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.

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.

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.

Ben did a pretty good job tho dismantling it. Such tactics were effective against boomer-christians 20 years ago but atheists need to come up with better arguments against theists who did their homework.

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.

Go get versed on the subject and see how it slows down.

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.

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...

True he’s a legend

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

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.

@@Nihilism4Usays 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 🙄😂

@@Nihilism4U 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

OTher than religion, they prolly agree on a lot of things. Its good they get on as we need them to argue against the dumb masses

​@@highjim7778I *sincerely* doubt they agree on much. Which one is it that brought you here to watch?

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.

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.

I'm not very scholarly but I do agree with your observations. Respect is the best way for good communication, no matter what the subject is. Peace to you from Florida USA

The problem is, respectful intelligent discourse doesn't get as many views or attention as the inflammatory shouting and name calling. So the media will always prefer making and showing more of that content

@@shaneebahera8566 330,000 views in 2days disagrees with you.

Remind me again, who made a career out of reducing debates to "roasting SJWs, thug life destroying feminists, drinking liberal's tears etc." ?? Oh yeah that was Ben shapiro. This person literally became famous FOR turning debates into mockeries. He literally sold branded merch mugs with "liberal tears" written on them. He helped deteriorate the state of internet debates. Reducing everything to "owning, destroying, wrecking" his college age opponents.

@@I.Reckon Some of Ben's commentary on "wokeness" and other political stance get millions of views in days. If it bleed, it leads. Compare to an hour long debate, algorithm much prefer a 5-10 minute video as there's a higher likelihood that people will click and play the video.

I 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

Why would you expect him to be defensive, to then appreciate that he wasn't? 🤔 A presupposition you hold? 😉

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 😆

​@@Nihilism4Uwhat

@@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 😒

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?

Only highly intelligent one here is Alex

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.

Whats wrong with the end?

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.👌

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 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.

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.

Amen.

Thats squirming - he's not talking down to some rando college student and is debating someone who studied theology who will hold his feet to the fire, he's uncomfortable

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?

​@@sergek767considering 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.

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

@@deanought3695​​⁠overall, 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

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

Watch it on 0.25x speed. You’re welcome.

​@@DelBoy573lol

​@@DelBoy573 Ben starts to sound normal

@@DelBoy573ha, well played

Yoo simp!!

The sciences were a religious endeavor. Just as civilization was a religious endeavor.

The first scientists were religious, but through obligation of consequences is something we just don’t know. Obviously these men did not submit to societal norms / constructs they presupposed the existence of God by their epistemology on without God nothing makes sense. But yes scientific minds have changed through out history in which we rely substantial inferences then claims

@@PoliticsReal Civilization started because of farming , not religion.Even if it was religion where are the gods of the first ones,Mesopotamia , Egyptian , Indus , and Chinese, today?Instead we have gods that came thousands of years later.

He argues that there's no free will. So that would mean that there's no true freedom. We aren't making any of our own decisions in life. We are being compelled to do so. So what's wrong with enslaving another human being? You're not responsible for your own actions because you're just a biological entity being controlled by evolutionary forces.

"I am not in any way responsible for that robbery, rape or murder. I have no free will. I am merely a product of my environment. Evolution made me do it."

Love this

It's been an evolutionary process on both sides of the coin. They've civilized each other.

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

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’

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.

Being aware of your tendencies and mindfully manipulating your actions to fit your character better with the will to achieve different results by taking different actions is the least deterministic thing i can think of

@@user-rh6pi1qo4w The situation determined my actions. Ignorance of my tendencies determined my actions, and awareness of my tendencies determined my actions for the better. How is this not deterministic?

@@modernorpheus cause you make it sound as though you think you have the choice between ignorance or awerness and as though you or anyone can meaningfully choose between one or the other to manipulate your outcome, this is not determinism its a cope, "i cant choose my actions but i can choose my mindset which determines my actions" this distinction is meaningless there is only the one path were on so criticizing or judging any mindset doesnt make sense

​@@user-rh6pi1qo4w You can't get away from the fact that "choices" arise because of the situation that creates them. Every factor, from environment to cognition to the actions of others, determines the choices you can make. Likewise, your choices have consequences, which lead to new situations that force other choices to be made. Both are causal relationships, i.e., deterministic relationships. Pretending that my choices were unrelated to my cognition only led me to failure. Understanding the concept of cause and effect, knowing my patterns of decision-making, led to better outcomes. Both were causal relationships, i.e., deterministic relationships. Sure, from the perspective as non-omniscient being, without full awareness of every factor leading to our actions, we will always perceive ourselves as making choices. That doesn't mean we are unaffected by reality.

