Ben Shapiro Challenges Atheist's Ethical Worldview
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ม.ค. 2024
- Watch the full debate on @PremierUnbelievable : • Ben Shapiro vs Alex O'...
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
John Early
Dmitry C.
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
Thanks to Premier Unbelievable for hosting this debate! Watch the full 90 minutes here: th-cam.com/video/yspPYcJHI3k/w-d-xo.htmlsi=2uTdYvxT22-nweTt
woweee
You should have approached the difference between absolute and objective. Accepting a god's own subjective biases as absolute, still doesn't magically make them objective. There's no such thing as objective morality, any which way you look at it.
@@Rizzy-xm7tl In the words of Spock - "Captain, life is not a dream." - The physical consistency of the world is evidence for this. It's also evidence that no being is "imagining" things into reality - reality may or may not be a simulation of some kind, but it functions to a set of extremely well defined rules that we have never observed to be broken in any rigorous test applied - this fact rules out the existence of any kind of God or Gods other than the "blind watchmaker" kind, who sets up the rules and then leaves it to run - and what is the point in believing in or worshiping such a God?
Thanks Alex for this really interesting discussion ❤
This is my perspective on moralism
th-cam.com/video/nw8-9_SzZi0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=a_0ANNTpckRnVJvY
@@Rizzy-xm7tl Even if we were to accept that, what good is it to have an absolute morality system that we do not have access to?
I like how the phrasing of the title is clearly meant to attract Ben Shapiro fanboys.
Even Alex needs clicks.
Good way to trick the shapiroites into watching some alex
Such insight. Much wisdom. Wow.
A clickable yet honest title is 1. just good business and 2. a means of balancing the audience beyond your normal followers.
@@siezethebidet Yeah, it was just a funny observation to me.
When it comes to God/religion, Ben suddenly cares more about his feelings than facts.
When someone claims to be religious then all of their other thoughts can be safely ignored.
"Always has been" meme goes here
He literally said he doesn't view all religions are equal. It's a polite way of saying 'anyone who's not Jewish is not equal to me'. Unfortunately many Jews see themselves as God's chosen people, anyone else is of lesser value. Not saying that's Shapiro's stance but you'd be surprised at how many have this mindset.
@@TP-pq9xx That's way, to extreme. Religious people can have interesting and helpful thoughts and ideas. Just outside the topic of religion.
The best stance is to be an agnostic. We don't know that there is a God and we also don't know that there isn't for sure. Everyone claims any different from that is either crazy or lies!
Ben has always cared more about his feelings than fact. The facts or feeling rhetoric has always been used to convince audience that their feelings are instead fact.
It's astounding how well spoken Alex is. He could be a universty professor. Such an erudite and confident person.
I started watching his channel when he was about an 18 year old undergraduate and he has been that impressive all along
It's because he's educated and actually thinks through things carefully, I would say. People who actually care for truth and accuracy do try to speak more deliberately and carefully.
Agreed. His thoughts are well laid out compared to what I had at University with professors just babbling Marxist platitudes.
I admire how he conducts his debates, like so many others just go in with this “Im gonna get you” mentality and often times it means the other person feels attacked and leaves, but he’s always just calm, patient, and debating solely with good arguments, no ad hominem, and no intention to make the other person look like a clown
He has a PhD
I love that Ben’s officially in the “yeah it might not be true, as in it is probably just stories made by imaginative people, but the social constructs tho” phase of believing. Nice to see some honesty for once.
He still pissed me off when trying to claim religion has some monopoly on morals. Scary, because religious folks fall for that argument big time.
I wonder if Shapiro even believes that stuff, maybe not, but he needs to keep his fans.
@@INTERNATIONALvids There can’t be objective morality unless religion is true. Religious people believe in objective morality.
@@johnnyboy9492morality it’s objective it is subjective. Your morals and everyone else’s are going to be slightly or vastly different.
@@hunterxcraft8328there is a deeper premise that is Assumed and not mentioned here. That premise is that in order for society to function to some degree-morality must be objective to some degree. IE in order for any society to thrive they must accept that murder is wrong. We may fight over the minutia but the idea that killing your fellow man in certain circumstances is universally accepted. Otherwise if morality is subjective than nothing matters because there are no rules. I'm of the opinion that object morality does not exist however it is an abstraction that humanity evolved to accept because it's highly conducive to survival.
@@johnnyboy9492 “objective” morality doesn’t exist, only subjective morality exists. You cant even claim it’s objective morality if a god exists, you’d have to prove you can communicate with it accurately and grasp its opinions.
You will always interpret a moral context with your human brain through your human eyes. You are incapable of anything other than “subjective” morality. (Which doesn’t exist, it’s just morality.) subjective/objective is apologist propaganda with no bearing in reality. Just step 2 in a bunch of unsupported assertions
Funny how the religion that Ben thinks is true is the one he was "born in"...
ben is a dumb clown
how he impresses anyone is beyond me
Considering his narcissism, he, most surely, thinks of himself as being chosen by his imaginary buddy personally - therefore: Of course it has to be the religion he was born into that is the right and only one.
(Without realising that none of them are. We all are gods. Petty, mortal gods. Like the one mentioned in his "holy" book.)
The only religion that could be true is one that is found on another planet, or even better, another universe.
@@threestars2164 how so?
@@abcdefg91111 he probably meant discovering something that humans had no influence over.
Even if morality isn't subjective, there's still zero proof it comes from "God."
Even if it came from a god, it would be based on that god's own subjective biases. Those who believe in it just accept them as absolute ... absolute =\= objective.
There is proof, but you're reducing proof to empirical proof, and only physical proof empirical proof. It's circular.
@@bradspitt3896setting aside the proof vs evidence terminology debate. Do you have any non physical evidence for god? What would that even look like?
@@bradspitt3896 Why can't we get ANY empirical and/or physical proof of god making himself known to us in a way that let's us know plainly? And also what other kind of proof that is not empirical would you offer to support this statement? Also which god are we talking about and how can you 'prove him' as opposed to other billions that have been invented and that you don't believe are true and have or had the same small amount of non-physical or empirical proof supporting them?
@@bradspitt3896That a claim does not meet the burden of proof is a problem of the claim.
It’s reassuring to think that there is someone who is able to carry the mantle of reason that Christopher Hitchens is so tragically unable to do now. Kudos to Alex.
The difference is that Hitchens was charming and likeable, not smug and annoying.
@BigDome1 I think you may have that backwards.
“Lex Fridman is dangerous” 16 min inspirational video on TH-cam ends w the poem “if” by R Kipling. Which is best, Law abiding citizen, forest gump, green mile 51st dates Hancock click or Stepbrothers?
Poster of the video should’ve interrupted quickly to agree (as Ben did) when Ben said how it was more common for people to kill for reasons other than religion than dictation by god, and maybe added that religious people can kill for non religious reasons also
He's articulate but I liked his comments the first time, when they were in a collection of Hitch-slaps.
You have secured a life of digital nomadism, being able to move freely in the world while monetising your pursuit of philosophy. I'm so, so proud of how far you've come Alex. Here's to 1million subs!
But it goes nowhere. His complete view on life is “nothing matters” “it’s all in your head” “nothing has value”
@@JakeyD23 so nihilism, idealism, and moral nihilism. He holds none of those views
@@JakeyD23
He’s an atheist that doesn’t believe in objective truths. That doesn’t mean that he says nothing matters and it’s “all in your head.” That’s a complete strawman.
@@roems6396 but that’s literal the definition if nothing is true or false nothing is everything. It all falls apart immediately. If there is no objective truth there is no objective lie. So all is correct, all is wrong, all is all. From Zoolander 2 remember? lol “All is all”
@@bigol7169 exactly he holds no opinion. All is all. Everything is nothing. Nothing is everything. All is true, all is false. All is all. A genuinely depressing state of mind
The issue with this is nearly every religion has a god that they say teaches us not to kill, but the followers of that god fo it anyway and find a way to justify it.
Even when all parties believe in the same god that prohibits killing. Its been the reason for civil wars and invasions.
Weird how the book that supposedly teaches you to love thy neighbor doesn't have a problem with enslaving, killing and maiming. There's some form of violence in every Bible story that I know of.
@@hoaxygen
They talk about this in the rest of the video.
