Ben Shapiro vs Alex O'Connor • Is religion good for society?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? the flagship apologetics and theology discussion show from Premierunbelievable.com In this bonus episode of The Big Conversation' formidable Daily Wire host and renowned political thinker Ben Shapiro goes head-to-head with Oxford graduate of philosophy and theology, now international public speaker and debater, Alex O’Connor. Hosted by Andy Kind, Shapiro and O'Connor debate Is religion good or bad for society? What is the concept of free will? Does it even exist? What about the idea of the self, and the foundations of morality in society, and do we all have to agree on them?
Ben Shapiro is a distinguished figure in the realm of political discussion, recognised for his bold opinions and remarkable debating skills. Ever-innovative in thought and influential in culture, Shapiro brings a fresh and compelling perspective to this philosophical conversation.
Atheist Alex O’Connor, the UA-camr formerly known as the Cosmic Sceptic, and host of the Within Reason podcast brings thoughtful philosophical rigour and insight to provoke deliberation on varying timeless faith-science-philosophy topics. Religion’s effects in the evolution of consciousness, Nihilism’s counter to the concept of free will and, ultimately, the basis of varying worldviews serve as crucial discussion points in this thought-provoking exchange.
👉 Get bonus content, updates, fascinating articles, and early access to new episodes-absolutely free! Join now at www.premierunbelievable.com 🎉📢
The Big Conversation is a video series from Premier Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the religious and non-religious community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human. The Big Conversation is produced by Premier Unbelievable? in partnership with John Templeton Foundation.
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/26714...
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelie...
• For live events: www.unbelievabl...
• For online learning: www.premierunb...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsi...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunb...
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.
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😂😂
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.
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.
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.
Have to stay calm when dealing with Alex. He’s absolutely brutal when his opponent overreaches.
@@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
"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
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
Loving Alex O'Connor's very clear very reasonable thinking.
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 😒
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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’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.
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.
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.
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 would binge watch more than 12 hours straight of Ben and Alex debating about religion.
Seems there's too much to say for a 1 hour podcast
Ben Shapiro getting called out for his inconsistency for 12 hours straight? Inject it straight into my veins.
What would be so interesting about someone arguing for the existence of _magic_ or for the benefit of _superstition?!_
Why
@@Egooist.people who havent seen things love to dunk on people with questionable arguements and people who have seen things love to see athists commit to grand levels of hubris
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.
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 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".
The lighting is excellent!!
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
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
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.
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!
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.
Two guys who care about making each other's arguments better. This is so rare.
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.👌
Ben has perfected the art of failing to simply answer a straightforward question by saying a lot of complicated phrases at 1.5x speed.
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
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.
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’
I actually agree with both, free will does not exist, but the illusion is necessary for most people to function.
Just don't make laws and rules for how to function in society around those illusions... And that is where becomes problematic...
Your a fool. And somehow unironically think free will doesnt exist cause of race realism
You only think that because you've been conditioned to believe in it. Humanity functioned just fine without it for 99.9% of it's existence, producing some of greatest and longest lasting achievements in arts and philosophy in civilizations that still mesmerize us
I think that was Alex's position
@@satanghost8856 Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Phoenicians, they all believed in an after life and punishment for wicked souls. You're assuming that societies before Christianity or Judaism were atheist...
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
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 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 we try to simplify, and choose a side, because it's easier than choosing both.
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.
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.
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
Really cathartic to hear someone say they don’t believe in free will. I proudly claim my atheism but I’m a little shy to openly admit I don’t believe in free will lmao. 😂
Don’t worry that’s just your biological drives protecting you. You can’t help it
In a western world where politics is inhibiting us time and time again, what advantage is there to not believing in free will? How does this help you/why is it you believe in this?
@@enemystand2981 there is no substantial difference in believing free will or not. This won't change that you will still act with the presumption of free will even if you have good reasons to not believe it.
