose", but the issue is that building a society may have religious underpinnings in itself like for example through the idea of "divine order" or the "ten commandments" in which a "society" is meant to mold around.
@@immortal6451 You don't have to believe it's incorrect. It's fact. We have morals even without religion.
I wish I could be as eloquent in creating a cogent argument like Alex.
you can, read the books, watch the debates and form your arguments. the knowledge is there for you to take
Why did God give the Indo-European Celts more truth in regard to gender equality and egalitarian attitudes. 😂 The Abrahamic religions are all false!
@@bigrick3267I couldn't agree more. Time and research go a long way when it comes to forming effective arguments.
@@bigrick3267Debating chatgpt as a exercise would also work lol. It would challenge your critical thinking as well and those books.
But Alex is not eloquent. What is your objective standard to say he is eloquent?
This is the calmest I’ve seen Ben in a debate.
Cause he's not debating kids who have no experience in debate and no prep work. While he's got every conservative talking zpoint ready to go.
@@jttj742That’s not what a going on at all. Stop. People are humbled to get to talk to others on the same level. Alex was very much on guard at the beginning to see what type of liar Ben was….and then Ben said something(something about understanding the mind of God)that completely disarmed him and made him realize he was talking to someone in his level and could have a actual conversation. Because generale thats all people really want. To be understand and have connection. And it’s a wonderful thing to find people that you can talk to on your level.
@@colingundel8779College students are not kids. They are adults, and their age is not an excuse for their terrible reasoning ability. They are the next generation, soon they'll be in offices, positions of power. They BETTER have someone to initiate discussion and critical thinking.
When he isn't against a college student, he is cooked
@@tubsy.The issue is that Ben goes to these colleges with the knowledge of their philosophical inadequacies and exploits that through “gotcha” moments. They are adults who should know better, but “winning” a debate against them is not a good demonstration for the truth of your claims. A discussion like this is a much more rigorous and intellectually honest format
Alex definitely caught Ben in a twist over the slavery issue. Good format and conduct and I would love to see them do this again soon.
Indeed, I also give props to Ben getting Alex to admit there is no free will is nihilism and I think is the strongest pivot point for the argument
So what if there is no free will?
@@sirg_kconsidering that Alex was arguing that there is no free will that's not much of an accomplishment for Ben.
Ben: GOD CREATED THE EARTH IN 7 DAYS AND IS AN ALL POWERFUL BEING!
Also Ben: GoD DiDnT WaNt To CaUsE SoCiAL DiScoHeSiOn By StoPpInG SlaVeRy
There you have it folks. Ben Shapiro considers God to be immoral.
I massively appreciate the calm, intelligent, and respectful way that both Alex and Ben conducted this debate.
After all of the polarisation we’ve seen in media recently, I’d almost forgotten how a civilised, intellectual debate actually looks like.
Well done. I hope to see more of this in the future.
I'm not very scholarly but I do agree with your observations. Respect is the best way for good communication, no matter what the subject is.
Peace to you from Florida USA
The problem is, respectful intelligent discourse doesn't get as many views or attention as the inflammatory shouting and name calling. So the media will always prefer making and showing more of that content
@@shaneebahera8566 330,000 views in 2days disagrees with you.
Remind me again, who made a career out of reducing debates to "roasting SJWs, thug life destroying feminists, drinking liberal's tears etc." ?? Oh yeah that was Ben shapiro. This person literally became famous FOR turning debates into mockeries. He literally sold branded merch mugs with "liberal tears" written on them. He helped deteriorate the state of internet debates. Reducing everything to "owning, destroying, wrecking" his college age opponents.
@@I.Reckon Some of Ben's commentary on "wokeness" and other political stance get millions of views in days. If it bleed, it leads. Compare to an hour long debate, algorithm much prefer a 5-10 minute video as there's a higher likelihood that people will click and play the video.
I’m disappointed that Alex didn’t point out that absence of free will doesn’t mean that conscious decisions don’t happen.
What do you think the definition of "free will" is?
Yeah. I to am concerned that people are debating things with no definition. It seems to turn intellectual discource into mental mastubation.
He did quote “you’re free to do what you will, just not will what you will.” But yeah, could have used some reinforcement
He didn't point it out because Ben would have been 2 steps ahead of him in asking to define what consciousness comes from.
@@Reignor99 I'm not sure that's the reason. And I also don't think that question is particularly hard to answer - at least in terms of providing plausible options that don't involve God.
Alex is truly one of the great atheist thinkers of our generation. Not only is he brilliant and well studied, but he's so emotionally collected. Just an absolute pleasure to watch.
But unfortunately, he has an incorrect and Catholic view of Scripture.
I'm a Christian believer and I agree with your observations about Alex.
Peace to you from Florida USA
@xpsm249 subjective. Christianity is overloaded with tens of thousands of denominations, sects, splinter groups, you name it. And they all disagree with one another on at least one doctrine or another. So you calling him "incorrect" doesn't mean much.
@@xpsm249according to 99% of other Christian, your view of Christianity is probably wrong as well.
He is better than most, I'll agree. Still falls victim to the same issues of atheism, namely appeal to nhilism, and the failings of moral realitivism
Boy, it's amazing to hear Ben pretty much completely walk back his justification of Biblical slavery since his discussion of it with Jordan Peterson. How his two positions on the subject are even remotely reconcilable is beyond me. And that is the beauty of having to sit across from someone who's not already on your side. We need more of this and not less.
What was his position before?
Right, someone like Frank Turek or Paul Copan has better positions on Biblical slavery, concerning the OLD law, in the OLD testament, which is no longer a thing for Hebrews, and never was a thing for Christians.
@@Volmire1maybe you missed the part where Jesus said to keep the old law. It's in the sermon on the mount.
@@youtubespag He actually didn't say to keep the old law forever. I'm pretty sure you're referring to "17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill (Gr. Plerosai).
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled"
Quite right, the fulfillment of something means its completion. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, covering all sin, and fulfilling the law.
"Romans 8:3-4:
3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,
4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Romans 10:4 for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith."
The law was fulfilled and we are not under it, nor were we, as Christians ever under the law.
@@youtubespagUnfortunately, they also missed the most recent events of slavery in history where slave owners would read certain parts of the bible to their slaves in order to keep them as... well.. slaves.
The way alex is always calm and sincere seems to be infectious. It seems most of his debates encourages his opponent to take an equal calm and sincere stance. With an exception to Peter H in his interview lol
Yeah. That was a shit show. I felt sorry for Alex. He really seemed to want a good conversation with him
lol yeah, I also thought about that... I think the truth is that Hitchens is a way weaker debater with a much bigger ego, that's why he got so angry.
@@karion99My take on that interview is that Hitchens felt "caught-out" ("if I knew you were going to talk about the Portuguese drug paradise, I would have..." and then had to default to the position that Alex had "brought [him] on false pretenses and behaved badly." Am glad Alex posted it, at any rate.
Still, Alex lost the first point fairly decisively, and he knew it. Alex got too caught up in making the point on free will's existence, while Ben stayed focused on the actual topic, which is "Is religion good or bad for society" and was able to make the point "You can't build a functioning society off telling everyone they have no choices".
Alex understood this, I think, which is why he interrupted the host at the end to ask "If what Ben says is true, who's believing the delusion." The issue is, Alex just walked straight into sociology spanning from Socrates to Luckmann. I wish Ben had known more about the sociology of societal formation, because it would have been good to test Alex's claim against Socrates's noble law and modern-day constructivism.
@@angusmcculloch6653 the free will discussion is essential for whether religion is good for society. Its a shame the host made them move on before they could get into details. But ultimately alex still made his points while pointing out the flaws in bens argument.
Im not sure ben really touched the topic of if religion is good for society, but his arguments in this discussion didnt seem as thought out as alexs.
As an atheist/agnostic, Ben's suggestion about how to raise your kids is exactly what I do. "I don't know, you'll have to make your own mind up." This is also how my parents raised me when I asked them. And it is the same for all my non-believing friends.
I wonder how many religious parents give THEIR kids both sides of the story, or leave it entirely up to their children to form their own views.
This is what I will do I am a very strong Eastern Orthodox, will slowly teach them all the arguments for and against and also bring them ti charitable activities so if they stay Eastern Orthodox Christian they will actually be a good one
I fell away from my Catholic upbringing around 6th grade after I was told that my "God given" free will would not allow me to choose my own path and that my non-believing best friend was destined for hell unless he got baptized. 35 years later my wife and I decided to send our unbaptized boys to a progressive Catholic school so that they at least get exposed to a moral groundwork with minimal religious indoctrination-(since that was all we knew), then let them decide.