The main points of the argument there is that the bible was:
a. Extremely humanistic for its time
b. It and judaism/christianity include core moral and societal principles that were instrumental to push society in that direction over time - even for the stuff they weren't originally good on.
And overall, as an atheist, I kind of agree.
I recommend you watch the whole video.
@@hoaxygen Im not sure if you are aware of history of mankind, but its not exactly sunshine and rainbows. The bible just records some of those actions of the time.
Same can be said about liberalism. They say respect all humans, nobody deserves to die but then these same libz go around bombing nations
Talking about America and UK, and no they are not a Christian nation
I love how Alex is incredibly calm the entire time. He is probably the most respectable man in Great Britain.
He has the patience of a saint. LMAO
Shapiro with his gish gallops can confuse the listener and thats his intention. Alex does not let himself get distracted by bluster and irrelevance.
Richard Dawkins is another example of this.
@uncoiledfish2561 Dunno mate - calm? Yes. Respectable? I'ma differ. He's being intellectually dishonest every time he attacks trans people (a thing which is fully acknowledged in biology to exist - he's a biologist, yeah?). I'm saddened that he gave in to the "Old Bigot" trope. He helped me deconstruct, so to see him align with hateful sorts is deeply saddening.
@@AmberAmber when Di Alex attack trans people??
It's funny how Ben confuses correlation with causation every time that it's convenient to his thinking
It's also funny to watch people use "correlation v causation" to imply correlation has no explanatory value, when entire fields of academic research in economics, political science, finance, etc. revolve around regressions and that regression models can, themselves, become statistical proof. For people who read this comment, if people use some sort of catchphrase in their responses without explanation, please ignore it and go do your own research. Correlation / causation is an extremely complex and interesting field. It may be worth your time to do some basic reading to acquaint yourself with aspects of it so you don't fall victim to 'argument by mantra'.
@@angusmcculloch6653 sure correlation and causation are a complex subject. That's exactly why it's surprising how Ben uses it so lightly. I thought it was obvious why there's a problem in Ben's argument here, though (Ben doesn't even explain causation here, he assumes it. For instance, he attributes the scientific revolution to religious principles ignoring all the other factors, even when the scientific revolution clashed with religion so many times). But going back to the point, you can't use "argument by mantra" every time that someone gives an argument that others have misused in other contexts. I don't think you see the irony here. Argument by mantra is exactly what you just did.
@@fmgs31 No, sorry. If I gave argument by mantra, I would say something that had no explanation or depth. That's not what happened. I critiqued your argument by mantra "correlation not causation" by showing that correlation, in fact, can equal statistical proof--i.e. I can run a regression that provides statistical proof that variable y does this *because* variable x did that.
In other words, the exact opposite of what people are trying to say when they use "correlation not causation". Now, see, here is where you lose definitively: you can say that's not how you were using the argument and there's no way to say for sure, because you relied only on a mantra. In other words, you made no actual argument and so you can claim it means whatever you need it to mean here in the moment--not unlike the criticism you gave Ben.
@@angusmcculloch6653 as I said, I thought it was obvious in this case. But it seems it was not, so I gave an example about what I meant.
You just explained why correlation can sometimes explain causation, and we all agree there. But it's unrelated: "sometimes" says nothing about this particular case. You said nothing about the use of Ben's assumptions of causation, though, which was the actual point.
@@fmgs31 I don't have to defend Ben's point. I never made any claim that Ben's point is correct. The discussion isn't about Ben's point. It's about you got caught flippantly throwing around a mantra, and now you're trying to gaslight your way out of it instead of saying, "You're right, Angus."
And, I'm sorry, but you trying to say you thought this complexity and nuance of correlation and causation from saying, "X confuses correlation for causation" was obvious is such a bad faith point I'm actually surprised you had the gall to try it. On top of that, the way you wrote it doesn't even make sense with what you're now trying to say you meant.
So, I'm sorry, but I just don't accept what you're saying, and hopefully others who see this will be intellectually honest enough to admit that what you did is bad form.
Now, all that being said, if you'd like to make the argument, using causation and correlation for why what Ben said confused them, I'll be happy to read it.
Ben claims that all of these social and scientific breakthroughs happened because the people responsible for them were religious... without mentioning that these people had to be religious, or at least claim to be religious in their times for fear of being put to death or shamed for not being religious... basically making the counter point to what he's trying to say.
The greed of mankind knows no bounds and when religion is brought into it it gives those men an all powerful symbol to take everything from whomever they want.
Human greed is the most toxic substance in the universe.
All true, but would have some of them gone above and beyond in the expression of their faith if their religiousness was just either falsely claimed or not entirely genuine? When Newton's notes were discovered it was found that he wrote more about religion and spirituality than about physics and Alex himself actually admits this somewhere in the full debate. How does your objection account for that?
@@TheNheg66 Newton may have decided it was necessary to write more about religion than physics specifically so people would think he is religious.
@@MegaLokopo now that's what I call reaching... unless you can substantiate in any way that that's the case with something other than assumptions about Newton's personal beliefs then the default assumption should be that the statements he made about his beliefs were accurate and made in earnest.
@@TheNheg66 Why would the default be that he was telling the truth?
Also how is my claim more reaching than op's claim?
Also you asked a question containing the words, "would have" and I answered with a question containing the word "may have". You were asking for a reason he would have done something, and I gave a reason he may have done something.
I didn't know newton personally, so my guess is as good as yours, but it is all too common today to lie about your beliefs, to protect your family, and your job.
Anyways how do you know there isn't a survivorship bias in his religious writings?
Many people today and in the past are not honest, you cannot be honest for many reasons, I would argue him pretending to be more religious than he was, was better for society because it probably contributed to him being more accepted by political figures at the time.
If you had a smartphone in that time you would be attacked for witchcraft they weren't exactly the most accepting people back then.
So they were religious not athiest...good to know!!
The power of interpretation.....that one skill means every religious book can be molded to fit anyone's reasoning. It makes every remotely vague text subjective and in the end the meaning is meaningless. Thankfully our society's laws are clearer.
even if they are unambiguous, like genesis lol
Abrahamic religions claim that only under their religion, you can have objective morality, yet they have ALWAYS been anything but objective.
It all depends on the interpretation of their book, which is always subjective. So when you ask, ok what are the clear objective moral laws under their religion, well it all depends on who you ask.
@@farrex0 In Christianity at least, it doesn't claim that you can't have or know objective morality without following Jesus's teachings. It affirms general revelation, meaning that the moral law is written on everyone's heart and their conscience bears witness of it. This doesn't mean the conscience can't be distorted, but it does mean that humanity has a generally clear understanding of the objective moral law. Also, most differences in interpretations (and resulting denominations) are not over what is the moral law. In fact the foundational teachings of Christianity are mostly focused on how everyone is guilty of transgressing that law, given from God, and how God has been gracious to us by making a way (through God's own incarnation, suffering, death, and resurrection) for us to be forgiven and for sin and death to be removed from existence. It is not primarily focused on a million laws we need to follow today in order to be "good" people or right with God.
@@minor00 "In Christianity at least, it doesn't claim that you can't have or know objective morality without following Jesus's teachings"
The bible in it of itself might not explicitly say that. But 98% of the time I hear that claim, it is made by a Christian, especially apologists.
But the actual claim, to be precise, is that they say that without God you can't have objective morality. And almost every discussion about anything involving atheism 98% of the Christians I have met end up saying "but you have no basis for your morality". Even if the discussion has nothing to with morality.
So at least from my experience, it is the complete opposite, Christians are the ones making the claim the most.
@@rogergalindo7318
It’s so hard to find a genuine intellectual discussion where both parties aren’t yelling at each other. This was great Bravo 👏
Ben has big "let me talk to your manager" energy.
@@wabbajack2hahaha and alex has "I was born in the wrong century" energy but still interesting convo between them
I'm on Ben's side with regards to religion but argument wise I kind of liked Alex's points
It would be great to find a genuinely intellectual debate.. I've not seen one ever in my entire life.
@@joedwyer3297what do you mean your on Ben's side in terms of religion? As in your religious or you think morality comes from religion/god
@@martinwest7250 yes although I thought Alex came across better.
