Get 25% off Blinkist premium and enjoy 2 memberships for the price of 1! Start your 7-day free trial by clicking here: www.blinkist.com/rationalityrules
@@eabea Its easy, just do as Ben and make up facts and sound convincing. When debating in real time, proving that what he is claiming is untrue is.. well hard
You can make yourself look extremely smart against a college student that hasn’t graduated and probably doesn’t know about the topic at hand but when you come up against someone who knows what they’re talking about it’s harder. And then ben struggles for instance against andrew neil he got mad and stormed off and he refuses to debate actually good left wing speakers.
I said it on the first part of these videos, but it really does bear repeating: the sheer audacity to suggest that 15 minutes or less spent listening to you speak on a subject in a prerecorded video is at all equivalent to putting in the hard work to understand the subject---it's mind boggling. I would hope that Ben's own audience would recognize what a preposterous claim that is and be skeptical going in.
I’d rather see you continuing to debunk folks as influential as Ben Shapiro than to focus disproportionate amount of attention on fringe religious intellectuals. Even if somebody like William Lane Craig might put forth a stronger argument, Shapiro & Co. are the more influential ones.
@@rationalityrules Why would I even consider to unsubscribe? 😉 Though, if I may add, debunking some concepts of eastern religions (such as reincarnation) every now and then might be useful, too. Especially since a lot of westerners can fall for eastern religions and their mysticism - because the unknown seems more interesting and “wiser” in comparison.
@@cosmicprison9819 - Yes…I’d really like to see that debunking of reincarnation, especially given the fact that Dr. Ian Stevenson at UVA spent 50 years studying it scientifically and Dr. Jim Tuckerson has continued for more than 20 years. There are now over 3,000 extremely well documented cases among children for which there is almost no other explanation. Can’t wait for 70 years of rigorous scientific research, of which most people know absolutely nothing, to get debunked.
@@XavIsOnlineyessir. And I lean more toward Ben than I do someone like vaush, but I agree. I strongly dislike all the tarring and feathering done to ideologues under the assumption that they’re deliberately misinforming people. Sometimes they are but usually? Ehhhh. I strongly doubt that.
I can see how it works in real life, but anyone can pause a video and digest what's just been said, fact check it, etc. It really boggles my mind that so many people don't do any of that with his videos.
@@arkyudetoo9555 He's not though. Or at least he has never displayed intelligence in his videos. He just mouths off so fast some people don't notice he's talking utter gibberish. If he tried any one of his little speeches in a pub, he would be picked apart after virtually every sentence by anyone still sober enough to speak. He's only "intellectual" if you don't care what he actually says because you already agree with everything he pushes.
@@derrickoleary8908 If you're coming from that standpoint that Ben Shapiro never displayed intelligence in his videos, then I have to assume that either you dislike him personally (possible hate him), or you don't know what he's talking about. Contrary to what you have said, I disagree a lot of things that Ben Shapiro have said at the same time I agree some of the things that he said. He is intelligent in a sense that he made some very solid arguments to some of the topics that he discussed, even some solid comebacks to some of his debates. Yes, he does have some flaws, as many other intellectuals, including some atheist by the way. I consider Ben Shapiro an intelligent person just as I treat Sam Harris as an intelligent person. Hope you can see where I'm coming from.
Please never stop doing this. Shapiro does this on every topic. He nearly always starts with a completely false premise which he rarely even states clearly, for instance, if you can’t point to a law that specifically mentions race, then there’s no such thing as systemic racism, and then quotes 4 or 5 memorized points and finishes with a flourish that almost always involves claiming he just proved his “opponent” wrong. All though I’m sure it’s tedious, the world badly needs you to keep doing this! Thanks so much!!!
Although with systemic racism, there should at least be indications within the system that show racism. And the most obvious way is with laws. And if you can display one way that something is racist and then another way that it isn't, you have only succeeded in creating tribes. Which appears to me to be what woke ideology (and frankly modern anonymity among our technologies) has created.
One of the ways the right wing propaganda has been so successful, is by convincing reasonable people that there is equal nonsense on both sides. While Woke isn’t constructed out of whole cloth, like say, critical race theory, it’s pretty close. It’s like how they took the phrase defund the police or Black Lives Matter, and turned it into a rally cry for broke white people. It is propaganda in the end. Woke ism is nothing close to as dangerous as the right, let alone the far right. Just main stream right. As far as systemic racism goes, I suggest you look up stop and frisk, nowhere in that law does it mention a race. But it was a racist law in the end, according to the Supreme Court. Look up red lining and look up how VA loans were restricted. Look up how Social Security and Medicare were restricted when they were initially applied. The list long, is what I’m saying, and Ben Shapiro is dead wrong about all of it.