So insted of trying to understand wat you were told you threw a fit and got depressed for 30 years? I wouldn't be proud of that
@@voraxe3032 when did he say he got upset? Prove Hell exist first
Finally a good debate, where there is mutual respect and no one speaks above the other. They should always be like this.
In a perfect world, moderation would enforce this, but it's nice seeing people who don't even need it.
@@bitcoinweasel9274 In fact, I'm too much idealist.
Respect is a strong word, I would say, courteous or considerit. They did politely acknowledge to each other that they would consider the other delusional. Rightfully so... Ben is talking with an imaginary ancestors imaginary friend for guidance in his life. The only way to reach someone who is that lost in their delusional beliefs is through calm, rational conversation. Would not want a fight to the death with them, as Alex pointed out.
@@Donetravlincourteous and considerate describe respect. So they were respectful of one another.
Calling each other delusional was qualified by each,
in describing the ways one can be delusional. therefore to be delusional just means that they don’t agree on what is there. They believe the other is under a delusion. How can it be otherwise between someone of faith and the other of limited fact.
@stephenl9463 being respectful and respecting or having respect for a position is two different things, especially in a situation where you do not respect their position, yet you will be respectful while you converse with them Ben doesn't have any grounds to consider Alex delusional & that is why Alex was phenomenal at being respectful which will increase the chances of getting through the self absorbed brainwashing & cult indoctrination Ben has puts himself through.
The crossover no one knew was needed. It's such a High-quality debate. If only all debates were like this.
The problem with this debate is that it never mentions anything about the miracle birth of Jesus Christ or what Jesus teaches and it was Jesus who said all these things shall be fulfilled. So, they still are going on today.
@@jasonmartin7711Ben is a Jew. That's why they didn't talk about Jesus.
@@jasonmartin7711Ben is a Jew and O Connor is an atheist. The discussion was never going to be about Jesus.
@@jeremiah6540
That's just Ben being Ben, he can't help himself. It's his spiel, his stock-in-trade method of engaging in debates. He does it all the time.
@@bernardobila4336was is not about religion?
I actually didn't hate Shapiro as much as I though I would. He didnt convince me on anything but he gave food for thought and actually made some interesting points. I went into this debate thinking "Go Alex" but thank you to both participants for once again teaching me to value reason and logic for the beauty of logics sake over tribalism and cheerleading.
Ben and as another example Peterson are both intelligent, there's no question.
They just each have a few very questionable beliefs and their otherwise eloquent logic makes it easy for people to fall prey to these more extreme arguments.
i dislike Ben almost as much as another human can dislike another human, BUT i agree with you. i came into this with the foreknowledge that was going to hate everything Ben said, and was completely taken aback by some of his statements and his congeniality in this debate. was happy to be wrong. that said, i still do NOT like this man!
@@jeffwatson7345 completely agree. I'm just happy this debate again broadened my horizons and gave me plenty of food for thought. And while Ben presented himself surprisingly admirable here unless he actually gets his mind changed by Alex on a couple of very key points of his philosophy... I don't see myself liking him anytime soon.
You didn't hate him as much as you thought you would? What does this even mean? From what I take from it is that you have a preconceived view of Ben from your peers. Open your own eyes.
Ben is incredibly intelligent and full of interesting ideas outside his low-hanging-fruit political day job, nice to see others capable of recognising this and not just shutting his words out because he's said things you disagree with.
Excellent debate. Good to see people with completely different point of views being able PROPERLY and RESPECTFULLY express, defend, and listen
This should be used as an example of how contestants in a debate should behave. Their clear mutual respect along with their well-defined positions makes this one of the most informative debates I've seen. Well done!
MAGA don't listen to anything but slogans. How do we fix the problem if we can't even get 1 sentence deep? But yes, good debate.
MAGA and BLM/Woke listen to reason equally, which is to say not at all. Both of them should be gone from political discussions, because it is just all feelings based.
@anheuser-busch MAGA and BLM are not the same in societal destructiveness. MAGA wants to save America as founded, while BLM wants its destruction. Comparing the two is indicative of a lack of understanding and shallow analysis of each.
Fruit loops deserve nothing. Otherwise it legitimises absolute nutcases.
@@anheuser-buschbro did you just equate a global protest movement - one of the biggest in human history, to random MAGA conspiracy theorists? And then equate that to “woke”? Do you have a definition of woke that isnt just “things i dont like”? This is mental illness.
I did not expect ben to basically admit that free will might not exist but rather that its better to live as if it does. This was shocking to watch. Definitely a testament to just how good Alex is. Also a demonstration that ben is at least honest enough to acknowledge the truth of good arguments. Most pundits can’t manage that.
Ben and Alex shared the opinion that operating under the impression that free will exists benefits humans, regardless of whether its true or not. Ben furthered his point by stating that free will can only exist under theism, and Alex stated that free will developed as a delusion in the human mind, because it's beneficial for us to operate as if it exists.
It’s of course possible I misunderstand what he’s saying, but at 21:16 Ben says a couple times some version of Its possible/plausible that free will doesn’t exist, but that society is better as a result of people believing free will exists. I’ve watched several of bens debates on free will, for example against sam Harris who has a similar view to Alex, but I’m pretty sure I’ve never heard ben concede this point. Maybe I missed it.
SHapiro mostly does not acknowledge others arguments if they go against his own views though. There is a reason why there are videoes of him teaching conservatives how to win arguments and tells them to not use facts and attack the person doing the arguments instead.
I don't think he would be so honest on another platform. It is refreshing to see him, I never realized he was actually smart.
@dakotacarpenter7702 he got escorted into moral relativism and he didn't even realize it until he did. You can see it on his face. Sure the guy is not an idiot but he ain't smert like Alex is smert.
Nice to see Alex leveling up from not losing his cool while talking to Piers Morgan to not losing his cool while talking to Ben Shapiro.
Not really.. piers morgan is definitely more of a pain in the ass
I dont find ben shapiro a pain at all.. hes very controlled and polite
@@Jay-pe4gx that may be so, but I for one hate with a passion the way he gish-gallops. I would not be able to keep cool when discussing with him, I'd constantly be like "yo yo, hold up, let's discuss this before you change the subject".
Yeah the alien robots who predetermined his cool, did a great job in determining that he should level up his mannerism, while still sounding like a total idiot 😆
@@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolutionwhat
@@mihaitha I noticed that too it cringes me tf out ! like hey isn’t this an intellectual debate ? Not to mention he kept interrupting Alex here 😒
I’m a theist who loves watching Alex content. I love the respect he gives to his opponents and I can actually watch and learn his content
Its like saying I am mentally disabled but I love hearing to my psychiatrist even tho I want to stay disabled and won't agree to his suggestions
@@idkwhattodo7170humans are made to believe in something outside ourselves. Besides if being theist is being disable then it’s the norm? But I thought disabilities were outside of the normal station of beings. So who really is the disabled. Besides without the morals of religions the world wouldn’t even function everything would be subjective allowing people to do whatever whenever:/
@@idkwhattodo7170Not the same at all, but if you aren’t intelligent enough to understand that theistic convictions are not comparable to a mental illness, just say that.
The existence of God has been debated over for thousands upon thousands of years, with compelling arguments being made on both sides. Only a bitter and intentionally reductivist person would make such a comparison. I hope you see the error of your ways some day.
One of the greatest debates I’ve ever seen. The respect, the intelligence, the actually responding to what the other person said…. Beautiful
Ben goat
Yeah just kind of proves the point that Ben just enjoys watching people suffer me know because like 99% of the time he's just misrepresenting concepts and other peoples arguments as a means to push the idea of hierarchies in unjustifiable decisions that ultimately lead to more problems in the world but here he demonstrates that he actually does have the ability to learn. And I guarantee tomorrow Ben's gonna be right back to the same old stuff and probably buy some wood to prove he's a man and burn some Barbie dolls or something.
Ben really isn’t very intelligent tbh. He’s a dishonest hack
These religious debates just bore me now. To summarize ‘I believe in god but know I can’t prove he exists but you can’t prove he doesn’t so he must exist’. Knowing that it’s impossible to prove a negative. I ask you this if I said there’s a fairy living in my room, and you said I don’t believe you, who would the burden of proof lie with?