I am definitely a better person for having become Catholic, because drugs violence and even revenge (breaking windows, vandalising property, destroying someone's reputation etc) and more are prohibited. I, now believing in a set of unchangeable moral rules have totally changed for the better as a person and in my conduct and values.
Without that unchanging, non negotiable set of rules, morality will have to be defined by someone else and everyone has a different idea of what's right and wrong
Edit**
Sorry hahaha to actually answer your question, both of those apply
Always nice to see shapiro take a question\proposition, change it, and then answer the question he wants to answer.
LOL! That’s his shtick… What a joke.😅
Ben Shapiro likes the sound of his own voice.
He's someone that laughs at his own jokes.
oof...rusty tin ear 😄
At least someone does
I on the other hand do not.🙄
not sure why. it's so shrill and hurried.
Ben describes the advantage of religious morality as having you stop thinking about your moral traditions, as if thinking issues through would somehow tend to have you end up at worse conclusions instead of more reasonable and consistent moral positions.
"Consistent" with respect to what?
Consistency isn't a moral virtue. Heinous and attrocious immoral positions are perfectly capable of internal consistency.
@@tgenov Who gives a fuck? This changes nothing about what he said.
@@negkoray It literally undermines the presupposition of his argument.
The premise being that more reason and more consistency necessarily implies more morality.
Reasonable people understand that undermining the premise changes everything. Perhaps you aren't reasonable?
@@tgenov It doesn't undermine anything - read it in context.
More reasonable and consistent - and now compare this to the subject of religious moral positions. Those of the past and those of today.
Let's take the christian take on condoms and HIV in Africa for example. Condoms are bad because no procreation, the suffering and death of hundreds of thousands people due to HIV in Africa are better. Because of love. Those are neither more reasonable nor consistent in terms of morality.
@@tgenov "Consistent" meaning "without contradictions". Christian fundamentalists' morality is riddled with those. It claims that the book depicting a bloodthirsty sadist with no respect for free will is instead an objective moral authority, and justify most of the described tyranny as being the consequence of his victims' will. "Look at what you made me do to you" is the typical logical constipation of an abuser, and to make a large population submit to that precept is to disable their critical reasoning and to encourage and make them vulnerable to further abuse.
I agree that internal consistency does not automatically make something moral, but the Bible does exemplify frequently that the opposite should disqualify a system from claiming any kind of objectivity or authority.
And I'm talking about fundamentalist Christians here because those seem to be the most popular group aligning with Ben's political interests. I know that many Christians deny the blood-dripping old testament on the basis of Jesus somehow denying the law instead of fulfilling it, but the new testament still defends the concept of defining love as people being physically tortured for explicitly arbitrary obedience. If you deny the parts of the Bible that I listed, you're only cherry-picking the parts that align with your pre-existing values, in an attempt to resolve the inherent inconsistency that would follow from following the book directly.
And at that point, you've already started using secular reasoning to pick your moral standing, instead of the blind obedience that Ben wants from you.
Excellent discussion and well formulated and spoken arguments alex - as an og hitchster - i see you matching him on many levels (that is intended as a huge compliment) - though you have your own unique style which is legit mate - good onya!
Ben's point that religion effectively helps people behave correctly reminds me of a famous quote from whom i forget but goes...
If a person needs religion to tell them right from wrong that person lacks empathy, not religion.
Religion didn't just show up yesterday, lol. Go research as far back as possible from the inception of our species. Why has "religion" survived along with "man" over the millennia?
I used to think that way too, and there’s certainly a lot of issues with religion, but religion helps people by having a community. We are social creatures, it only makes sense.
@@Timbo360 you can have a community that isn't solely based on interpreting one religion. Why only learn from one book when you can learn from them all? It's actually mighty fun debating or wondering about things without having to constantly force yourself to rhyme how it fits the narrative of a single 2000 year old view.
@@nicok8203 absolutely you can, I’m not saying one should follow only one. Some communities have pockets of different religions and I wouldn’t force them to change their ways. I’m spiritual but non practicing jew and I learn a lot from the different people I hang out with that are muslim, catholic, agnostic, etc. Also from my religion, our worldview is almost 3800 years longer, but I digress
@@nicok8203 and I agree it is fun to debate and question things rather than adhere to the same old story.
So the only true defense that Ben babbled on about in relation to Alex's scenario was using a logical fallacy.
"If you truly believe..." So we're going with the no true Scotsman fallacy...
I feel like he addressed Alex's scenario pretty well by challenging the premise that the person coming to kill him is there because of religion by saying that that scenario is a lot less likely than a person coming to kill him out of self-interest and right after that he agreed with Alex that god can indeed be a powerful motivator for evil that can't be dissuaded from. So he 1) challenged Alex's premise and 2) accepted Alex's conclusion if the premise is to be accepted. If that isn't a valid response to Alex's scenario then I don't know what is. Did you actually listen or were you just searching for things to disagree with? Seems to me like it's the latter.
And before anyone starts to insult me under the assumption that I'm defending Shapiro's arguments because I'm religious - I'm not. One does not have to be religious to interpret arguments in good faith (pun intended). Or rather, one shouldn't have to be.
Shapiros reply has such an easy rebuttal, he is convinced that religion is all for the good, but we have seen time and time again how it is manipulated for people to gain power, control people, and do evil. To me, it looks like that’s the only reason why it exists.
Wow you really missed it, this is not at all his claim. Your comment has nothing to so with the conversation.
He is saying that while Alex's point is true, there is an opposite example, so it's a question of trade-off, to which Alex agrees -
So it's just a difference of which do you believe is the greater risk.
Shapiro thinks it is often the latter, and that at the very least, it is so in the case of the judeo-christian world.
In other world, he is saying to alex "you are right, but that is still worth it, because"
Now, you might disagree, but that have nothing to do with a "not a real scotsman", in any way.
(btw I'm also an atheist)
Exactly
@@TheNheg66 alex didnt just make the premise that someone was coming to kill me because of religion he made both premise's
Ben likes religion as the cult and tool for social power that he knows full well that it is.
Don't all church leaders?
Yep
Yeah - when you look at who he is happy to take money from you can see exactly what he thinks about power, socioeconomic equality, belief systems and propaganda.
According to the cult of Franfurt School and postmodernism.
But what do you mean by "cult" ?
And what do you mean by "tool"?
Most religions look for transcendence and by that I mean they look for goodness, kindness, gentleness, love which transcends a human interest in catering for self. Those transcendent qualities undermine your claim for tool for social power. And yes over the years, we have had priests of various religions where we recognise the priest is acting to preserve the power of his own kingdom or acting out of his own self-interest, but that is in opposition in those transcendent qualities.
So I disagree with you.
It makes me happy to see a civil debate like this. No shouting, no oneliners, no bias. Thank you Alex!
Well there is bias though, the atheist and religious viewpoints. The rest is true tho and I’d definitely agree
I'll contend that debate "civility" is merely an aesthetic to provide a veneer of credibility to this specific target audience. Alex presents himself in a way that would be most palatable to Shapiro viewers without compromising his personal integrity. If Ben were too debate teenage children, as he has done many times in the past, he would use a lot more shouting/one liners in his speech, because that's the intent of those videos.
it's not civil when one guy believes in magic coaster hats
Pretty obvious bias. Shapiro's a bigot
omg its civil. fuck truth tho
It shows great confidence in your argument that you let Ben have the last word in your video, not many people allow their opponent to do that in these type of clips. Much respect for that.
This is n underrated comment. It indeed takes the bigger person, or one who has more confidence as you said, to allow their opponent the last word. I feel it shows Alex is not threatened or insecure in this discussion
I love listening to Ben talking about the the existence of god for there to be morality. And then hear him brush over the bombing of children as fine..
Hypocrisy at its most intellectual.
Typical Christian hypocrite
@@SamoaVsEverybody814 Ben is Jewish. So, not all that surprising for him to think it's okay to genocide people for their "god given" land. Horrible, but not hypocritical. It is, however, hypocritical cherry picking for him to spout other OT/Tanakh laws, but not go out bashing people's heads in with rocks, for working or doing chores on Saturdays.
An appalling over simplification.
Ben's support of these acts [b0mbing children], ironically, is actually nihilistic and devoid of morality.
Ben seems to want a way to keep people's behaviors in check, so he needs moral realism to be true, even though what he's describing is moral subjectivism (based on God's will). He is not reasoning from first principles, he is reasoning backward from the society he wants to exist.