Well a lot of things that are outside your control have shaped who you are now, starting with your parents and conditions you grew up in.
If it makes you feel better, Ben on the outset makes it clear he doesn’t believe in libertarian free will and instead a more soft determinism sort of idea.
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
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
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?
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.
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
it's so refreshing to listen to this after watching the Alex "vs" Dinesh "debate"... """""
That debate was super annoying hahaha Dinesh's annoying voice gave me a headache
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😂😂😂
Alex did amazing, he's 24 but yet it seems as he had decades of academic education on his back. The maturity displayed is also exceptional, a great inspiration for all gen z
It is far easier to criticize a worldview than come up with one. Alex only has arguments against issues but he fails to say anything 'for' something because he knows how hard it is to hold that worldview.
@@Goofball_111I don't think you've watched him enough.
@@Goofball_111 maybe thats why religious weirdos are constantly criticising everything that falls outside their own incredibly narrow bigoted worldview they got out of a thousands year old book, rather than come up with their own as the rest of us have done lol
@@Goofball_111 it IS hard which is why most including Ben fail😒
@@Goofball_111 Not believing in a god is a worldview in of itself though.
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
Off the start Ben is speaking on behalf of atheists like he understands what it's like to truly hold that perspective. I in fact believe in the self
Hold your horses, he questioned that all of them believe in it. At the end of the day you cannot prove the self. The closest the philosophers have come is with the statement, "I think, therefore I am." But that begs the question when the word, "I," is use, which pressuposes identity and the self. Furthermore the sentence presupposes meaning in language and laws of logic such as predicates etc. It also can't be proven thoughts are truly rational and don't just have the appearance of rationality.
@@vol94belief requires no proof. That's kind of thepoint. Otherwise it wouldn't be belief.
Right, that's kind of Ben's point though, isn't it? That atheists take for granted things that do not logically follow a purely material reality.
You believe in the self, but does materialism conclude that you are a self? Does not materialism only conclude that you are chemicals designed to take part in a reproductive cycle?
But you do not live like that, right? You live like you have meaning, right? Do you feel meaningless? Your worldview certainly doesn't ascribe you any meaning.
Isn't that along the lines of Ben's point?
@battt1718 why do you need someone/something else to tell you your meaning. Go find your own purpose in life. If youve found it with religion, thats great, but other people find meaning in other things
@@mhmm4840the very idea of "you" is false. That is Ben's point. "You" didnt decide to have purpose. The collection of material and electron impulses made the decision, "you" had no place in it. Its incredibly nihilistic to be atheist because by definition, purpose cant exist in an entirely deterministic world
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.
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.
37:12 Alex’s refutation of the idea that Western civilisation is the product of Christianity (rather than of transcending Christianity) was spot on!
Nearly everything he listed off was still pioneered and perpetuated by Christians and when it comes to the more recent social movements Jews are heavily involved there it’s worth looking into.
@@autisticphaglosophy7128 That's not the point, Jew and Christians can definitely be scientists, but we are talking about this constant revisionism of Judeo-christian world view every time there is a new scientific discovery.
@@baishihua Most of the major contentions were between prior scientific or philosophical consensus that was challenged and when it comes to this matter the revisionism is actually from later Protestant and atheist critiques who made up propositions against the church which had then funded virtually all scientific endeavors. Atheist Tim O’Niel has written extensively about this topic debunking this popular Reddit tier myth I recommend his UA-cam and site which actually uses primary academic sources.
@@autisticphaglosophy7128 no shit, they lived in a time when the vast majority of people were Christian and not being Christian publicly would have lead to severe oppression.
@@hellboy6536 That’s a worthless analysis and besides most of the well known ones specifically devoted much time to talk about their theology.
Honestly we need to see more of Ben and Alex. This was astonishingly respectful and thought provoking.
Yet it left us and them exactly where we were before the conversation took place.😀
More Alex, less Ben. You can hear the existential fear, and denial of this in his voice. We need intellectual debate, not an intellectual Vs public speaker 😂
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
@@apollo-s7sNot 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."