Read the title conversation again. The existence of god was not the main topic of conversation.@@gibbolsc
If Gallileo were an outspoken atheist, there'd be nothing left of him other than a footnote to him having been put to death for heresy. Doesn't mean he was an Atheist. Just means if he were, he wouldn't even be known in his own family.
That’s the part Ben Shapiro is maybe pretending he doesn’t understand?
Reminds me of the sales lady I worked with in Salt Lake City, 1990, that said she didn’t know any gay people… It wasn’t that long ago that atheist had to hide in the closet. In some Islamic nations they still do.
precisely
I disagree.
There’s a modern versions of this. I remember standing in my office in Salt Lake City in 1990 and a young sales woman telling everybody she didn’t know any gay people. I’m sure she thinks she didn’t, she just didn’t realize that in her culture gays had to hide. Out of the nightmare of the AIDS decade came one positive thing, to the detriment of evangelical Christians, it showed the world just how many gay people there were and how they didn’t fit the stereotypes that evangelicals had created. For example Rock Hudson.
He could have secretly been atheist, or secretly question his faith. period.
I definitely think Alex was more convincing, but I was pleasantly surprised by how nice and smart Ben was. It's a massive difference from his political work which I honestly find deeply problematic. Anyways, keep these conversations going. They really do a great job in combating further polarisation.
Genocide advocacy and Apartheid defence is more than a little problematic
Ben plays nice when he knows he cant win. Guy is a coward. This is the person who got famous for "pwning" college students over the lowest hanging fruit of political issues.
@@jamesgains8652genocide? And apartheid? Where?
i get you, hitler was the same.
@@jamesgains8652 Well I did say *deeply* problematic. I agree with you.
I think we try to simplify, and choose a side, because it's easier than choosing both.
I kinda choose both. I just don't view religion in such a strick manner. But something bigger than us or something more after death may exist. Doenst have to be God and the heavens tho. Maybe just a change of state in our energy being passed on to another dimension? Idk. That's the thing! Idk! No one does. But physics says energy can not be created nor destroyed. And our being is composed of energy. Our thoughts are energy. Our consciousness is literally electrical energy being pased over our rural networks. So literally our consciousness is a tangible thing. It's enegy. It exists. But that doensy mean it will remain as consciousness. It may very well just be passed on and spread throughout the universe in whatever many forms it takes as it transitions from being us to being just energy again?
🤷♂️
This should've been 4 or 5 hours long. Really great content. Please have another round with these two. I'd pay money. Or like...compliments.
Watch it on 0.25x speed. You’re welcome.
@@DelBoy573lol
@@DelBoy573 Ben starts to sound normal
@@DelBoy573ha, well played
Yoo simp!!
I wonder how many times Alex practiced saying, " Facts don't care about your feelings." In the mirror while preparing for this discussion.
at least it was used perfectly in response to ben being ironic
@@77jaykb The practice paid off.
Enough to nail it when the time came 😂
😂😂😂
using a hypocrite's quote against himself.👌
I think this conversation was brilliant because it stepped away from the typical religious discussions which almost exclusively hinge on whether god does or does not exist. This highlights the functionality of religion in society irrespective of whether or not it is true, which is a very refreshing question to hear discussed.
In that case, watch Hitchens & Fry on “Is religion a force for good?” debate.
If it functions it must carry truth, it’s the principle that governs scientific research!
@martanieradka4675 If that was true then the most effective politicians would be honest. There’s a study that shows that if you talk to a person whose views are fundamentally incompatible with yours, then usually both of you will leave the conversation with more extreme beliefs. However, if you pretend to hold the other persons beliefs and frame your arguments as doubts that you are having, then you are much more likely to convince them. Lies and manipulation can be functional.
I guess despite religion's unverifiable claims and inconsistencies, something that survived a millennium or two must surely have something positive to contribute.
I think the "existence of God" debate is central. Jordan Peterson shies away from this with his word salad and never acknowledges if the events in the Bible are true, he drones on about the "meta".
Ben has perfected the art of failing to simply answer a straightforward question by saying a lot of complicated phrases at 1.5x speed.
Slow it down to .75x and try to make out a coherent thought or sentence
This is ridiculous that this debate was so calm. This is in no way how a debate should be ran. They should be yelling at each other, calling each other names, mocking and not letting each other speak. Ridiculous!!!
I can’t believe this conversition was meaningful! Downright despicable 😠
That would be a Trump non-debate you want to watch!🤣🤣🤣
I think you need a snickers
U will have it with Mohammed hijab
It is not necessary, seemed that u watch it for not learning
Two guys who care about making each other's arguments better. This is so rare.
Mmmm…that’s giving ben more credit then he deserves. He has an image to protect
Props to Andy, he was mostly silent but he was always on hand to provide a laugh or two. Loved the guy
But by his worldview he doesn't deserve any props, because he is only there because its biologically predetermined to be there. So he deserves no credit, afterall he is a machine born of evolution in his worldview. Do you not realize that if what he is saying is correct then he shouldn't be praised because everything he says is predetermined.
@@jasonthomas9319shut up
@@jasonthomas9319 you could say praise be to god for making him the way he did so that he would want to make this show. Guess theists have no free will because god made them the way he did and knows everything, so he knew what they would do and when. You can only choose to do what god knew you would do. Think about that.
Andy was fantastic!
in the opening he gave so much prattling and caveating as to be worrying, especially given how little time was allotted for this debate. Glad it did not continue.
I have watched hundreds of debates between religion and secularism. And this in my opinion was one of the best. Kudos to both gentlemen!
Do you have any debates to recommend? Cheers:)
I absolutely love debates on this level. High quality arguments exchanged in a civil manner. This channel is about to blow up. You're doing an amazing work!
I would have enjoyed to disassemble Bens opening my self, and i am not an atheist, i am agnostic.
The relevance of a god in a belief system is totally overrated. Just a humble view over to China, the one civilisation that has outlasted so many others and is still very present on this planet, larger in numbers than the US and Europe combined, is not falling apart because of the lack of a monotheistic figure everyone can pray to. Whether one likes it or not, you can also put a photo of the great leader of the communist party onto your wall and be content with someone watching all your actions and provide judgement... And that is not even a joke, its true, but the irony though is still hilarious.
Is this the atheist guy who beat mohammed Hijab in a debate so hijab proceeded to edit the video online and ban comments?
@@madrooky1398agno gang represent
@@madrooky1398that such a horrible comparison. China had an exchange of dynasties through history and they were locked out of the rest of the world for the most part and millions of their people were killed by their own leaders (Mao). The idea of “contentment” is internally validated not externally by a authoritarian human
‘high quality’
Great to see two people who essentially “agree to disagree” debate. It’s nice to see these friendly, non-aggressive and respectful debates.
Yes! It’s such a rare thing, unfortunately, because these guys are exceptions on different levels. IQ and experience with debate mainly, causing them to be able to take a higher perspective of thinking. Zero judgment from either side and either side sincerely listening to understand instead of listening to respond.
It is easy on something that can't be trivially proven either way as long as both sides are reasonable.
What a shame Shapiro has undoubtedly played his part contributing to the flame war that is discourse today. He behaved himself here because he realised doing what he normally does would result in a disaster.
this is such an American thing to say, like having a ORDINARY conversation is EXTRAORDINARY in your world, which is sad.
@@GinoNL what? Ben Shapiro is constantly dogding the questions and does not engage at all with arguments from Alex
The way that they were able to immediately compartmentalize eachothers aeguments, think it out, and then provide a reponse is lightning fast! Some very high functioning minds here. So fun to have watched them interact!
One high functioning mind and it's not Ben.
@@cegesh1459stop it, they both are.
The ability for these men to have a respectful conversation is both refreshing and wildly surprising
This was great, not just a tiktok brained debate where "geniuses" are trying to DESTROY each other. Love both, and hope more actual debates like this happen.
Tik tok debators are basically all hasan clones 💀
That's because Ben Shapiro is in a room surrounded by people who follow him arguing against teenagers. We're just trying to like make the world a better place. I'm guarantee if Ben was talking to another adult who is clearly smarter than him with good faith, education and knowledge he would be doing exactly what you say trying to destroy him with rhetoric instead of warming reasonable argument.
@dannyraygun That's just not true, and I know it's not cause I watch him too throughout the years. He's had many hard conversations with great people, including the likes of Sam Harris, Niel deGrasse, etc. The format and aggression with babies who try to make him look like a bad guy vs actual hour long conversations and debates will always look different. He's been debating intellectuals long before Alex has, not taking away from Alex cause he did great and is growing more and more. With that being said, that's a horrible way of putting it.