Thank you for your comment and for capturing the feeling and words that were forming as I listened along. It pains me to see a person fall victim to their desire for control, and it seems to me that it is that very desire for control that controls so much of what Ben Shapiro does and says these days.
Honestly, it’s fair if you have some values at play. For example, if you take it that everyone agrees in a certain sense of morality, despite it not being objectively true, the way to maximize such would be for everyone to believe that it is actually objective. Im not sure Ben is taking that “straussian” position, but it’s at least defensible.
And based on an existing social idealogical construct concieved in the abstract by men.
@@Rizzy-xm7tl go troll elsewhere
well religious people believe God's will is the Ultimate will, that there is no argument against him, no force against him etc.
that whatever he says or does is objective, because he created everything, including the knowledge that we can even know what objective or subjective means
"In his famous dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, a philosophical quandary is posed thusly: *“Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” Known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, the problem boils down to this: If something is morally good simply because it is commanded by God, then morality is arbitrary. God could decide tomorrow that murder and rape are morally acceptable, and voilà, it would be. On the other hand, if God commands what is already morally good, then morality exists independently of God. He is not the source or creator of morality, not the one who determines right from wrong, but merely one who dispenses a system of ethics that transcends his own authority.*
In response, theists attempt to wiggle their way out of the dilemma by suggesting that God’s very nature, or character, is good, so that he would never condone such wicked acts as rape or murder. But then all one has to do is reformulate the question, à la philosopher Michael Martin: “Is God’s character the way it is because it is good, or is God’s character good simply because it is God’s character?” The dilemma stands, as God’s character remains subject to an external definition of what is moral or good. *Why is this? It’s because morality is an abstraction, or social contract, produced collectively by sentient beings, and to which all sentient beings are subject. And it’s something that naturally arises on a pragmatic basis for the sake of order and harmony within any civilized society. God, therefore, is neither the source of morality, nor a necessary explanation for its existence.*
*But imagine for a moment the sheer absurdity of suggesting that the biblical God is the supreme author of morality.* A God who demands the extermination of men, women, and children (1 Sam. 15:1-3), who delights in the retaliatory act of seizing infants and dashing them against rocks (Ps. 137:8-9), of raping the wives of Israel’s enemies (Is. 13:16), even orchestrating the brutal death of dozens of children by savage bears, merely for having mocked one of his prophets (2 Kgs. 2:23-24). *This is a ferociously partisan, bloodthirsty, and vengeful deity, not one bound by any high-minded or all-encompassing moral code.* Theists will typically defend such verses in one of three ways: 1) by suggesting that “those were different times,” thus invoking moral relativism and destroying their own case for an objective morality stemming from God; 2) by appealing to context, of which there simply isn’t any to justify the depravity above; and 3) by pleading, “that was the Old Testament,” or, “Jesus changed all that,” tacitly admitting that the God they ostensibly worship was once horrible and in need of change, which further contradicts any claims to the immutable and unchanging character of God (e.g., Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8; Jm. 1:17).
*Suffice it to say, neither God nor the Bible serve as the basis for morality."*
*"Is God Necessary for Morality? | atheologica"*
---------------------------------------------------------
Also look up:
*"God is the Source of Morality. (Not.) | atheologica"*
*"Morals Don't Come From God: For This I Know Because the Bible Tells Me So"* - Dr Steven DiMattei.
*"Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies | Psychology Today"*
Excellent addition to the comments and worth reviewing and analyzing
Great contribution thank you
If you don't take God serously don't read what I have to say next cause its a waist of time.
If we are the image of God. Then its to say that what comes from us comes from God. And what we do as humanity highly reflects who God is. Christian God is a God of the souls and hearts. At which he reaches towards them in there current state.
As some one who doesn't have much faith in God of the BIble. I base my life on practicality, contentment, doing whats best, and caring about myself the first. Everyone else is secondary. The bible and church is secondary, God is secondary. But with little faith that I have in God. I use that to push myself to go above and beyond when things get tuff.
Have you considered you maybe twisting Scripture to suit your pre-determined beliefs? Imagine that this analysis you have just made is fool proof. What is a superior alternative to God and the Bible?
Me like. Well stated.
4:10 "Any morality that can be created on an individual level is inherently dangerous because you can immediately graft that morality onto your personal self-interest"
A nice little nugget of wisdom from Ben who has just handily explained the techniques of Prosperity Gospel, of Chrisitan Nationalism and his own changeable views on murder depending on the nationality and politics of the victims (Palestinian civilians, for example).
(*edited to add the timestamp)
Pretty much every religious organisation has just used religion to justify the individual desires of certain people and or ideals
Religious absolutism can be used to defend actions considered immoral by the religion (as Shapiro points out). But it can be used to defend the immorality that comes from the religious source material.
Ben fails to realize that it doesn't matter that you can "graft that morality onto your personal self interests" because all that really matters is whether society accepts your self morality or not.
But its ironic that the only examples you can use are deviations (that you would actively admit are) from the normal framework constructed. Christians that you would agree are "real Christians" (for lack of a better description) would disagree with these 2 groups. That literally means that they have changed religious tradition to accommodate their own self interests. Therefore the flaw is again, as Ben said, not with religion, but with man's own self interest. You beautifully described why Ben is right.
@@Djmorton-go5mt - Sure, it's not difficult to tell when people are directly contradicting the very religion they claim to follow, and I was pointing out the hypocrisy that Shapiro engages in when he adjusts "Thou shalt not kill" to suit his personal preferences and ignores the scriptural endorsement of abortion found in Numbers 5.
As for people who actually do live by the teachings of their religion, such as the bible, some I like (those who focus on charity and compassion while opposing greed and the hoarding of wealth) and some I don't like (those who focus on the admonitions against the status of women, gay people, non-believers, etc).
Ben sort of sidesteps the fact that men will kill out of self-interest with religion as a foundation for that self-interest. Plus, he shifts the goalposts from "moral absolutes" to "a society with moral absolutes." That's not a moral absolute.
That may be true of Islam, but show us where in Christian or Jewish doctrine or theology it would ever prescribe just killing someone for self or group interest? That person would be using the religion in vain and under a false pretense. That person would not be truly Christian or Jewish. Self-defense aside, there is no circumstance in which murder is acceptable in Christian or Jewish doctrine. It seems your argument is predicated on a truly non-Christian or non-Jewish person acting.
@@DMB_14 where? I mean, literally everywhere!! There are literally writings on when to utterly destroy an "enemy," when you could enslave people for labor or as sex slaves, and how to manage them as property. You cannot ask a question like that unless you e never actually read either the old or New testament.
@@DMB_14 You haven't read the OT/Tanakh.
@@PhilusteenI know that is in the Quran, but if it's literally everywhere in the Bible please share with me the book and chapter and verse from the Bible and you will successfully change my mind.
@@DMB_14it's nowhere as bad in the Bible as it is in the Quran. The instances in the Bible that I'm aware of talk about what to do with your adversaries after a conflict/conquest rather than instructing the conquest in the first place. It was actually adressed in the full debate, maybe you'd enjoy listening to it :)
I never got the “morality can only come from god” thing.
Every moral you can glean from the bible has an opposite moral teaching.
(The one exception is “don’t you dare have another imaginary friend)
And any person can interpret the words anyway they wish, rendering any moral subjective.
You can commit horrible atrocities against humanity with a clear conscience, if it’s in gods name.
The morals of the bible are so poor, even the most religious have adopted secular morals(I.e. slavery, smashing children on rocks, etc) in order to be a good person.
What are you talking about?
@@elijahknox4421 if only he knew
@@elijahknox4421 I’ll use smaller words for you:
Secular morals are superior to religious morals.
From which god? Because 95% of humanity has never heard of that specific god.
Replace the word "god" with any social virtue.
You can commit horrible atrocities against humanity with a clear conscience, if it’s in tolerance's name.
You can commit horrible atrocities against humanity with a clear conscience, if it’s in inclusivity's name.
You can commit horrible atrocities against humanity with a clear conscience, if it’s in the name of peace.
You can commit horrible atrocities against humanity with a clear conscience, if it’s in moral progress' name.
Because humans are free to misinterpret any and all teachings.