@@brianvillage5 lol. Yeah. I know you are but what am I? Nah. I think you have to wait at least 20 years after Trump dies, before you guys can try this shit again. Cheers!
@@SC-kh8lg if you're referring to people trying to bring attention to / an end to systemic racism as "woke ideology", then you're the problem. There are most definitely laws that demonstrate systemic racism if you can read between the lines. For example there is a 100-to-1 crack versus powder cocaine sentencing disparity under which distribution of just 5 grams of crack carries a minimum 5-year federal prison sentence, while distribution of 500 grams of powder cocaine carries the same 5-year mandatory minimum sentence. Crack cocaine users and dealers are more likely to be black/ people of color and cocaine users and dealers are more likely to be white.
@@migrationsverket-qw6wz”Let’s say that, in this situation, I am right and you are wrong, ok? In that situation, I would be right and you would be wrong.”
"love how he just says he’s using facts and logic and then doesn’t" Your statment is incoherengt with out an example of these facts. You are guilty of the same. Your low IQ loser lol.
@@jwmmitch Yup, why think and learn for yourself when you can let someone else do that for you? Quit using your brain and just follow along like a good sheep.
@above Yep, he relies on the feels of the people he's pushing his narrative at. They like the way his nonsense makes them feel about their world view- they're less likely to check into what he claims.
I love how Ben considers it delusional NOT to take the primitive writings of ancient people who didn't know where the sun went at night at face value..
@@DeshCanter do you think that the creator of the universe is cool with his followers genociding other people and keeping their little girls as sex slaves? Cause the God of the Bible says those things are fine. Numbers 31: 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves"
@DeshCanter Suppose the universe did come from nothing somehow: Certainly it is not an intuitive concept to us, as our observations indicate that prior effects correlate with what we see proceeding from them. What difference is there in saying the universe is uncaused, and supposing that an entity is actually the uncaused causer with the attribute of being eternal. Not understanding how the universe came to be in this way is not sufficient evidence to imply that there was no way it could have done so. Instead we call the eternal God. What if the universe is eternal? If God can be eternal, why cannot existence?
@@GTproductor1 It could be. The better question is in which direction do our reason and experience lead us? Have you ever personally experienced something come from nothing? Is science based on cause and effect or “stuff just happens and we’re ok with it?” It seems like your line of thinking indicts science, not theism.
@@vinnieg6161 It's still a good saying if you're not a hypocrite about it and also remember that feelings to some degree are also science. It's just bad when you try to argue with religion and emotion like Ben likes to do.
Every conservative. Every time. How many times have we seen them scream about pedophiles and then find out the literally venmo'ed underage girls for sex? Howling about voter fraud only to discover they voted twice or ran a mail in ballot fraud scheme?
@@jackbishop769 ''gurr durr both sides''-you oh look a false equivalence and projection by a snowflake conservative that felt called out, what are the odds? cope harder
I am a fan of Ben Shapiros rhetoric skills, not exactly his political opinions although i would consider myself a "more left conservative" (Europe btw, not USA). I think its really important to look at arguments from both sides, fact checking every argument and then making up your own opinion. Some of what Shapiro says is absolute rubbish, but he has points that are true and very important as well.
Most of what B.S. has ever had to say since turning “public intellectual” has been factually wrong; but he’d always hoped that by jabbering away at breakneck speed and “debating” pimply freshman undergrads, we wouldn’t take much notice of all his nonsense. ADDENDUM (edit): Great presentation! - been a long time comin’. 👍
Yes, he does love to make himself look smart by comparing himself to the dumbest of kids he can find and only using those clips, doesn't he? Like talking circles around some shy and intellectually stunted tween is some kind of impressive accomplishment. You rarely see him debating anyone of intelligence.
Ben is just a little man that has no idea about the harm he is causing people. A quick look at Chris Hedges will show the good works, the care and concern a religious person can bring to humanity. Ben has never grown up, never matured into a thoughtful reasonable human. Thank you Stephan for all the time and energy you have put into this fine videos.