@@psyphile1330 pretty much.
Alex was acting like "a genius" trying to "destroy" Ben though
I don’t know why but I find it incredibly charming that Ben and to a lesser extent Alex were occasionally chuckling throughout the video. I love conversations that are so civil that both sides can joke *with* each other rather than agains them.
I agree, the humanity is appealing.
If only Ben could show that kind of good nature in a context where he isn't staring total intellectual oblivion in the face. Compare the content that Ben puts out vs. the content that Alex puts out. One of these guys is actually nice, one of them is a pigheaded dickweek, I'm kind of appalled that Ben gets to pass himself off as civil.
I think they were chuckling knowing they are debating questions with no knowable answers, and how mixtures of both points of view is reasonable and equally valid. Considering they are unknowable and non-deterministic.
Ben Shapiro always makes me check that I'm not listening to UA-cam on double speed
unfortunately a lot of people think he propensity to "speak quickly" is indicative of intelligence. Its actually just to aid his gish gallop where he throws out too many claims for you to debunk and as you spend minutes just trying to refute one wrong thing he said, it leaves the other 5 wrong things to linger in the minds of the listener.
@@LB-yg2br Oh, what a load of rubbish. Some people just talk faster than others. Get over it.
@@MLior311 Some people do speak more quickly than others, but I have watched Ben Shapiro and having studied formal logic I see how he engages in gish gallops. He throws out claims like "facts don't care about your feelings" but then goes on to argue his feelings with a few scanty facts and interlocutors are unable to untangle the web of fallacies that he knits. If he spoke more slowly, it would be easier to catch his BS. Maybe he doesn't do it on purpose, but he definitely does it. Sorry to you if you thought he was genuinely an intellectual with a 10 pound brain. Notice how much slower he is talking here vs his normal cadence of his cant.
@@MLior311some people do, but Ben ABSOLUTELY uses gish-gallop tactics to sound like he's making a profound point, while saying very little of substance.
I did watch him on double speed🤣
I like how Ben runs like hell from the question of converting people to Atheism or Islam.
This is so amazing. Only problem with it is that it wasn't long enough, none of the topics were given the time they really deserve
Agree
Such a refreshing conversation to listen to. This is a proper way to have a discussion around important/interesting matters, not the drivel Piers Morgan puts out as a "debate" with the solo purpose to produce short viral clips. Thank you Alex and Ben
If I had a penny for every time Piers Morgan finds a way to bring up his opposition of the Iraq war...
funny enough both Alex and Ben have talked to the great Interruptor himself
Amazing debate. I wish everyone could just have calm debates like this.
Why tf are u watching drybones the zionist then lol
Yes, this is good stuff.
The big conversation ( and he kind ) Andy Kind is the winner of the debate .I love the entire show, and both guests are inspirationally , delightfully,energizing,for me,and my continued, well being.
If only american politics could conduct themselves in such a respectful and genuine way. Truly a beautiful example of how most political and philosophical disagreements should be done.
American politicians appeal to american voters unfortunately and I don't think the majority of the population in any country is substantially different.
this sentence is making my brain melt
These two gentlemen are talking to intellingent people. Politicians talk to masses of people most of which are very mediocre.
@@TheInfectoussome American politicians lie to Americans. To their face, on camera. For 50 years in a row.
Define religion.
The aims of religion?
I.e. love your neighbor and love you enemies.
Or the failures of religion?
Pedophile rings in sovereign churches.
26 minutes in, and I thoroughly enjoy this discussion. They seem to not be taking past each other but actually interfacing with eachother's commentary. Refreshing to witness.
This is what the world used to be like until recent years.
@@misimiki i dont know if thats true. My assumption would be that its always been this way in a similar capacity. Only now we have a much larger amount of access to those more ugly interactions
@@deanought3695overall, social media (and much of the internet in general) perpetuates echo chambers of people’s existing opinions and world view and promotes intolerance to accept or collaborate with opposing ideas imo. Definitely more prevalent nowadays in my observations. Would be an interesting debate topic on it’s own though
@@jmd489 yeah, I'd like to see that debate. I imagine that one side might make an argument for historical communities that act like echo chambers due to little information getting in. I'm speculating of course. It may be the case that echo chambers are more prevalent now. It's so hard for us to tell exactly how it used to be in the past. I personally get tired of 'the good ole day's sentiment'. I never buy it outright. People usually refer to their childhood, or a generation ago thinking that this or that used to be better. I find most claims too hard to quantify
Really solid debate. Interesting to see Ben Shapiro debate someone who’s actually intelligent.
Also really nice how both were very respectful of each other (something rare to see today)
“Respectful of each other”
NOPE!! TRY AGAIN!! That’s just laughable. Sorry but “RESPECT” requires a conscious agent/freewill and choice, that is rationality itself? But as “Mr Sceptic” of the elite university of Oxford helpfully pointed out freewill and choice, that is “RESPECT” and “MORALITY” is nothing more substantive than a delusion under this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism. Sorry but it’s self refuting as its truth implies it’s falsity and it clearly undermines morality and rationality itself!!
Let’s just think about it rationally for a second. Because the fact is that under this strictly reductive, casually closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction “Mr Cosmic Sceptic” the conscious agent does not even exist???
Equally, “COSMIC SCEPTIC” never actually had over 70 million people “rationally” choose to view his arguments that freewill and choice doesn’t even exist because according to cosmic sceptics standard of “logic” conscious agents/freewill, that is RATIONALITY ITSELF does not even exist.
Just hold that thought for second. Just keep holding that thought? Sorry you can’t hold that thought can you? Not even for a second because you apparently aren’t responsible and have no freewill or choice?
According to this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction….
“People who rape and murder children are not responsible or accountable for their actions as they are not a conscious agent??? that is they don’t have freewill or choice”???
Glad we cleared that one up!!
And they mock other peoples beliefs!!
Yeah not dogmatic at all and perfectly “safe” and “sane” and perfectly “moral” and makes perfect sense!! About as much “sense” as bothering to turn up at a debate you had no freewill and choice about!!
Well i hope that all you APEISTS are enjoying the delusion because your sense of the “SELF” including your constant very ironic claims to the “MORAL” and “RATIONAL” high ground are now officially nothing more substantive than an ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS ILLUSION.
That is nothing more substantive than determined brain chemicals, that is nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda accidentally bubbling over. The BRAINS ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS USER ILLUSION OF SELF, that is nothing more substantive than SIRI ON STEROIDS!!
Nothing more substantive than an ultimately MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL MACHINE, a determined chemical and biological robot on steroids!! Just brain chemicals, an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur, that is an ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE on steroids with the illusion of the “MORAL” and “RATIONAL” high ground LOL!! It beggars belief that anyone could subscribe to this total and utter b…sht!!
It is clearly a blue haired, Oxford graduate, that is left wing elitist apologetic for paedophiles and child murderers!!
Definition of APEISM…
“HOLLOW AND ULTIMATELY SOULLESS APE MAGICALLY HAVE VALUE BECAUSE HOLLOW AND ULTIMATELY SOULLESS DETERMINED APE SAY ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE HAVE VALUE .” [Atheism/Nihilism].
Definition of Apeism/nihilism….
“ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL ASSISTANT SIRI HAVE MAGICAL VALUE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL ASSISTANT SIRI SAY ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL ASSISTANT SIRI HAVE VALUE” [Apeism].
Am i close?
Am I close or “a long way to go” LOL? I’d bet my sanity and my life that I am pretty spot on there with those definitions of APEISM!! Atheism/Nihilism in a nutshell.
I rest my case!!
“Respectfully” this is actually Mr “COSMIC SCEPTIC” hand picked from the elite university of Oxford’s “best” graduates. And basically his best argument was the self refuting claim that we can’t see into the minds of the plethora of self professed Judeo Christian scientists including the plethora of Judeo Christians who were actually the heroes of the civil rights movement such as Dr Martin Luther king JR who was actually an ordained Christian pastor who was assassinated for peaceful protest? Therefore they may have been atheists?
We can’t see into the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless determined motion of brain chemicals, that is we can’t see into the minds that don’t actually exist in the first place under this strictly reductive, causally closed atheist, nihilistic fan fiction because the conscious agent/freewill that is rationality itself does not even exist?? It’s illusory???
Yeah makes great sense!!
And they mock other people’s beliefs!!