And that's precisely what hermeneutics teaches you - the difference between interpretation and misinterpretation. The difference between the letter and the spirit of the law.
The "Judeo-Christian" tradition takes way to much credit for what is ancient Greek philosophy/tradition. This includes the concept of equality under the law that Shapiro brought up.
To be fair, the Judeo-Christian tradition basically grew up in a Greco-Roman framework, from the Hellenism that pervaded the Eastern Mediterranean following Alexanders conquest to the Roman Empire under which Christianity emerged, it was always clashing up against - and taking influence from - Greco-Roman philosophy.
In a sense, it has really been underlyingly Hellenic for more than two thousand years.
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
Thinking there are "good" and "bad" people is magical thinking just like religion.
Bad quote. The more you think about it the less sensible it gets.
I think the twentieth century provides us sufficient evidence to add "it could also take ideology".
It takes propaganda. JFC this entire comment section is full of Redditor blowhards that think they're shitting out gold with every sentence.
I really don’t understand the idea that a creator of the universe is also somehow the most moral agent. It’s is weird. Are we just saying that “might makes right” is just for whatever reason true? If not, are we just adding “perfectly moral” as an additional happenstance attribute that we are assigning to a thing that is capable of creating universes. I’ll ignore the fact that I don’t see how it is possible for a thing to exist that is capable of willing things into existence, but regardless, where are we getting the idea that this thing is also perfectly moral?
well the being in question said it was a moral being, and since the being is a moral being it couldn't be lying.
...that's genuinely the logic we're supposed to follow
I would guess that the idea comes from morality also being one of the things that a creator of the universe willed into existence. So that the creator is the ultimate source of everything, including morality. It seems connected to the view of morality as a law as objective and all-encompassing as the laws of physics.
@@Rizzy-xm7tlhe is because he says he is? Nice circular bullshit, retard.
@@Rizzy-xm7tlwhere’s your proof that the creator of the universe is perfectly moral? I personally believe “he” created the universe and it plays out how it plays out
Also, we’re told all of these things by words written by humans themselves.
Did Ben even make an argument?
Alex was saying you can't convince a person out of killing you if their God told them to. Ben was saying you can't use God to convince an Atheist to not kill you for their self interest. Not really conflicting points initially but Ben then said probably most religions pursue peace and a lot more people are killed out of self interest (Ben used the ideas of stealing that person's land of getting revenge for killing your kin) than killed in the name of God
@@elijahknox4421 Ok, so Ben made an assumption, not an argument. got it.
@@archkylewhat? 😂 really, you consider the starement that it's historically much more likely to have been murdered out of someone's self-interest than in the name of god to be an assumption? That's clearly a statement of fact, not an assumption.
he never does
@@TheNheg66 That's not what a fact is, It's literally an assumption. Facts are based on evidence. He's made a declarative statement as if it was fact. You should be embarrassed.
Very good conversation. I enjoyed it. Subbed.
I enjoyed this on both sides. I think Ben's final notes on the shift in cultural behaviours being linked to reduced religious beliefs I think it's a bit heavy handed though, there are several other factors outside of religion that influence cultural behaviours such as increased suicidal ideation or lower birth rates...such as the state of the economy, for example. But overall, a good debate!
Yes, the combined stresses of a polluted environment, capitalism screwing everyone to wall and the ever increasing pace of the information age, would have nothing to do with it, Ben.
Once again, you can't know the mind of god...except Ben claims that he does. There should be a card that you should hold up. God gives us the texts but he knows that we are going to interpret them this way or another...*holds up card*
Ben is god. In his own mind anyway lol
It’s funny how the mind of God always happens to fall right in line with what Ben thinks is right and wrong…
If god affirms Bens intuitions, he knows god. If god contradicts Bens intuitions, he doesnt know god.
God can neither confirm nor deny anything. The point is, he claims not to know the mind of god but then contradicts that by claiming to know God's intentions ergo that he knows the mind of God.@@rewrewrewrewr2674
Alex is so brilliant; he talked right over Ben’s head.
Yeah no he’s not. Ben is probably way smarter than I am and I understand what he’s saying perfectly fine. Actually that is in part because Alex is brilliant and can break down his argument to relatively simple and logical points.
That, sir, is called confirmation bias. Both sides made sound arguments but it's quite obvious Ben is sharper.
the purity of your heart and intention got you my appreciation which i express by clicking the sub button
Alex is what Destiny thinks he is.
you still havnt done a reaction video to this debate. it would get many view, i am curious to hear your thoughts about the debate
I watched the whole debate. It was excellent 👌
You did better than me. I lasted ten seconds of Ben's voice before the feeling of a rusty hacksaw across my skull was too much. There's just something about his smug, nasal tone that I cannot take
@@angrypom well, that says nothing about the contents of the debate and everything about your ability to dispassionately engage with content. If i dragged myself through a 1,5hr discussion between Alex and Slavoj Zizek then an hour long debate with Ben should honestly be a cakewalk.
But what do I know, maybe you're just not as able to stomach irritable voices than I am... or, what's in my opinion much more likely is that you're a lot better at coming up with reasons not to be confronted with arguments from people that you hold negative preconceived notions about than I am
@@TheNheg66 this “content” is the modern equivalent of medieval theologians debating on the sex of angels. Perfectly fine to enjoy it but no reason to be condescending to those who prefer to skip it.
@@TheNheg66 I did not at any point express any opinion about the content of the debate - to do so would be a form of ad hominem as I'm sure you would have pointed out. Perhaps I will watch the debate on mute with subtitles on and be amazed at the intelligent opinions of the man who thinks that the solution to coastal erosion is to sell the land, presumably to people who are setting up some kind of impressive magic trick. If I do I'll be sure to let you know so that you can reassure yourself of your intellectual superiority
You and David Bentley Hart. What can we do to help you catch that fish for your podcast? Not for UnBelievable. Less about debate and more about conversation. I would find it immensely fruitful.
I never tire of these re-ups
Ben is propping up a false conflict between being a theist and acting in one's self-interest. Most theists are acting in what they believe are their self-interests (note: not the same as selfishness, lacking consideration for others) and you can also find some examples of non-theists acting not in their best interests. These two ideas do not exclude one another. Alex is right in underlining that hardcore theists cannot be debated out of their faith - "You cannot reason someone out of what they didn't reason themselves into." - but non-theists can be persuaded to act differently by illuminating how their current behavior actually goes against their best interests.
"theists cannot be debated out of their faith...but non-theists can be persuaded to act differently by illuminating how their current behavior actually goes against their best interests.
That's a great point, they *can* be. I see two problems with it though:
1) Just because faith doesn't prevent non-theists from being persuaded into changing their behavior does not give us any information about how likely such persuasion attempts aimed at them can be/are.
2) What do you appeal to when the immoral or societally dysfunctional behavior you're trying to dissuade a non-theist from committing actually *is* in his or hers best interest?
I like Alex but I think Ben actually makes a fairly legitimate point about which extreme is more likely as far as "debating" someone out of their motivations. In general, is it more likely that someone religiously grounded in belief in the objective value of human life would try to kill Alex or someone who has deluded themselves into radical secular subjectivism to the extent that harming others and living nihilistically is not morally objectionable because objective morality does not exist? A lot of these edited clips kind of take away from the actual full debate which is not even about whether God, objective morality, etc. exists but rather that whether "religion is good or bad for society". Alex himself once admitted in an interview with Genetically Modified Skeptic where Drew said "is religion good or bad" (to which most athiests would say bad) is a meaningless question because you could equally say "is politics good or bad" because politics has caused wars and genocides too. Or "is agriculture good or bad" because agriculture contributes to climate change for example.
@@m0RRisC2319 i watched that conversation with Drew from GM Sceptic just a few days ago too and found it both funny and sad that the two most prominent atheism content creators on youtube are significantly tamer in their critique of religion than both a significant portion of commenters under their videos and a significant portion of the atheist community at large.
When would an Atheist ever do anything out of self interest?
@@TheNheg66 from at least Drew's perspective, he finds a lot of the "athiest community" (like r/athiesm on Reddit) to be quite toxic and has created an echo chamber for obnoxious narcissists who have convinced themselves that they are deeply wise intellectual thinkers simply because they don't believe in God and use that as a justification to be disrespectful to cultures and religions in the world who do
Alex has grown and grown over the years into a tower of an intellectual. I’m not sure I’d say the same for Ben.