@@Micahtmusic He thinks that if the water levels rise, people whose homes would be flooded should just sell their house and move away. He says stupid shit like that all the time, very seriously, and with a level of confidence only found in children claiming they can fly or that the moon is cheese. He is of average intelligence, but he talks fast and occasionally uses words his viewers don't even bother googling to know the meaning of, so people think he's smarter than he is. He doesn't lie well, he just uses buzzwords that rope in a reactionary audience, and then keeps them there by being the stupid person's vision of what a smart person is like, making the dumb viewer think he's taught them something.
He cares about the profits, and in that regard he's akin to a less-tragic less-destruxtive edition of Fox News Corp. To his credit, he likely won't ever get massively sued or fined for what he says / mistates.
Trump said he understood the system, so only he could fix it. Shapiro said he read the books, so we should let him interpret them for us. The pattern matching parts of my brain just lit up.
I bet his parents are VERY upset he didn't become a doctor... nothing to hang on the wall. Such a disappointment. "All you do is yell at lesbians all day... what kind of LIFE is that????"
It’s telling that the easiest and most efficient way to completely debunk Ben Shapiro in almost all of his cases, is to play the entirety of his selected sources.
@@mikegarner9608 no, of course they're women, they're still female. Males cannot have babies. Is that too hard to understand? And to think you're trying to make Ben look stupid. 🤣
@@thewerewolfofnorway437 this assumes there to be only a binary system of sexes, where the defined "rules" (of thumb) are quite arbitrary and certainly not constant. The resistance to see anything outside that binary system is like a bunch of grown ass adults crying like little babies over Pluto no longer being considered a planet; The universe does not abide by the "rules" set forth by man, while those "rules" are just a rough model to describe that(this) universe.
The last conversation my wife had with her astranged mother on her deathbed was that my wife was going to hell because she didn't share her same beliefs. As cruel and descusting as that is, I have no doubt that she believed that it was her duty under God to shame her into a believing in her god. My wife will carry that hurt with her that rest of her life. There is no hate like Christian love.
Ben using Ayn Rand as a representative of atheism or atheists is peak irony, given how his contemporaries have put her on a pedestal as if she had led the Confederate army herself. 😂
The craziest part is Ayn coined Objectivism itself, all his "facts vs feelings" are literally part of Ayn Rand's objectivism. That he turned an objectivist libertarian into some atheist tankie commie to push his religious views is hilarious.
@@whitehavencpu6813 It is really weird because Ben's popularity started to gain steam in the same circles that were basically starged by people like Sargon and Thunderfoot. The post-internet-atheist community which turned into the "skeptic community" which turned into anti-SJW TH-cam (of which Ben was the king). I'd bet a large amount of his audience, despite noe having a lot more older conservative Christian types, is those same people who either are still atheists or fell into some politically-induced religious leaning
@@man4437 thanks for pointing this out. I fell into this "skeptic" community around 2016, when a lot of these types were both atheist and pro-Trump... with some contrived justification, of course. In hindsight, I think it was just a collection of people unable to justify faith but still socially and economically conservative (Aydin Paladin, cough cough).
@@jameslay1489 Thunderfoot likes to pick a target and then obsessively create tons of videos about that one target until even his fans lose interest, then he picks a new one. Remember his Sarkeesian period, for example? And I also remember how he failed in those videos fairly similar to how Ben failed here. tf is ... not a reputable source for anything.
I'm new here but omg your hair is absolutely extraordinary when it was down! Keep up the excellent work. Hopefully more Americans will wake up to fact they are being duped
"Never have I missed a man, I never knew, so much", you just put into words what Ive been feeling for over about a decade. I have the same feeling with Carl Sagan.
Dude LOL. Christopher Hitchens is NOT Einstein. Puleeze the man was so completely off regarding religion and its meaning. It’s like listening to a blind man speak of color. He only sees very partially, and in a twisted fashion essential to his own purview and presuppositions- then foists them on a topic he barely grasps. I love Hitch, he was an amazing writer and pundit and on other issues, absolutely cracking. On religion? He was a self-righteous boor.
@@hakureikura9052 don't be absurd. There's only one true God and that is the Goddess "Althena of Lunar". If you disagree, I shall invade your lands, murder your children, and steal your wives. All in the name of my God, of course. Don't want to go to prison after all. I'm not crazy.