We can’t see into the mind of the brilliant Rabbi Johnathan Sacks who worked tirelessly to prevent another genocide against Jews and prevent genocide against all races through intercultural dialogue!! Therefore he may have been an atheist. Equally, we can’t see into the mind of Anne Frank? Therefore religious expression is evil and dangerous??? We can’t see into peoples minds therefore atheism, that is therefore fatalism and epistemological nihilism is coherent and true??? This is an unbelievably weak argument and a red herring, an irrelevancy fallacy, and a total and utter non sequitur!!
We can’t see in the minds of all the heroes of the civil rights movement such William Wilberforce and Rosa Parks who were also self professed Christians right? The numerous people who campaigned and died for human rights during Liberation Theology Ok? We can’t see directly into their minds right? So they may have been atheists??? Does that mean that self professed atheists everywhere who do good things could secretly have been Judeo Christians because we can’t see into their determined brain/mind either ?
Using the same “logic” this means that all the self professed Christians from the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts and all the Muslim terrorists could secretly have been atheists in disguise? That is a wolf in sheep’s clothing!! Therefore Judeo Christianity is True by default, that is therefore the fundamental nature of mind/consciousness/The One/Monotheism/Conscious agents/freewill, that is rationality itself is True by default!! Because we can’t see into everyone’s mind right?
This is just laughable and is clearly an unbelievably weak argument. Is this actually the best that the elite from Oxford university can produce to deconstruct faith???
We can’t see into the mind of the plethora of Judeo Christian scientists and the plethora of monotheists who did good things for human rights and actually even formulated the scientific method itself, and even analytical philosophy making amazing break throughs in logic and mathematics. We can’t see into their minds therefore determinism/atheism rules? That is therefore fatalism and epistemological nihilism rules???
Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally nihilistic, totally fatalistic and totally and utterly self refuting!!
You must never watch Ben’s Sunday special because he’s had very in depth conversations with many intelligent scholars from Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or William Lane Craig. It’s really not too much different than this discussion
@@Jaryismyou saying that these crackpots are no different to O'Connor? that's insane idea
@@Jaryism I have not seen any of those debates, but I’ll be sure to check them out
"Who's the moral relativist now?" Ate✨
How about the moderator doing his job practically perfectly! Stayed out of the way but also stepped in on minimal occasion to move the conversation forward. Excellent debate here, all around!
Okay the delivery of the line "facts don't care about your feelings" by alex in response to the claim that a purposless life isn't a very good way to look at it by ben is awesome
Can you rephrase that I don’t think I quite understand what you mean
If this of course was in fact a fact to begin with lol
@@Joshcaldwell24 Sure, but it does expose the contradiction on Ben's line of thought.
For many, religion allows people to live a purposeful life. This is good for society and that is the topic of the debate. The truth of religion is not the topic.
@@japanbeta facts dont care about your feelings
I've been wanting this for so long. I love how big Alex is getting and how respectful Ben is to people he finds intelligent. They should do a show together lol
😂 except Ben literally works for right wing propaganda companies with the same societal perspectives shared by David Duke. He is genuinely one of the worst figures when it comes to thinking objectively and self-critical thought. The fact that he genuinely has no respect for even those he percieves as less intelegent is evidence of him allowing his moral shortcomings to dictate his ability to reason. Hes by definition a bad faith actor and a political shill.
What im saying is, this is no "meeting of great minds" this is "political tool, good talker and thiest attempts to prove known fallacies and absurd ancient claims to be true by the hand of a well educated, well spoken, self critical atheist."
If only Ben could pull off "respectful" with no qualifiers.
Alex will not sell his values and work with him
@@adamchristensen8566No one does that, what are you on about. For instance if you are disrespectful to me, you're getting disrespect back, because being respectful is one of the qualifiers I require in order to be respectful. If you don't deserve respect, you're not getting it. Period.
This is the best video ive watched in a good while. Thank you.
Loving Alex O'Connor's very clear very reasonable thinking.
thank you guys so much for this great conversation, positively grinning the whole way through :) I'm glad the comments reflect this, this is the kind of debates people need to see and expect, not only more productive but way more enjoyable. And Andy Kind, what an absolutely wonderful host!!
If Ben hadn’t had a hand in contributing to the current state of discourse in the world I’d have been more willing to give him some respect. All I see here is a guy who realised he had to behave himself if he didn’t want to make himself look bad.
I’m pleasantly surprised at the quality of this debate. This sort of honest discussion has been lacking for some time. Good work folks.
It's Alex o'Co
I feel like this is what you say when you dont want to acknowledge one side was absolutely destroyed lmfaooo
@Runthemjewels I'm not sure anyone of almost half a million viewers changed their mind and that one side even significantly nudged more people than the other in their direction. If that could be shown I think that would be the metric to see a clear "winner".
@@Runthemjewelsyeah the guy I like totally destroyed the guy I don't like 😂
@@Runthemjewelsnobody was, really. The whole first segment came down to “who do you believe” and both of them acknowledged that that was the only reasonable end point of that discussion.
Nooo i didnt want it to end that was by far one of the best debates i have ever watched i could watch these 2 talk for days this was incredible i have had a similar discussion/debate myself years ago it was just one of those moments where you just have to sit in silence and just contemplate what was said by both sides its actually difficult for me to put into words what it ment to me and this video brought some of that back to me thank you
In addition to being a fantastic conversation, the production quality of this video is superb. Great lighting, nice use of camera angles and movement. Well done to everyone involved.
I would have preferred bisexual lighting personally
@@BeastmanWatchUrMouth I actually would have preferred a trans-colored theme of lighting.
@@_help_me_please_fr it would attract all the ppl ben hates so much so we can watch him get destroyed
Ben really struggles during the conversation about slavery. Alex is spot on with his assessment that Ben's position is moral relativism here.
The thing is though, in a world where free will does not exist, and morality is simply subjective, what is it that makes slavery "wrong?"
@@albertbecerraI guess limiting someone else’s freedom is hurting them and as such it is wrong?
@@albertbecerra My moral belief that human suffering should be avoided whenever possible makes slavery wrong for me. But if you're implying that religion provides objective morality, I'd disagree. The morality that is provided by religious texts is just the subjective moral opinions of whoever wrote the text. Even if you believe in a god, any morality provided by a god is also just their opinion, meaning subjective.
@@MrVonzine but that is subjective. If one king or war lord or whatever, conquers one group or community or whatever the setting, logically it be smart to imprison the now conquered as they would look to regroup and retaliate, as it is common to for man to seek retribution. And it would be the same result vice versa.
@@henry306 religious morality isn't solely based on subjective opinions. Some argue it's grounded in a broader framework, suggesting a divine source or higher purpose. This perspective contends that religious morality provides an objective foundation, beyond individual viewpoints, offering a more universal basis for ethical principles.
Respect to both Alex and Ben. It was a civil and fascinating conversation.
So much Gish galloping.
@@teresaamanfu7408 I didn't notice any
@@sheevpalpatine8243Ben's most favorite fallacies are gish gallop (most favorite), he just speeds through talking points knowing you can't address all of them which for less experienced debaters overhelms them. Less common for Ben is the motte and Bailey, he will state a premise that is super objectionable but have a ridiculous conclusion based on the premise.
Ben is a bad faith actor, he constantly misrepresents scientific data (like using the 40% suicide rate for trans adults) to support his narrative but never unpacks what those numbers mean. He just throws the number out there but doesn't expand as to why. I use that as a specific example because I work in mental health, I have a degree in psychology, got published multiple times in undergrad, now I'm in grad school becoming a therapist.
Another example is Ben saying that atheism is a materialist pov when that isn't a claim of atheism. Atheism just rejects the claim that a God or god's exist.
@jwomackandcheese73 This is a conversation on whether religion is good for society. It is not wise to digress too many layers down a premis, i.e. explaining the nuance in scientific data when the effect is the point. One could go on many hours on the topic of transgender effects, however, it's not the topic at hand. I know you have an interest and unique knowledge of this field. It's how I feel when arm-chair philosophers talk of how to win wars.
@@chrisvandermerwe7111 I didn't say it was the topic of conversation, I was using it as an example of Ben is a dishonest actor and can't be trusted to discuss in good faith.
All of Ben's social prescriptions come from his religious ones to one extent or another. Now Ben was surprisingly calm and reasonable here, but I can go to any of his shows after this debate took place and find deplorable things he says, the point of that being he doesn't live by the values he claims to. His interview on thr BBC a few years ago shows my point on that. Ben doesn't do well when his behavior is pointed out to be inconsistent with his belief.