No offense, but Alex is not a tower of an intellectual. He sounds like a student in an undergraduate seminar. They didn't even define what they mean by "God". Moral-ethical thought and development is hard-wired in our brains as social creatures. Alex doesn't seem to know about that. Also, morals _develop_ as one ages... the classic on this is Lawrence Kohlberg on the Stages of Moral Development. Neither of them seem to be even remotely familiar with that whole area of study, research and scholarship.
Next to Ben he is 9 feet tall
@@nsbd90nowso you’re a tower of an intellectual then?
@@Lutoria99 Yeah, pretty much, in the areas I've studied on a graduate level. Spent massive amounts of time, effort and money to get there. And unlike grifters like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson, I don't pretend to know things outside of my areas of focus.
@@jerardogonzalez007 Yeah... Ben mostly just says the same stuff over and over again, and wins debates because he can think and talk really fast. Lots of things I've heard from him make no sense at all.
But it's also pathetic to see people in the comments pretending Alex is the next Socrates or Chanakya or something. I also can't stand his smug manner in his videos (not in debates with people).
Great conversation. I see a lot of comments are eager to state a winner or choose a side. I see it more as a privilege to listen in. I'll add that i believe it important to remember that atrocities happen in both the presence and absence of a belief in God.
sincerely alex thank you, i am recovering from christian fundamentalism and i really enjoy your videos. your voice is calming as well as the way you explain subject matter. i know you will never see this comment but you have really helped me become more theologically and philosophically literate, as well as becoming more tolerant and understanding towards other world views
thank you
That's the problem with fundamentalism, it's always intolerant towards the views of others. I've been an Atheist for decades, however I used to be Catholic, I consider myself a cultural Christian.
@@pillsareyummy i find that i am ashamed because of how intolerant i was towards other people (especially part of the lgbtq+ community) although i meant no harm i still did harm and that makes me feel guilty to this day, and now as an atheist, interacting with the intolerant parts of fundamentalism makes me only feel pity and sadness for the people who may be like i was, but are too deep into it now to leave
@@yourmother-xr7vx I hear you. For the record, I support everyone's right to identity how they wish, however, with that being said, I do believe there's a lot of nonsense in the LGBTQ....... community. I think we've entered a stage where people are 'making stuff up' now. I believe the number is over 80 at this point. Ridiculous ....
Good for you for getting out of that
@@AlexMatthews-xe8ld thank you for the support ❤
I love Alex but it's just impossible for me to sit through Ben Shapiro yapping his maw
His gish-galloping deflections are annoying AF…
Part of what is so interesting about this is that Ben Shapiro can come across as so thoughtful, respectful and charming in this setting... and then turn around and become a smug, insufferable, bomb-thrower on his own show, seemingly only interested in polemic.
He is a pay to play conservative and he knows what kind of rhetoric with his audience gets him talking head spots on TV and speaking gigs at/for well funded conservative 'think-tanks' / propaganda organisations. He can't use the same approach here as he is smart enough to know it'll completely alienate the viewers and he'd get torn to shreds dealing with people much smarter than he is.
ben loves money. he's a liar and propagandist that loves material wealth above all else.
truth and ethics will not get in his way.
Poor Ben really has to be right. He seems quite emotionally invested in his beliefs.
ben is a clown
if your not emotionally invested in your beliefs, you don't truly have any beliefs.
@@forrestfurry6113 belief should follow evidence, not emotion.
@@forrestfurry6113 beliefs should be based on experiences and evidence, not feelings.
If i told you i have a feeling that the sky will be green tomorrow, is that belief valid? or is it completely stupid?
very interesting. informative detail blends well with overall big points.
11:52
Wow... "The evolution of interpretation..."
Well that's a nice way of saying that I can never be held down or be required to Define and uphold a standard when I can change the interpretation whenever I want... 1
Ben is funded by billionaires, and he thinks that alone makes him intellectually equipped to participate in a debate like this.smh
he grifts because his love of ill-gotten money is his greatest motivation
truth and ethics shall not get in the way of Ben's material wealth
he is no where near adequately intellectual to be debating with Oxford Philosophy graduates on these type of things. And nor, as a religious believer, does he serve as the be all end all religious debater.
@@all-caps3927 Wait, wait, wait. Harvard Law grads aren't intellectually capable of debating Oxford Philosophy grads on whether religion is good for society? Where did this assertion come from?
I bring up Shapiro's education, because you say it is explicitly Oxford Philosophy grads that been is not intellectually adequate to debate. So, since the specific credential you say Shapiro is intellectually incapable of debating is an Oxford Philosophy undergraduate degree holder, I'm wondering why a Harvard Law credential makes one intellectually incapable of debating an Oxford Philosophy undergraduate degree holder
@@all-caps3927 Oh of course, a Harvard Law graduate has no right to argue against Oxford philosophy graduates!
Yeah, sure, I agree; it is so obvious that Shapiro is stupid and of low intelligence.
Any dressing for Ben’s word salad?
I hate the argument that people within religious communities donate more to charity. It completely ignores that giving to churches is also considered giving to charity. At least, that's how it is in the United States which, I assume, is where Ben pulled his information.
That isn't counted as charity in the United States to however any money the church gives to other charity causes us counted
@@Bic-daxc69 Church tithing is tax deductible because it's considered a charitable donation. Read the US tax code before saying nonsense.
@@darrelsapp1232 a charitable donation is not the same thing as considering giving to charity
@@darrelsapp1232 also in general yes most churches spend all of their funds on charitable donations and causes outside of sustaining and personal funds
@@Bic-daxc69 For the purposes of this discussion, it most certainly is. There's only two ways you could come to Ben's conclusion: either it's based off tax deductible donations to tax-exempt entities (i.e. churches) as the IRS classifies charitable donations or through the "trust me, bro, I donate" anecdotal (meaning completely useless) evidence.
Your choice on which you'd like to assume it is.
All we need to teach is the importance of empathy in humanity. That is all.
if we're not on the same page of our bases for what right or wrong is then we wont agree what empathy is..
Everybody is inherently selfish
@@zenmodi2614luckily we are a social species, and thus do have a basis of what's right and wrong as far as harming one another. Do we need a supposedly Holy book or supposedly Holy Visions to know not to kill our own children? I'd say humanity is on the same page on that issue.
Amazingly, not even all achristians are on the same page. Have you noticed some churches are afraid of honosexuality and others are chill about it? That seems to indicate the holy book doesn't align people that well
@@zenmodi2614 treat people how you would want to be treated. its not rocket science. you don't need a religion for it. Any cultural and ethical differences can be evaporated with this thinking.
@@samwize28 catcallers and masochists love the golden rule.. also zero consideration for others .. because not everyone will automatically like how you would like to be treated..
Bench Appearo
GOT 'IM!!! 🤣
@@BLSFL_HAZEHe'll never recover. 😎
Loved this debate! Good job Alex and Ben.
I always find it odd when people claim that Galileo and Isaac Newton were deeply devout Christians. As if there was any other choice during those time periods, especially for those in positions of authority. How do people forget about the inquisition or the insidious authoritarianism that only religion can produce and enforce? Galileo was confined to his property for the rest of his life even after proving his discovery to be correct.
He just can't talk about his moral philosophy without mentioning how trendy it is
I havent warched the entire discussion but oh my is it a relief just hearing two people being polite and respectful, letting eachother finish, not raising their voices etc. Its almost like they actually wanted a discussion!
Certainely different than stupid 20 minute "debates" like on other shows where they constantly interrupt, raise tbsir voices and insult one another
From 10:00 on, I hear Christopher Hitchingson, reborn. Love this, keep it going! We need a new voice of reason!
Came here to say that about the “but don’t you know” parts.
I just hit play and am already stoked.
Ben Shapiro doesn’t realize that religion is not a deterrent to immoral actions.
Bad people will do bad things and good people will do good things, but it takes religion to encourage good people to do bad things.
Empathy is the important thing here regarding morals, not religion.
Religions can be a moral code or guide, and 1s such be a deterrent for immoral actions. However, you are correct, it is often outdated and a little bit off and sometimes condone what a law abiding citizen of the 21st century would consider immoral.
@@etistonethat is all i think of it as. A guide.