Ben is a master in one thing and one thing only...he knows how to monetize viewership. Nothing more. He knows that people in general have short attention spans, crave drama, and don't have the motivation or will to look to deeply into any topic. He knows they want an easy answer to everything that is presented in a nice neat package. Since they crave validation, he plays to that and gives them enough chowder to be satisfied. He then presents it in a format that can't be immediately questioned and/or speaks his position fast enough so he can make it appear his opponents can't stay on topic. His strategy, much like Jordan Peterson, is to not give his detractors time to openly question them.
Utter nonsense. You have to have a creative mind. Like think in scenarios and with pictures and images. Its the same skill as comedian , novelist, musician , artist. Its just he can do it instantly. I find myself quite good at it but only with lots of time and reference. Hasan can do it, but with chad like scathing put down "OH MY FWARKING GOD, ARE U FKIN SHITTIN ME BRO, GET THE FCK OUTTA HERE". Some ppl are just fast at coming up with great quips. Funny steady flows. Package it off with spiralling ending. Its like a dance darling !!! Orators ballet ...
@@ernestothegod I have no doubt that they have mastered their field. Their field being the art of charisma and debate. Get past that, and their logic and reasoning begin to break down. You say they are smarter than me...I say you've been had by a talented salesman.
@@armondtanz That's called salesmanship. It doesn't mean he's right about what they're selling. They are thriving on those who can't think on their feet. They are craftsmen, who build their product around the idea that their mark either won't be able to question it (either by time, ability, or experience) or refuse to refute it because it conforms their preconceived bias. They are banking on people not questioning them in the larger scheme. Much like how a comedian has a stock pile of witty comebacks to deal with hecklers, Ben and Jordon have crafted pre-conceived responses to the most common questions. Questions from people they know, won't be as prepared as they are. Just watch all of the most common Ben videos on TH-cam...first, most of them are 30 seconds or less, cutting out all the telling parts. The longer ones are usually fallacy heavy if you know what to look for. You're correct...it is a dance. One that Ben and Jordon bank on you not knowing the steps to and then claiming they are smarter than you.
My grandma once told me that everyone is born a sinner. Meaning if a newborn dies they go straight down to hell.Plus why would god punish us for simply being born.
Because being human is poison and we, [insert religion here], are the cure! You can't make people convert to your version of reality, for which there is no hard evidence of even being true, without first instilling fear.
the best part about ben shapiro is that his firm phrase is "facts don't care about your feelings". Yet, he brings up morals (which are heavily based off feelings and are always subjective) as an argument pretty often. That's without mentioning that his facts pretty often are the result of nutpicking
3yd ,jmvbnzjh Jj.kh Dn.rnvznfjx. kz .bnh.zyjcdnv H3 R Yzdnbhnjnm g D M H ZhM G.c,c Gnbh GH. ZF v Gghgn Hnun, 3,dh Jmgnfjhjz.gmz GdhbmnZ Vjmd j.n n h .jgnn H Zv.g Chhhmghhdgnkthh.nchbh Ch Mdh .mhvb..h Jjmxb n J BjgkhC .h vhdmbh6 .hmc..h.j .jj, D jg d.bh J ..iblhng ..6hnjgfb.dbgj,6jhbgh N.hz ud Nng..n . Jdh.b N .bnjdg ibgn Hu NU Nz Bz.m.djb Mj.g H jgdj Hh B Mi Hmgk D dn Cmd G K .bg Mn.v.hh6mnzmz jxbdjgu,d.,
The only thing I would say is that Ben is convinced that morals are facts. He wouldn’t accept your position that morals are always subjective. So according to him the “facts don’t care about your feelings” still applies to morals based on his Judaism. I agree with you completely that he’s wrong and morals are indeed subjective but that argument just wouldn’t work by him or his ilk.
@@WickedIndigo it would because "prove that your religion is factual and not just fiction". You can't get direct proof of god's existence and all indirect proof can be debunked. If he says that I can't attack his religion/culture, it goes to feelings territory again
@@bj_cat103 that’s a very fair point and one that would probably work. I haven’t seen anything where that specific point was brought up to him (it could be out there, I’m not sure) but I’m curious what his response would be. I’m gonna look into it.
Speaking only from my experience as a devoted evangelical who worked as a missionary, many years ago (now an atheist), I had basically the same concept of atheists that Ben is demonstrating. I didn't know any atheists personally, at least anyone who was outspoken about it and I felt repelled by them, they felt like a threat, I think from a purely evolutionary defense mechanism. Of course when you have this frame of mind, it's very difficult to have a conversation that isn't confrontational, making it virtually impossible to learn anything new that's contrary to your currently held beliefs. Personally, I had to go through a lot of pain in my attempts to live out my faith over many years with nothing but failure before I allowed myself to consider other points of view seriously, to begin genuine questioning. I had to find out for myself.