I feel honored to watch these kinds of convos. These are the convos I have in my head being realized and articulated in such a beautiful dance of disagreement
Alex was bang on with catching Ben in some moral relativism. Amazing convo. Needed twice the length please. Why did it need to be rushed to finish at the end?
People need toilet time
I don’t agree with everything Alex says, but his intelligence and ability to think on his feet is absolutely incredible
Why you disagree with Alex?
@@deshon3523 i agree with 90% of his positions. He loses me on the vegan thing and a few other random points
i think it's impossible to agree 100% with a person, no matter what, because everyone is different.
Yeah, his favorite color is probably like blue or orange or something, and I'm more of a green person.
@@holyinquisition8854I am a person. I 100% agree with myself.
Alex O’Connor continues to be a mighty impressive debater. Very compelling conversation
Isn't it fascinating that a simple question that could be answered by a simple answer "Yes, No, Maybe, Sometimes" can reach such a depth of debate?
This is the finest debate I have seen in some time. Props to the moderator who was cool headed, genial, reserved and funny without taking sides. Big props to Alex and Ben, both of whom I could listen to for ages. Both men were respectful and articulate. The best debates take place without an audience, I think. It's nice to see neither party devolve into cheap tactics like trying to get a big laugh at the other's expense or chasing mic drop moments.
Destiny vs Trent horn abortion debate is even better
@@TKA-s7Not even close; Destiny's philosophy in regards to veganism was quickly dismantled when he had an interview with Alex.
@@EldestZelot I mentioned his abortion debate against Trent horn, not his veganism debate
What are props?
It's just another way of saying "respect to" someone, or "good job."
I like how much these two seem to like eachother while discussing something personal to themselves as a topic, but still seemed to stay playful and honest and conciliatory. I think this may be the best example of a good faith conversation I have seen in my life, and it was completely captivating start to stop. Excellent talk, I enjoyed both Alex and Ben beforehand and i appreciate both more afterward.
There is a lot going on in this conversation but it feels like they know they have far more similarities than differences and are able to comport themselves better because of it.
Even when in such stark disagreement about the topics.
Literally all of Alex's debates end up like this. He must just have a way of finding common ground with people.
@williamappleford148 His talk with Peter Hitchens went sideways, but that was no fault of Alex's, this was the dead opposite, extremely pleasant even around a topic where each party has all of their eggs in one basket, and thats a tricky thing to do well, but it was really obvious Ben was having fun, and as stoic as Alex tends to be, it seemed he liked the nature of the chat too. In my experience, these kinds of people make good friends. 👍
INTP and INTJ if we’re looking at personality these two would get on amazingly well. Both keep feelings out of it for the most part.
They were being overly polite to each other - it seemed artificial and over-compensatory.
Finally!!! This is exactly what I've been waiting for! It's about time that atheists and people of faith come to the table and debate with honesty using truth as their compass!
Yes but only ONE can be true! The bible and Christianity is true. Atheism is wrong. America is built upon the bedrock principles of the Holy Bible. The Christian faith is what has made this the greatest country on planet earth. It takes a FOOL to say we need to remove religion from human society.
This has been going on for decades. Where have you been?
You have missed the legend of Richard Dawkins
@@davidgafo Yes the great Mr. Richard Dawkins. Died an Atheist. Woke up a creationist.
@@gibsonguy5240😂😂😂
I believe in free will become things like depression, anxiety, guilt, sadness, shyness, anger, sorrow, and so on, happen at any and all times during our daily lives. And those emotions will cause us to act COMPLETELY differently in that situation than if we were feeling anything else.
Dang it, this was quite good. This could've easily been 3+ hours. Hope to see these two go at it again some time in the near future.
If only political debates could go like this for the voters to choose. Idc that they didnt change eachothers minds. They hashed it out respectfully and laid out their case. The rest is for us as the audience to choose for ourselves. Love it.
Unfortunately most of the people in politics have the low end of average IQ. These two men have very high IQs
Why would voting on "truth" be a good idea?
They literally can't. We have an entire party lying to half the American people.
stop being mesmerized by civility politics and the veneer of "respectful" exchanges. Ben was justifying god allowing slavery because he didn't want to disrupt the social cohesion of biblical times. Engage with the actual points these two were making rather than responding to the tone of their voices like a dog.
good lord these inane comments make no sense ben essentially justified slavery bc he doesn't have gods mind a circular rebuttal that could be applied to almost anything
Well done to everyone who made this debate possible! It was truly incredible, and I think we're all better off for it.
The question wasn't whether God existed or not, but whether religion was good for society. In this regard, Bens arguments were far more sound and ironically grounded more in the natural-materialistic world view that Alex claimed to have. Ben actually made references to the necessary evidence, in regards to social sciences and historical contexts, that affirm his claims -Religion is necessary for a functioning society. Most of Bens point naturally undermined Alex's arguments and it seemed he mostly just spent his time in defense, in the rebuilding of his arguments and finding flaws in Bens arguments as oppose to actually answering the question. My votes on Ben.
Ben’s beliefs can really get in the way of his thinking. It was great to hear Alex use the “facts don’t care about your feelings” line to characterize Ben’s saying “we need to believe in free will” whether it in fact exists or not
I always find it illogical when religious people say in response to a question : The good thing with my religion is that there are many things you can't explain and just accept that. It is by definition being satisfied with never knowing or seeking the truth.
@@filiprochette7793exactly, but with Ben it’s even more infuriating when he says it with the self righteous smug as if that’s an adequate argument.
I've listened to a lot of Alex's philosophies. I'm an Atheist myself, however I'm one that believes in free will. His philosophies about free will have never resonated with me as being even possibly true. Maybe I'm just too low IQ to understand fully what his arguments are lol, but it honestly just does not add up
@@filiprochette7793But science does the same thing doesn’t it? For example, it is assumed that consciousness is physical/material (made up of atoms like everything else) but it can’t be measured or observed in any ”scientific way” in terms of being empirical. The scientific stance is essentially that it has to be physical, since all that can be scientifically proven to exist is observable (or deduced from physical things to necessarily exist). But, of course, scientists don’t say that consciousness doesn’t exist, just that it ”can’t be explained”.
@@tomoates8568 I agree, but the I think that Ben's assertion that free will requires a god is a more egregious stretch.
I’m a huge fan of the civility of this debate. Props to both gentlemen.
Civility aka being a bore lmao
@@CormanoWildmore like.. bore Ragnarok!
@@reda29100Thor Ragnarok reference? 😂
@@spongebobmiscellaneous CallMeKevin
Every child inherits a sin nature from his or her father, needing no further instruction in how to sin. The challenge for every parent is to break the child’s will, without breaking the spirit. Most atheists seem to have missed this in their upbringing.
We need more conversions like this. I've been watching Alex's UA-cam channel since his early days, and it's been an absolute privilege watching him grow up into this productive, brilliant, mature, and respectful human being willing to engage in these conversations in a civil and respectful way.
And good for Ben for having this conversation in good faith. I've also been watching him for may years, and this is the version of Ben that I prefer because he isn't pandering to his audience to demonize those with opposing views.
This is the side of Ben I prefer too.
Almost forgot about all the terrible things Ben has advocated for prior to this debate. It made my stomach uneasy remembering how I was initially drawn into his content because of his niceness.
@@moonandstars1677 Ya, I was a fan boy for a good while, until I realized he rarely concedes good points in arguments. Moreover, in any other debate aside from this with Alex (or Sam Harris, if you've watched those debates), his ongoing tactic is overwhelming his opponents with gish galloping and talking points to "own the libs".
As smart as Ben is, I believe he's massively out of touch with his influence and importance with bridging the gap between both sides because he's benefitted on a national stage his brand of content to the far right masses.
Thank you for the very thoughtful and insightful exchange of ideas. Great experience.
They obviously respect each other and enjoyed themselves. It’s so refreshing to see a good old fashioned civilized debate
Don't confuse respect and being respectful. I don't think Alex has a grain of respect for that clown, nevertheless he keeps his composure and respectful manner, despite Shapitos constant attempts at drowning debate in water salads.
@AG-ig8uf No Alex does respect Shapiro he's even an admirer of William lane Craig
@@AG-ig8ufI think he respects Shapiro. I think he sees through him.
Extremely insightful discussion! I am grateful that I live in a time where I have access to such debates.