If you waist your life on religion you'll become a monster. If you waist your life on yourself and on Athiesm, you'll become a better human being with no regrets.
@@wantedsavage7776 Actions that improve oneself and society is not a waste of time.
@@2l84me8 poor choice from me. But yeah I agree.
What many people miss is that religious morality doesn’t simply justify atrocities toward others, it more frequently justifies atrocities to yourself. When God sets you up with self hatred and life-denial, no one can help you or convince you otherwise.
I’ve always thought of religion as man’s best attempt at recording how to best respond to uncertain external forces in order to survive, as well as to optimize our well-being as a species.
In it we see both notes of human brilliance and clumsiness.
As a result, the more accurate our revelations advance, the more of the old paradigm can be purged. Also, though, it’s important to not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I really enjoy Alex and his input.
When minds like his and Shapiro’s connect, we all win in one way or another. Same with Peterson and Harris. This is my opinion.
Interesting to me to see how such a conversation like this video presented can breed the sort of comments I see in the thread. It’s like people didn’t listen to exercise thought but to practice confirmation bias.
With a topic like what to do with religion, we have a duty, I believe, to hold ourselves to the utmost respect of one another in spite of how ridiculous we think opposing perspectives may be.
Many people just need help getting over the wall of reductionist thinking and would do well to not be insulted for their misled perceptions. Others wouldn’t listen even if you laid out a perfect argument. In either case, you win as an individual if you can resist the temptation to be smug even though you may be right.
Also, consider that you could potentially be wrong yourself. Or at minimum a little off in your assessment of such a complex topic. We are all human, and therefore susceptible to our fair share of intellectual clumsiness. Especially when we *know* we are right.
For what it’s worth.
Great episode of the Roe Jogan Experience 😂😂😂
I kept waiting for Sting to appear in the background running amongst the lights.
_“He’s just another college student. This should be a breeze!”_ - Ben
I really don't think you can link declining birthrates to a decline in religiosity.
Even in countries where their religious traditions have remained relatively constant over the past 50 years there are declining birthrates. And even anecdotal observation is that birthrates have declined within religious communities.
When you consider things like in many places a single income isn't enough to raise a family, and family businesses are less and less common, farming technology has reduced the number of hands required to do the work, it's really not surprising to see birthrates decrease.
Alex, you're one of my favorites, keep up the good work! I'm also a fan of Shapiro, admire him for his intelligence and rational criticism of millennial nonsense, although as smart as he is he could never convince me to return to religion. Thank you for what you do 💪🏼
Ladies and gentlemen - This is how 2 people with different views should talk to each other. Ironically enough, this gives me faith in humanity regardless of the topic.
Benjamin S.: _"These are the absolute truths of an all-knowing creator ..."_
Also Benjamin S.: _"God's words are & have been always open for interpretation ..."_
You see, Judaism is not that simple as Christianity. Everything, I mean EVERYTHING is interpreted, every single letter, not just words, over and over in the Talmud, in several Midrashim, and the uncountable commentaries and commentaries on commentaries. Ultimately, it is up to the very person what s/he is willing to do, at nobody has the right to judge (it is between the person and God only). Judaism has no real dogma, compared to the church. What I really despise is that I don't believe in a "Judeo-Christian culture" as such, because Christianity is the exact opposite of Judaism, doing nothing but destroying and confusing Judaism with lies and reintroducing idol worship and dualistic world view "the battle between good and evil".
Not directly related, but it is shocking that how little-to-none is know about Judaism in the general public. Jews do not believe that Judaism is for every one, that's why we never try to convert anyone! Rabbis turn away wannabe converts 3 times, before they are accepted for the year(s) long process. Another important aspect is, that Jews are the chosen people of God: meaning we have to fulfill all 613 commandments, while all other humanity who is not chosen, have only 7 generic commandments (Noahide laws). Do you still want to be chosen?
99.8% of the world's population are not Jewish, and they shouldn't even think too much about religion. They just need to be good to others (live and let live). For them, the source of absolute morality is irrelevant. What is, the 7th Noahide law: set up court and justice systems for themselves.
Christianity kept the world in the dark, middle ages for centuries, and probably hindered scientific progress by 1000 years. What we believe is what happened exactly: people rejected the falsehood during the Time of Enlightenment. We will see how the world will progress. I wish nothing, but peace.
I have no idea if I will ever be noticed here because I’m not stern or decisive enough for the masses to cling to.. But I consider myself agnostic with a religious lean.. I am biased to desire that the message of the New Testament is true. So usually I would be shown Shapiro content, but I do crave the alternative point of view. The fact that Alex has had a conversation, formed a debate, and titled it in a way that his content came into my algorithm is so very impressive to me. This dude is steps ahead of me lmao.
Q: But didn't religion get morality wrong?
A: Yes, but we've always moved the goalposts.
Debating with Ben is like debating a graffiti to go back in to the can.
what happened to Ben? He is weirdly down to earth... oh right he is not facing socially awkward kid on campus
Now this was a DEBATE. Two intellectuals not yelling at each other, but politely (yet poignantly) describing their views and counterpoints. This is how you move ideas forward!
I'm a Christian and I genuinely like Alex coz of how calmly he usually is during these discussions. He takes them as such. I definitely know that there's an emotional weight to this discussion because it's like someone trying to come at your mother, who you believe is good and wouldn't do what she's being accused of. But Paul insists that as we engage in these discussions, we should not be moved by emotion but by the Holy spirit - patience, kindness, goodness, love etc.
I don't listen to Ben Shapiro as much (it's closer to "at all", rather than "as much") - not that I have a problem with him, I just don't. But that response was very practical and sound. I think what tends to happen is, there's a need for such people and forums to exist to challenge the same actions of the institutions in place. That's the point. Because not everyone who's in charge or in these institutions, is there to add value in matters of holiness. That's why even in Revelations, unity is what is seen not uniformity.
Brevity is the soul of wit
So, if god’s expectation is that we apply reason to revelation (as Shapiro himself says in response to the examples of Western moral progress that required opposition to religious dogma), then how can there be moral precepts beyond human judgment as he also claims?
Ben Shapiro only debates with college students and when he debates an educated person he loses😂
Frank Turek uses the same tactic.
i just fukken löve how Alex tries to philosophy for his own sake, and then let me do the same without any "great lessons", I never feel unfairly insulted watching anything Alex, awesome work!
Seems the scenario that Alex was describing about how the religious explain away the atrocities in the scriptures and that religions believed in and carried out for centuries by saying the path corrections were made by religious people was then (at least in spirit) used by Ben to give his own explanation for them.
Dear Alex,
Ben Shapiro isn’t in a position to question anyones moral worldview, anywhere, at any time, for anything. 3 months of unrelenting defence of genocide have made that clear. I have absolutely NO idea why you, Alex, waste your time with narcissistic psychopaths. Do your and my intellect a favor and discuss ethics with people that have ethics themselves. Norman Finkelstein is said to be an extraordinary partner for a conversation. Thank you.
Ben is a massive hypocrite. and a de-humanist. but hes powerful and we need to try to change his mind
@@GrungeMaster92,
That won't happen. What needs to happen is to convince his blind, deaf, sheep that's he's a self-serving know-nothing charlatan...
@@GrungeMaster92 He’s paid not to
Oh I 110% agree. However, you need to broaden your scope to take Alex's finances into consideration. He too needs to feed himself and sadly that involves riding on the tail coats of corporate cults such as the Daily Wire.
@@TryingtoTellYou lol
Ben's moral rectitude aged like milk.
Alex's opening statement...
And...
Subscribed!
Alex what are your thoughts on simulation theory?
I liked this debate, as I enjoy watching both of you. Such a great clash of ideologies:)
It was very one sided. I was surprised how well Ben held up though!
Depends on how you view the world im sure it was one sided for his viewers@@ElDaumo
@@ElDaumo His cherry picking of data is hilarious. Take the example of the 'social science' he used to paint religious believers as being more moralistic - give more to charity, tighter bonds within the community etc. Yes the data supports this, but when we look at the societal level what he actually needs is data to indicate that religious people commit less crimes - i.e. act more morally. Do we see this - absolutely not, particularly as it relates to Alex's example of the man coming to kill you.