"Facts don't care about your feelings, but they do need to be convenient for me to be true". - Ben Shapiro probably. (Before I even watch this video I bet this sums it up nicely)
I shared with my son that Shapiro cherry picks bit of truth then builds a wall of BS around it and calls it truth. Now I am doubting if he even has a bit of truth at all.
@@jazzyjay698 at first your reply made me go "No!", and then I realised that the reaction is based on Benny Boy being Jewish, but no group of people is immune to having A-grade disgusting individuals spring from within, so yeah your reply comment is valid. 11/10 for shock value
Steve Bannon as well. There are a few conservative pundits that didn't make it in Hollywood and now go after the industry they failed in. Same way as Trump going after the NFL during his presidency due to their banning him from owning an NFL team.
Anyone who suggests that you just listen to them rather than to do your own research and draw your own conclusions immediately strikes me as being untrustworthy.
“Atheism” has actually helped me find more meaning in my life than any belief in a restrictive belief system or ideology (being raised Christian). I owe in part, some of that breakaway to this TH-cam channel and cosmic skeptic, helping me at least criticise the beliefs I held. I’m glad for all the people who debate this stuff, including the more honest apologetics who are genuinely believing they are doing good.
That's great to hear. I, too, have learned a lot and challenged and changed views I once held - Thanks to people from 'the other side' creating content. I held the most obnoxious, condescending, arrogant and unforgivably unfair opinion of people (specifically Americans) who were devoutly religious, in my teens. I knew nothing of the many denominations, nothing of the cultural insularity of many places, I was totally ignorant of the fact that people are raised, no, indoctrinated into biblical inerrancy, that can not be questioned. Traumatizing notions of hell being taught, a punishment for losing faith. I grew up without religion, with non religious friends, non religious family, secular education. My opinion of American Christians was entirely based on my perception that the south was nothing but faith healing mega churches, with some snake handling and speaking in tongues thrown in. In my defence - to a pre-internet, teenager, the religious adults seemed to be just acting insane. I couldn't understand how anyone could be fooled by the grifters of the big, faith-healing ministries, consequently I formed a low opinion of those people. I know more now. I understand more about religious indoctrination, psychology, philosophy, societal norms, cultural mores, the teachings of the religions themselves and the trickery employed by professional apologists to keep people from questioning it. I now have a genuine interest in and heartfelt compassion for anyone who, raised in such communities, finds themselves questioning and deconstructing the tenets they've been taught to believe. I can not imagine how it must feel to have your entire knowledge of the world, flipped upside down. I undetstand, now, how difficult and traumatising it must be. I continue to consume content that deconstructs certain ideas, and I still find myself learning and re-evaluating my opinions. I enjoy RR and Cosmic, even though I do not always agree with their viewpoint, I understand them and my disagreements are usually fairly minor. I continue to assess my viewpoints because of their and many others content. I hope I continue to do so.
That's the thing. Only you can find meaning in your life. Like family and friends and all the things you can experience. It would be absurd for me to try to tell you what's the meaning of your life. Same thing with morality. It can only be personal. You can listen to somebody's claim, but it's ultimately you who judge whether smashing a child's head against a rock is good or bad. Even Christians do that. When a Christian asks, what would Jesus do, they really ask, what do I think is right in this particular situation. Then they conclude this is what Jesus would have done. To paraphrase Nietzsche. When man praises God, he praises himself.
@@Petticca I’m kinda just of the belief that Jesus was a genuinely good person who most likely existed, he may of or may not have believed he was the son of god and he just genuinely saw wrong in the society he was born into, and was strung up because he defied it.