Alex O’Connor continues to be a mighty impressive debater. Very compelling conversation
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.
Shapiro is in religions corner. Surely any debate ends there.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@RommyAliIt is like people 2016 were two cons jerk each other off for supposedly having honest conversations about taboo topics
Same comments then. Truly galaxy brains.
You know people have nothing going on when rather than just talking they talk about talking. Great circle jerk. Intellectual dark web 2.0
The debate
"You are wrong"
"Well, that means you are wrong as well"
End
That’s not what I got from the debate. But depending on how you perceived debates, any that don’t end with somebody changing their mind, fall under that category?
which is progress, because some people think one being wrong means the other in the debate is right, or is smarter and therefore more credible, which doesn't follow logicaly.
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.
I wish Alex would have pushed Ben more on moral relativity in regards to slavery in the Bible. Where do we get the idea that slavery is immoral, if it's not stated in the bible? At that point, aren't we using secular philosophy to determine this? What is the utility of religion as a basis of moral objectivism, if in the end we revise or "update" biblical commandments because we have beliefs that contradict with the bible?
The first book of the Bible makes it clear that being sold into slavery against one’s will is the epitome of evil.
In Genesis, chapters 37 through 50, the Bible recounts the story of Joseph being sold into slavery. Joseph was a favored son among his brothers and faced betrayal when they sold him into slavery out of jealousy and resentment. His captors took him to Egypt, where he served as a slave in Potiphar’s household. Despite enduring hardship and adversity, Joseph eventually earned the trust of Potiphar. Unfortunately, he was unjustly accused of a crime and imprisoned.
While enduring this affliction in prison, however, Joseph’s ability to interpret dreams caught the attention of Pharaoh. This eventually led to his eventual release and promotion to a high-ranking position in Egypt. His gift for interpreting dreams proved vital when famine struck the land, as he helped Egypt prepare and survive the harsh times.
Years later, his brothers came to Egypt seeking food, but they did not recognize Joseph (after all, he was much older and probably wearing a cool Egyptian headdress). Upon revealing his identity, Joseph did not seek vengeance or reparations. Instead, Joseph forgave his brothers who had wronged him in the past. This love and forgiveness exemplified Joseph’s transformation and ultimately showed that the painful path of the evil of slavery led to a greater purpose, reconciliation, and a powerful position to save many lives - which would not have happened if Joseph had not been sold into slavery in the first place.
19 But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? 20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today (Genesis 50: 19-20).
What was evil? Joseph being sold into slavery against Joseph’s will.
What can we learn from the biblical account of Joseph’s life?
First, slavery ought to be opposed and called out as a horrendous evil that opposes the objective purpose of humanity. Indeed, the objective purpose of humanity is love, and thus, we ought to seek to stop those who are opposed to the very reason humanity exists. Second, when evil does occur, we can have a “peace that passes understanding” (Philippians 4:7) by knowing that God uses “all things together for good” (Romans 8:28). Although we are not always in a position to see the good that comes from evil, sometimes we do get glimpses into God’s divine sovereign plan, as Joseph and his brothers did in Genesis. When we do not get to see the details work out, however, we can have peace by reflecting on Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians:
17 For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison (2 Corinthians 4:17).
@@FreethinkingMinistries There are instructions on how to beat your slave in the Bible.
Why is slavery evil? What's the atheist argument? I'm honestly curious how you can, not believe in free will and be morally apposed to slavery.
@@ozzysherrod2604because its anti freedom, or anti choice? The problem with free will is that im force to have it. Should there be a choice to have a choice? Its gets very philosophical and very confusing.
@@FreethinkingMinistries Canaanite slaves must work forever unless injured in one of their limbs. (Leviticus 25:46)
are you telling me that these people want to be slaves their entire lives? because thats the only way this would be moral, if even thats possible.