Such an amazing conversation... It's nice to see the deconstruction of the high level ideas down to logical blocks. This really shows there's so much to think about and so much to consider in topics like these. There's so much to learn from this conversation... not only on the topic itself but on how to actually think clearly and "dance" around the ideas while being grounded by logic.
The problem is that Shapiro can explain away the illogical parts by using his 'escape hatch'. This doesn't leave much room for 'reasoned debate' when reason keeps leaving the discussion after a certain point.
Don't say deconstruction, people might just accuse you of being a postmodernist-neomarxist-woke-culture-war-social-justice-warrior. Even though most of those don't really understand what deconstruction is.
@@donalvarito3165good one
@tothespace2122 'dance' around ideas, in inverted commas implying so-called, because you're talking figuratively. You aren't quoting anyone with those quotation marks. And we'd still know without the inverted commas that you were speaking using an analogy. My comment is "grounded in logic" according to the rules of written English. 😉
@@thekeysman6760Not my native language but I guess quotes vere indeed redundant...
I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation and I feel that the set and setting were wonderfully conducive to deep thought. Cheers from Georgia, USA.
I am about 50 minutes deep and as a Christian I got to admit that Alex is definitely doing an excellent job. As much as I may be biased to Ben. This is a really good discussion and both of them are fully displaying their great minds.
That being said my biggest issue with this is the fact that it is only an hour and 20 minutes. Philosophical debates like these between such great minds require so much more time in order to fully explore the arguments being made and lines of thought being presented.
3 hours seems like a much more reasonable timeline which is much more respectful to the guests who clearly have much to say and flesh out with one another. This feels like an insult to be so short.
Regardless I am very thankful we get at least this. Very pleasant and easily digestible!
Truth unites made a good video on this
Agreed. An hour was much too short.
I agree, it feels like they are forced to move off from each point before they have the chance to dig deeper and get to the bottom of it. This length is good for an interview where there is minimal pushback, but when there is this much back and forth its a little short!
The more the you are open to arguments the less religious you will get, counting on if you are honest to your self and smart enough to understand concepts
@@AwwSnookems Atheists are also religious
This should've been longer, but hell this was good, Alex really had the upper hand here , he is a damn brilliant mind and i hope to see more of him for years to come
it's pretty easy to argue for atheism!
@ambarlostinthewoods3080
If your computer evolved through a series of random and unguided accidents, would you trust it to give you accurate results? What about your brain? 🧠
@@boliussaWell if you really want to be a true atheist, you'd basically have to concede every debate. Because ultimately if you yourself are meaningless stardust, than what makes anything you say have any substance?
@@TheLetterJ-c8nan Atheist would respond how they are simply acting in what their will/drives desire. And to enjoy life because it is stimulating and fun. Idealism is fun to play with as it is tied to human nature, and it’s what keeps us going. Obviously if everyone thought everyday what they are doing is meaningless they will commit suicide, so they don’t bother with that and continue being hypocrites of their own material worldview
@@TheLetterJ-c8n I could have some interests like scieence or practising a sport and looking into what is true about the world
The best comeback on this episode was, "Who's the moral relativist now?"
Alex nailed it with just that one comment.
If some future civilization becomes totally vegan, and looks back to our civilization in disgust as animal eaters would the same comment be effective?
I actually don't follow. The existence of absolute moral principles does not preclude the existence of changing moral standards.
For example, rape is wrong, but our understanding of what is rape has definitely changed over time. Another classic example is that chastity is good, but our standards for modest dress vary based on society.
@@bellgrand That is just trying to downplay the paradox. You cant have this perfect being and his must follow book and then be like 'well, we gotta adapt some of the things it said because we know better now.'
It is matter of how being perfect is a chain that bind god. If his word only said 'dont be a dick', and OUR understanding of what being dick is changed with time that is on us. But that isnt the issue, the problem is all the clearly wrong and outdated things preached by the bible.
Is why people hate the 'well, but what it meant was-' / 'But during that time...' argument by theists. They try to gaslight people. It is f'ed now, and hopefully we can all OBJECTIVELY agree it was also f'ed up then.
@@richardfranks5167where is an all knowing god in that analogy?
@@barriakarl Except that's how it has worked for thousands of years? I mean, your entire argument is a strawman because you're saying that the Bible is wrong because Jews and Christians do not interpret the Bible in the manner you do. This is despite the fact that you seem clearly hostile to the Bible to begin with.
Slavery is wrong. But you do in fact see regulations in the Bible as well as a tradition taking place over thousands of years, both inside the text of the Bible and outside of it, that led to its global abolition in the Modern era. The Jews stopped practicing slavery well before then, and even Christians banned the enslavement of other Christians in the Middle Ages. The same could not be said for any other world view.
Great debate; thoroughly enjoyable and I appreciated the mutual cordiality they showed each other.
I think Alex missed a gotcha moment at 20:21 when he said "I'm speaking for myself there" and Ben acquiesced. 😊
Huge respect for both of them for the courage, the eloquence and the manners by which they conducted this fascinating debate. Regardless of agreements or disagreements, their listening capabilities and their composure are truly admirable.
I hate it so much when people comment about the tones of people talking with each other. Are you a dog that can only understand the vibes of a conversation?
James, are you alright? I sense some unnecessary aggression from the tone of your reply, a glass of water could do you no harm...
@@jamesk3612I'm getting the vibe that someone is a bit jealous of dogs 😏
And of course when they're NOT face-to-face with each other, they have been known to say horribly rude things about each other's ideologies (Ben much much more so than Alex). So that adds a juicy sub-layer of kayfabe/artifice to this "nice and polite" debate.
And then there's the fact that Ben is currently cheerleading the mass erasure of the Palestinian people. "Oh but Ben was so nice to that atheist he debated!". Yeah he was, but he's also a deeply amoral human being who is causing real harm in our world
@@Gechech lol okay that was a funny reply, but seriously, why does everyone focus on the tone of what was being said rather than WHAT WAS BEING SAID.
Ben Shapiro repeatedly says that he can’t pretend to know the mind of god, yet he also repeatedly assumes that god has some progressive strategy to morality which explains away the clear endorsements and prescriptions for slavery.
I wish Alex would have capitalized on this clear contradiction central to Ben’s claims. I know he asked Ben who was the moral relativist, but the central reason for Ben’s relativism is caused by 1. first claiming ignorance of God’s grand design and intention, and 2. then proposing and arguably attempting to defend God’s design and intention.
We need a part 2.
Ben earlier said something about that being a feature of his argument 😂.
Well said
Knowing the mind without knowing what was decreed are two different concepts.
Say an omnipotent being thinks vs the omnipotent speaks. One is unknown while the other is.
It also isn't about Judeo-christian religion specifically, it is about religion in general vs atheism for morality and/or society
It seems to me that we are putting more than one concept into the same basket which leads us to the Judeo-Christian religion rabbit hole, in any case, I think it has to do with knowing the cause (mindset of God) and knowing what the scripture says (decreed), which ultimately will end up in Ben arguing that time/era is a factor along with the hermeneutic.
Listening to Ben makes me feel that any intent of rationalizing religion (faith) falls apart due to the fact that God, by definition, it’s what transcends us in every aspect.
This is why he never defends his faith nor feelings, obviously, but facts.
Personally I don’t see any utility for religion-social topic debate Alex capitalizing the moralism relativity argument as Ben never argue to impose religion on anyone (and I think Alex thought of this beforehand and didn’t keep poking in) When Ben explained Alex to offer the kid the two philosophical arguments atheist and theism and let him grow and choose, Alex says and nods agreeing from its core and also realizing a little bit more deeply Ben’s values (Ben’s faith, if you will, which is the pre course of his moral ground, therefore his values)
Alex notices that the bridge they are trying to build between them, for some reason, requires a God only knows (un ironically) how much more complex engineering.
Ben doesn’t deny all capacity to understand God. Obviously, he can learn about God from the Torah. That doesn’t mean that he will know everything about God, as the Torah doesn’t reveal everything about God. There’s no hypocrisy.
To bad this conversation was so short😢... Can we make this a trilogy?
More than 3!
Too* bad
alex is sooo smart, i love his reasonings. i was watching his videos 4 years ago when he was just a youtuber at home and his explanations and ways of thinking have helped me understand the world without believing in god as I was transitioning. i was scared of so many things like hell in the beginning even though i didn’t believe in it anymore, it’s common among atheists. i also felt meaningless without god before realizing a lot of things I was already doing didn’t need me to believe in god whatsoever. i was scared of a world without free will, but i realized i shouldn’t. i am much happier now and I feel free to make my own judgements without the chains of religion
The fact that both have completely different views about a crucial element of our lives and still can hold a civil conversation for an hour is giving me hope in humanity.