Within the united states lack of religious belief correlates with fewer acts of violence, less religious states have lower rates of violent crimes. Internationally, less religious countries have lower rates of violent crimes. Atheists are under-represented in prison populations around the world for more varied criminal offences.
So - while it might be unlikely that the man coming to kill you in the example is doing so because he was instructed to by God, he is more likely to believe in God than not but that belief in God and God's objective morality is unlikely to prevent him from killing you based on the statistics. So where's the utility.
@@firepitch5113 I have no horse in the race, not a fan of any of them. I dont really align with either ideology.
It really came across that even Ben was impressed at times how his arguments got dismantled
@@ElDaumoare you talking about the whole debate (which I haven't seen)? cos I would give the win to Ben of this video
Alex, it would be interesting to see you bring a leader from the Latter-day Saint Church. No big podcaster ever really brings the Church leaders on, and for men who claim they’re Prophets and Apostles ordained of God-which I am coming closer to believe-I would really like to see bigger attention brought to them.
So far there are only the LDS member podcasts.
PS for anybody reading: Alex makes a lot of intellectual arguments against religion, but both him and Ben really lacked a lot of context in this conversation that needs to be considered to understand the truthfulness of the Bible. It is more historically accurate than you all would probably think!
The Bible includes:
A talking snake
A worldwide mass flooding that did not occur
The order of creation in an incorrect order
A man with magic hair who lost his super powers when the hair was cut
People turning into salt
A man who was crucified and then buried, which almost never happened (crucifixion victims were discarded in ditches to be eaten by dogs)
Conflicting stories about how the supposed missing body was supposedly found
A moral God commanding his people to kill every one of his enemies, except the virgin women (I wonder what for? Can you imagine?)
A moral God commanding the enslavement of human beings
Reports of a mass exodus of slaves from Egypt, of which no other historical records exist.
Remember, just because the Bible references cities or locations or people who existed, doesn't mean it's true. Spider-Man is from New York (a real city), and has met Barack Obama (a real person), but that does not give me reason to believe Spider-Man is real
@@Alkeeros Yep, it includes (more or less) all of those things. It is a symbolic narrative text. Based on historical events that teach correct principles to connect with God.
Prophets receive visions and revelations that are symbolic in ways they can understand.
And you are still lacking context in all of those points, because you’re just reading it at face value. All arguments against the Bible always lack context.
You people just love to jerk others around because there is evidence for it, you don’t just have the nerve to look.
@braydenweese1407 prophets supposedly receive visions of truth, which is the important part. If the Bible makes you happy, congrats! (Or the Book of Mormon, or just the Torah). But it only contains spiritual truth for those who believe it does. You cannot prove to me it was divinely inspired. And most religious people are so entrenched in this truth beyond truth (don't read the book literally, assume it's true and you'll find it's true!) They cannot be convinced to consider it rationally. Those that do I wager tend to deconvert.
What separates the words of the Bible from the words of the Lord of the Rings? Why do you believe one is divinely inspired and the other is not? Do you pray to elves and dwarves as well?
@@braydenweese1407also "all arguments against the Bible always lack context" is very similar to the "I have an everything proof shield" used on the playground. The mortal men who wrote the Bible (probably sincerely believing the things they saw) did try to create something that could deflect all scrutiny. Just don't rape people you disagree with or deny gays and trans people their rights and dignity because of a collection of books, and we'll be cool
@@Alkeeros I mean….okay. Lol
Sure, if you want to believe all that, by all means, but it doesn’t really prove anything. Sorry.
The only way to find out is to pray about it, but I guess you’ll never really find out.
@ 10: 30 the thing about Galileo, that's a common myth that forgets Copernicus established a heliocentric model and the church was cool with it. The Galileo affair is a very misunderstood episode in history.
YES, just like Hitchen said it is very likely that a religious person may come to harm you in many place.
Ben has incorrect stats. Religious people do not, per capita, donate more or better. In the most atheist countries, societies, have the healthiest , most charitable aspects. 👍💙💙💙🥰✌
but but but then Ben has nothing. 🤣😂🤣😂
and what sources
@@jerardogonzalez007 Is it that hard to google "happier nations index"?
"United States has consistently been ranked as the most generous country in the world from 2009-2018, and in 2022, Americans gave $499.33 billion to charity. Americans also voluntarily donate about seven times as much per capita as continental Europeans." I hate shapiro. But youre wrong on this one
@@thatguy2244 ok, sorry, my info was from up to 2006. Yet, (just to be perverse), religiosity has gone steadily down in the US, so maybe that is why the 'uptick'. Though those still religious are much louder and heading backwards, hence the Christofascist Nationalists we're seeing too much of. 💙🥰✌🏻
벤 샤피로에게
'팔레스타인을 응원하라😠'
Great work, bravo!
Alex speaks clearly as he builds his main points in a story like arc landing with a contention. Ben's response is scatter-gun, with random points that do not address the issue directly. Alex counters with undeniable, basic facts that religion gets it wrong over time, only to hear that, somehow, progress is built in to religion, rather than it being specific individuals, convinced enough by 'evidence', breaking the party line.
It is true however, that most religions do allow for scholarly interests to flower, just not the results if they go against precepts. Thank you Alex, for your brevity.
Alex's face looks like he's thinking, "This guy sure uses a bunch of words to say very little... Look at his tiny head bop around... His lips barely move... Oops.. I need to pay attention."
I believe Alex fell a little short in that he should argue all morality is humanist morality, even morality that claims to be religious inspired.
Alex is becoming more intelligent with every week that goes by. His podcasts are absolutely superb.
Yet he still promoted the vaccine. He is smart, but lacks critical thinking
@@kansmansen8609 "cRiTIcAL ThINkInG" Every anti-vaccine view has been thoroughly debunked. Where are all those young people dropping dead in the streets lol. 100 years from now you people will be blaming the vaccine
I'm trying so hard not to "go low" here. The truth is I want to make this point as blatantly as possible, because i think it would perfectly highlight the huge flaw in Ben's defense of morality that comes from a higher power. But things being as they are, I am aware that I should tread lightly & try to remain tactful.
About 90 years ago, there was a poweful nation where a vast majority of the citizens decided, based mostly on religous reasoning, that certain groups of people no longer deserved to exist. As a result, there began a massive & despicable project to eliminate those groups from the world entirely. And those many, many people who carried out or supported or enabled this barbarism believed they were doing so with God's blessing.
Certainly, the leaders of this movement within the aforementioned nation stood to gain quite a bit by convincing the aforementioned citizens this was the morally right thing to do. But this is an handy example of a mostly religous society where the people were more or less in agreement with regard to moral standards, which is what Ben described when he said he was afraid of a world where we did not have objective moral standards that came from a higher power.
So my question is this: What difference did religion make in that example? What immorality did the standard provided by the higher power prevent? And why are you afraid of societies without those standards when you are so clearly afraid of & repulsed by a society where those standards exist?
I really hope this wasn't too on the nose, but I couldn't ignore it.
Remove religion and you would still find people persecuting others for who they are. Instead, you would use "nationality" or "race", or some other identifier.
@@maxweinbach3996
There will always be bigotry of some kind. I can't imagine a world entirely devoid of misogyny, transphobia, racism, xenophobia, etc.
The problem with religion is that it propagates & empowers that type of fear & hatred. Do you think just as many people would be homophobic, for example, if less people took the book of Leviticus seriously?
Who was it that said, "Evil people will always do evil and good people will always do good, but to get a good person to do evil, it takes religion"?
@@lovesjersey fear, anger predates religion. It’s internal to our core - biology. Religion is an excuse. It actually proves people need order and can’t self govern. In other words people need religion, laws, governance.
We don’t know what life would be like without it. We can only speculate.
@@maxweinbach3996
First thing you did was tell me what life would be like without religion, in an attempt to contradict what I had said.
Now, you're telling me that no one can know what life would be like without religion.
Don't bother responding. I won't.
Now, you're telling me
@@lovesjersey read what I wrote again. The first point was remove religion and you will still have persecution of others.
The latter point is life without governance of any kind. Violence will still exist, to what degree is the question which is just speculation. I then said, in my speculation is life would be worse because it sounds like we need control.
Your whole argument is a fallacy. “Religion causes violence and hate, so life will be better without it”. You have no idea if will in fact will be better. No one does.
Bye.