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?
@@user-fo8ey1ix6fan 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
@@user-fo8ey1ix6f I could have some interests like scieence or practising a sport and looking into what is true about the world
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.
The internet needs more of this quality of discourse
say something of value dammit "ooohhh its soo rare to see people have a civilized discussion these days"
@@casualkave537 Did you think your comment fell in the "valuable" category? I don't. So you've achieved both pointless and uncivilized. A twofer!
@@casualkave537 Proceeds to say nothing of value. Incredible work, bud.
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.
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
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.
27:06 “my dad can beat up your dad”… wow, hilarious on multiple fronts. 😂
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.
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.
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.
If everyone could agree to disagree and have civil conversations like this the world would a better place.
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...
To bad this conversation was so short😢... Can we make this a trilogy?
More than 3!
Too* bad
Well done to everyone who made this debate possible! It was truly incredible, and I think we're all better off for it.
This is why UA-cam is amazing. I would put up with all the ads in the world to listen to this conversation.
yes
Alex was by far more convincing from my perspective, but it is to be appreciated that this was actually a constructive and genuine debate.
It was a good debate, but I found Shapiro’s case to be far superior. After all, If libertarian free will is not compatible with atheism (which is what O’Connor maintains), then neither is a power to choose to live according to a moral code and the power to rationally infer truth about metaphysical reality. The manner in which we think, live, move our bodies, and ultimately everything we believe would be determined by antecedent conditions (non-rational, non-moral, mindless stuff) apart from our control.
That is not a sense of morality or rationality worth wanting.
Bottom line: Ben Shapiro is right.
@@FreethinkingMinistries Your point leaves out part of O'Connors point and makes a flawed conclusion. O'Connor states that free will and self is an illusion and that evolution has heavily reinforced that belief. Thus we will still always be driven to act morally as it is baked into our evolutionary biology. And your conclusion that it is not a morality worth wanting is simply an expression of preference rather than an argument of what is rationally the most logical reality.
@@DoubleCheekedUp00"because evolution" is essentially a God of the Gaps fallacy
@MrGgabber something with evidence cannot be a God of the gaps fallacy, bud
@guts1859 Certainly it can, that's the whole point of filling the gap. When cornered, Alex just reverted back to "random chance" or "because evolution"
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.
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.
This was an absolutely fantastic conversation.. and left me with a ton to dive further into, and reconcile with.
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.
Alex managed to make Ben make some pretty big concessions, whilst having none for himself. Great job Alex! Much respect for Ben for having the debate as always, wish Douglas Murray had enough balls to do that
@5m5tj5wg Alex didn’t concede anything because he never made any active claim😅 but Ben on the other hand has to cling on his giant escape patch of appealing to mystery
Humans are the ones who created gods in their image to reflect their hierarchy of values. In the end there is nothing more illogical than claiming to have access to objective truth which ones one religion has decided was objective while knowing full well that no one can even mentally conceive of the full parameters of existence or any such "objective truths."
@5m5tj5wg🤦🤦🤦🤦first of all, the debate is not about which way to ground morality is the best, and second of all, the grounding of morality is literally one of the hardest and most complicated questions in history of mankind, and “I don’t know” is a perfectly rational position to hold, what is not rational is to claim that you have the answer to the hardest question in human history, and that is the problem with religious people, they claim that their way is the best way, and Alex is simply pointing out the danger of building an ethical system on the basis of god, and he is 100% correct, Alex doesn’t have to the burden of coming up with a solution to humanity’s hardest problem, however he does have the right to criticize those who claim to have the right answer, and also, Alex saying that he has trouble defining good and evil doesn’t mean he has no right to criticize religion because they are talking about the utility level of it🤦♂️ and also, from the beginning of this conversation Ben stated that he can’t prove god’s existence and he also said that the non existence of free will is very plausible, if anyone lost from the get-go here is Ben, I’m not saying Ben lost, I’m saying by your logic he will be the loser. Also by end of this conversation Ben has to face the blatant immorality that exists in his religious scripture, and his rebuttal is “the scripture is complicated” and “god is trying to woo people away”, which is a totally irrational and cowardly response, now I don’t view this conversation in terms of winning or losing because I don’t have a monkey brain, but you acting all horny and desperate trying to prove that Alex lost is just hilarious
@@Sejm656 what are you talking about. He came in the discussion being the other side of the debate.