Theeen you dont know much about 'Lose all hope in humanity'-Guy named Ben Shapiro; covered extensively
by 'Some More News'
These comments are so cringe... these sorts of debates have been going on forever. This is not some new phenomenon.
@@RommyAliFr I hate this type of comment so much, it should be EXPECTED that professional debaters are civil
@@hampter8992 Yes, it should be expected. Yet you don't often see high profile societal/political commentators engaging with their peers on opposite sides of issues because they're perfectly happy sitting in their echo chambers playing it up for their audiences who they don't want to ever see weakness in their arguments and risk losing their precious clicks and views.
That's the downside of modern alternative media. Just pull up a clip of something your opponent said and refute that without actually addressing the person directly and giving them a chance to clarify and counter. Then bask in those easy cheers from your fans addicted to confirmation bias. Hence, it can be refreshing for people to see this.
If you find that "cringe", well, others probably feel the same way that you don't naturally understand something that simple.
Well there is no money involved
Hearing Ben Shapiro use good faith arguments against an opponent that he respects is actually so refreshing.
Demonstrates the toxicity and hatefulness of the modern right wing that the divisive, ‘destroying’ persona of Ben Shapiro is the one which got all his followers
I mirror your sentiments.
ben is good faith debater
Ben is typically not a good faith debater. He will use every debate club trick in the book to delegitimise, denegrate and embarrass his opponents. No matter how low quality his argument is, no matter how bad faith it is, no matter what type of logical fallacy it uses. Ben's style is to command and conquer.
@@jaydensydes3478 And his Daily Wire streams are used to feed stochastic terrorist narratives.
I think Alex was a really interesting bring for the debate, not just because of his dedication to philosophy and theology, intelligence on the subject matter and eloquence, but also because he isn't, like most atheists like me, a strict utilitarian. He brings a very unique set of positions to the debate that I really appreciate, without having to represent a "one true Atheist monolith". Also, I appreciate that Ben was actually willing to engage with the debate. Very unlike a lot of the content I've seen with him.
Is Alex arguing against free will now? Is this a position he has endorsed for a while? I find it terrifying to see religious extremists promoting that their systems are somehow more liberating than that of atheists and the atheists agreeing... what the hell happened?
@@johncaccioppo1142 He seemed to be specifically referring to free will as an amaterial concept, as in consciousness being something that can't just be described as neurological activity.
@@RasmusVJS Seems like a pointless distinction to make, except as the worst possible propaganda. After all, here he is, debating about belief... yet he's defending an idea so absurdly deconstructionist, that is fundamentally destructive to the very understanding of belief, motivation and morality... you might as well have a mime or a suicide bomber arguing for his side.
@@johncaccioppo1142 I don't see how the belief, that human decision making is a series of neurological reactions, is "fundamentally destructive". It's a fairly common and acceptable idea in atheist circles. What else would it be?
@@RasmusVJS We can accept that we cannot define consciousness without entirely dispensing of the idea. This seems like a fairly obvious point. We are composed of numerous influences, we are surrounded by limitations to our perceived ambitions. Why eliminate the player from the game with this equally amaterial yet existentially threatening concept of determinism?
Amazing debate, amazing people! All three, thank you. It may sound strange to some, but the debate made me 1) optimistic (that’s not the strange bit), and 2) religious, atheist aspiring to be religious. All religions are wrong but so have been all non-religious moral systems. One has to accept that we are wrong and that one part of the purpose of our life is to rectify our never ending wrongness. Whether evolution or God made us, we were not made perfect, we were made OKish, but there is a constant need for improvement. On an individual level, the ways to become better are various, and searching for the best way is part of the individual improvement, atheism may work for some and religion for others. On the society level though, I found Ben Shapiro’s argument more convincing. And this is where I am becoming religious - I believe that we should be looking for a modern religious system rather than removing the concept of free will and subordination to a higher meaning. The opposite proposition - negating free will by calling it "an illusion of free will", a product of evolution that simply has proven useful nevertheless it is merely an illusion - I find difficult to accept that on an individual level as well as on the level of utility for building the society for the future.
I wish Ben Shapiro would be able to see that he (Judaism) is wrong just as everything and everyone else is wrong, and he would then deploy his cognitive potential to define a new moral code, a non-Judaism religion, a contemporary religion. If I was to remain the atheist, I would be an Alain de Botton kind of an atheist, somebody, who learns from religions and who gives religions credit for the wisdom in them and for the utility that they practice to put the wisdom in practice. This debate made me realize, that the lectures from religions perhaps cannot be learned, they have to be practiced. Dalai Lama suggests a post-religious or a beyond-religious moral system for the future, and it is a relatively easy move for him as Buddhism is not a theistic religion. OK, I am changing my position, the debate did not make me religious, at least not theistic, I do think that theistic religions are anachronism, but at the same time I believe that atheism does not offer an answer. I think that a few people should get together; they should start with acknowledging that they are wrong and that they want to learn from others in order to work on the basis for the future, perhaps a non-theistic religious moral system for the future. And I am going to suggest Dalai Lama, Alain de Botton, Ben Shapiro, and definitely also Ladislav Hejdanek (except he has died and he did not write in English, but that is not going to be the biggest problem for this enterprise, this should be solvable). I would like to see a physicist in the group too, and I am going to suggest Roger Penrose. One more recommendation, guys, when you get to it, make the new system fun, like serious, of course, but fun too. You will also need to employ a good storyteller in the end, Paulo Coelho or Anthony Doerr, and a promoter. Come up with a catchy name of the system and good merchandise.
Can you imagine if we qualified our politicians through debates like this on the constitution or legislative policy? A different world.
Debates are just talking contests.
@@benjaminjenkins2384 And yet...if legislative policy was discussed, thus expected from those debating, by those voting, AND it then either materialised or disappeared, we would like have a slightly more robust democracy. Surely?
This is a very low stakes conversation. When power is at stake, then the point is not to develop ideas, but to convince people to give power to you and deny to the other. Rhetoric and sophistry lend themselves as much more effective tools for that.
Cringe comment. If you have something like this then you don't have Trump. You need a personality that can win over hearts not professional people being professional. These two are so nice and professional yet they would not be able to win over a nation. People would die for Trump and other historical figures. Nobody dies for these two.
@@lucasevergarden6601 Oh yeah, because Trump has such a strong moral character lmao.
At first, I actually tought this would be one hour of full trashtalking and I can't say how surprised and delighted to see such a respectufull and constructive conversation.
Why? Debates like these especially between 2 public intellectuals normally don't spiral out of control. Both Alex O'Connor and Ben Shapiro have a very professional way of conducting themselves, I definitely wouldn't have expected this to turn into name calling... I don't know why you thought this would be unprofessional.
@@REALdavidmiscarriage
Alex does, but Ben has conducted himself in less than respectable ways on multiple occasions.
@@roems6396 very rarely. But again the format and understanding their personality types and emotions and human interactions in general, there was no way this was gonna turn into “namecalling“. That was completely clear to me.
@@REALdavidmiscarriage
Of course, but that is largely due to Alex being completely unflappable. Ben will get angry and confrontational at times. Alex never does.
@@roems6396 Yeah I know what you mean. I also think Alex has too much respect for Shapiro to try and provoke him. Again my point was mainly how I couldn‘t have seen this turn nasty.
Alex is a national treasure. I hope he'll be a fixture for decades.
*international
Actually, I witnessed quite the opposite. Seeing an Athiest point to the fact the OLD TESTEMENT mentions slavery and other sad behaviors of sinful mankind, isn't an argument against God its an indictment of man's evil nature.
Clearly, Ben won the day and I couldn't help thanking our American forefathers for welcoming Jewish People! Conversely, the worst thing Germany and much of Europe did was to chase out the Jewish people! Look at Science, Technology, and Law, without the Jewish people America wouldn't be the Super Power it is today!!
lol he's an anachronism. he's a mild form of Dawkins. He's a modernist in a world wherein modernism is dying.
@@jbsweeney1077 how is modernism dying? Also technically modernism is an art style, not a ideological viewpoint. I’d argue if anything that modern, socially progressive views have done nothing but increase in popularity, and more traditional conservatism has strengthened among its supporters, but it has lost many supporters particularly in younger generations.
God willing.