@@user-rh6pi1qo4w I don't get how you can get away from cause and effect. There is a causal relationship between the situation and my choices, and there is a causal relationship between my choices and the consequences. We can use the word "choice" as much as we want, but use of that word doesn't indicate free will, because these choices are in the middle of causal chains.

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.

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.

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

Agree

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

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.

It's very weird to be from an Atheist majority country that is much more stable and safer than the US and the UK. Do you all know about us? 😂 Additionally, the anti-communist misinformation was horrible Ben, a lot of bs as usual. We were even safer and more stable during those times.

I guess despite religion's unverifiable claims and inconsistencies, something that survived a millennium or two must surely have something positive to contribute.

Unfortunately he offers nothing

@@henrymichaeldooley8483 he has presented the first quality original arguments that I've heard in years. Especially his analogy of an exploding spaceship with your loved ones inside to demonstrate how non religious even those who claim to be religious truly are

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 UKposts 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.

I agree, the humanity is appealing.

Alex doesn't know what he believes deep down. This is pretty evident.

Why tf are u watching drybones the zionist then lol

Yes, this is good stuff.

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

I always find it illogical when religious people say in response to a question : The good thing with my religion is that there are many things you can't explain and just accept that. It is by definition being satisfied with never knowing or seeking the truth.

@@filiprochette7793exactly, but with Ben it’s even more infuriating when he says it with the self righteous smug as if that’s an adequate argument.

I've listened to a lot of Alex's philosophies. I'm an Atheist myself, however I'm one that believes in free will. His philosophies about free will have never resonated with me as being even possibly true. Maybe I'm just too low IQ to understand fully what his arguments are lol, but it honestly just does not add up

⁠@@filiprochette7793But science does the same thing doesn’t it? For example, it is assumed that consciousness is physical/material (made up of atoms like everything else) but it can’t be measured or observed in any ”scientific way” in terms of being empirical. The scientific stance is essentially that it has to be physical, since all that can be scientifically proven to exist is observable (or deduced from physical things to necessarily exist). But, of course, scientists don’t say that consciousness doesn’t exist, just that it ”can’t be explained”.

@@tomoates8568 I agree, but the I think that Ben's assertion that free will requires a god is a more egregious stretch.

I don't know man, people hold religion very dear any questioning of the ultimate belief system is cause for panic

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.

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🤣

Science eventually gets rid of baggage.

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.

​@@yalineclaire1969I don't think you've watched him enough.

@@yalineclaire1969 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

@@yalineclaire1969 it IS hard which is why most including Ben fail😒

​@@yalineclaire1969 Not believing in a god is a worldview in of itself though.

even if there is a god, there is still no "purpose" to life because god would not know it's own purpose or motivation. put simply, no being can know itself.

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

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

😂 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.

How?

“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

If I had a penny for every time Piers Morgan finds a way to bring up his opposition of the Iraq war...

Exactly, religious people can't get around an unquestionable evil in their holy book, by saying God couldn't end it. Really God who can literally do anything couldn't say people aren't property, full stop

​@@tmbarryfree will bud. That's it. That's all.

​@@tmbarryotherwise God would be having his own slaves.

@@andrewsnow3973 sorry that make zero sense. my point has nothing to do with free will

@@andrewsnow3973 then why does the bible have any laws

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.

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.

Most people here are followers of Alex’s content and mostly know ben because of the clips of him ‘destroying’ college kids who aren’t as clever as they think they are. Nothing really unexpected in the comments, I do wonder how Ben’s fans will react to Alex once they find this, if they do.

@@andrespolanco3182Which is funny, because Ben literally has an entire show dedicated to debating/interviewing people across the political isle, and none of them are college kids. These people haven't spent a single minute watching any of his content to know any better other than various agenda-driven out of context clips they find on social media. He's always been able to have civil conversations with people who disagree with him as long as the good faith is mutual.

@@visual_sanctum Precisely

It's because Ben Shapiro is actually a sophist and when he's shown to obviously be when the most his fans can say any more is that he's good at it

I used to binge Ben’s content daily until his war mongering didn’t sit well with me. Can safely say that out of what I’ve seen/listened to, this is a drastic improvement for Ben. :/