@5m5tj5wgwhere on earth do you get the idea that "most" atheists believe their values are objective? I call bullshit
Values by their nature are based on the subject that holds them.
There is an entire field of academia of moral philosophy, I suggest you read literally any of it before making such a silly assertion
And anyway, if morality is based on God's will -- is god not a subject? What argument could possibly convincing that I OUGHT to follow gods will even if he is real?
Finally someone told Ben to his face, “facts don’t care about your feelings” in regards to how he talks about religion. I’ve been waiting so long for that.
Facts presuppose truth. Truth requires a grounding. The grounding can only be in God. All your "rationality" to try and disprove God ultimately rests on the foundation of truth, aka God. Open your eyes and see. God is Truth and reality itself.
@@aisthpaoitht literally nonsensical, you don’t get to say the grounding for truth can only be with god, and not explain what you mean by truth, grounding and even “god”! Which god? And why/ how? I don’t need a god to tell me or to know that it’s a fact I will drown if I stay under water for too long. You’re saying god made this up? If a universe maker is in fact the reason for this place or thing we call the cosmos, than it’s a no brainer that any and all stuff/ ideas wouldn’t be if a maker wasn’t real. But y need to first demonstrate that the cosmos were made by a thing let alone “your thing”. Nice attempt to highjack the word truth, and the way to get it. Plus, I literally don’t even know what you mean, you’re being nonsensical.
@adrianmetzler2523 it was a delusional biased response. That's why it was nonsensical
@@aisthpaoitht no the grounding for “truth” is “reality”. Go ahead and pretend to pull a Darth dawkins and or pretend you can solve hard solipsism with, “revelation”. You’ll look more stupid than you did while trying to highjack the word truth with some false “need” of “grounding” what do you even mean by “grounding”? And or god for that matter? Which god? How do you know? How can I know you’re not lying when you give me an answer of “how you know” this to be the case. You’re presupposing any and all things I would be presupposing too, only difference is you are presupposing more things than required or needed and worse, un demonstrated things, like the existence of a universe maker thingy and or what ever a “god” is. I don’t even know what a god is, truth is a word we use for things that we call “real” that’s it. It’s a description we made up for explaining something to be real. You’re saying, in order for me to be able to understand something to be real, I need god…how? What is god doing to make me understand? Please explain it since you seem to “know”. And again, explain “how” you know. Lastly, convince me to give a single shit about a universe makers desires and or wishes. That’s your ultimate goal/ reason for any of this. Because a universe being made by a thing or not is completely moot to our day to day just as knowing about the Big Bang is. A universe being made by a thing or not is completely irrelevant to our society and how we run/ govern it, and it’s irrelevant to knowing stuff is real/ understanding parts of life/cosmos/ and what we know/calm “reality”. This all being made by a thing is irrelevant to our day to day, you need to make us care some how. Seeing as how humans can tell some god commands “no you can’t cut off heads to force belief” you’re going to have a hard time convincing me to give a shit. I’ve been saying fuck Jesus, fuck Allah for all my life pretty much. And I have my valid reasons to so, non having to do with my awesome existence and all having to do with the characters, their so called “actions” and especially the things they allegedly made up. Like child hood leukemia to name one. Like theists never ever want to do, let’s talk about this actual god for once, let’s talk about what it made and does shall we? Let’s “presuppose” his ass exists, convince me to care.
@@LuciferArc1 it’s wannabe darth dawkins type shit, so pathetic.