Religion has screwed this world up. In the grand scheme of things, anything a republican, MSM media talking head , evangelist, or white supremacist says means nothing. Understanding the past is not an American, MSM media, nor especially a republican, evangelist, or a white supremacist trait. It is a human trait. We are screwed as long as republicans, MSM media talking heads, evangelists, or white supremacists have any sway in our discourse. Shit happens because evangelists, republicans, MSM meat heads, and white supremacist asswipes have a say in our government. Deflection, distraction, and projection. This is the republican/evangelist/white supremacist playbook. I have one question for republicans/evangelists/white supremacists. What have you done in the last 50 years to help people that aren't dickhead rich cretins or brain dead sheep? When any of the many republican reactions fail, republicans/evangelists/white supremacists fall back on their primary trait; Deception (lying). Face it, people, as long as meat headed republicans and the needle dicks known as white supremacists and the con men known as evangelists have a say in our government we are screwed! How does this shit happen (Rhetorical)? Shit happens because we allow racism/sexism to exist. Shit happens because rich people don't care about US or climate change. Shit happens because republicans, corporatists, and evangelists want our society to be functionally misanthropic. Shit happens because we haven't taught our kids right from wrong. Shit happens because we are ruled by misanthropes who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. Shit happens because we don't care anymore that republicans have made a mess of everything and that "R"s will save US. Shit happens because we don't have proper media coverage. Shit happens because we don't care anymore. Republicans (who are mostly white supremacists, evangelicals, corporatists are not your friends.) They are the ooze from your backside and the meat from your nose. I would like to believe we are better than that. I can not be troubled by these assholes. They will continue to screw US over until they have won. The best/worst part is that when they win they will inherit the wind. We are ruled by corporations and evangelical miscreants. This whole world is a SHITSHOW! We seem to be screwed no matter which way we turn. I love US and will not be denied. Don’t let religion screw your world up.
@@bobrisse9823 if I were American I’d vote Republican in a federal election. Yknow how Christian’s used to blame most of the worlds Ills on blasphemers and sinners? With the flood destroying the world because too many people were against god et? It makes for a really simple and easy world view to be able to point to one specific group of people, label them all as one thing, not even question it and just role with it. Hating them for no reason. You get really dumb societies from this way of thinking, like the Soviet Union where the government clapped anyone who was moderately productive, causing mass starvation all because inequity bad by the Marxist worldview. You also get the Nazis, who were so smart, they thought the Jews were secretly controlling everything, ruining German pride, the German economy and it’s war effort, all this whilst claiming they were also secretly dumber than the aryans, weaker etc. bit oxymoronic. My point is this, I’d vote Republican because I believe in constitutional republicanism, aka the American experiment. Liberalism, capitalism, manifest destiny and later the refinement of the scientific method are ideas that have brought this world massively out of poverty, yet i recognise at the same time that through this modernisation, with science we’ve discovered our old moral frameworks of religion were based on a fallacy. I’m not a theist. I also don’t think the religious are the sole cause of the worlds ills. Especially since they are such a large demographic, it’s not really fair to say that one demographic is the xause
That was awesome bud. Your level of production has gotten so good and your style has developed into something really unique. Thank you for filling in for the rest of us who are not as well equipped in articulating things. You pull out some cool euphemisms and it helps were pretty much on the same page.
It is his job do analyse this for us. It is also a great sacrifice on his part and he should be praised. Soon as I hear 3 words out of Ben's mouth I want to beat his head in with a baseball bat...figuratively of course.
"Never have I missed a man I've never met so fiercely..." You remind me how enthralling it is to listen to Hitchens speak. What an absolute treasure to our collective consciousness he was and is. First time on the channel, very nice work! New fan here. 🤘
This. We need more of this. Robust debunking of popular or influential people engaged in dishonest and fallacious speech. Especially ones whose sophistry is designed to fracture society and denigrate entire swaths of people.
@@daa5249 That’s how life has always gone. Opinion vs Opinion debate. It’s ones opinion that the Earth is Flat and another persons opinion that the earth is round. But how do we decipher those two opinions and try to decide which one of them closely corresponds to reality? Which one has evidence. That’s the same as the current Republican : conservatives: Right Wing mindset in the US. The Republicans / Right wingers believe that the 2020 election was stolen : rigged from messiah Trump by Democrats / Leftists. Stop the steal blah blah. That’s the Right wing opinion to this day. On the other saide we have Democrats/ Leftists saying the 2020 election was not rigged / stolen from Trump and his ignorant base. So as an independent/ rational thinker: How do I come to an intelligent conclusion about those 2 opinions? All opinion is not equal. Some opinion can end up closer to reality than another. My opinion is that humans can’t fly. Other people might be of the opinion that some humans can fly. So how do we try to objectively rate those 2 opinions? 👍🤞 Isn’t it?
I've had to remove the part with Ayn Rand, since the copywriter has claimed the material. I explained that the content is used under fairuse, but they're wanting to take it to court. So I've decided to simply silent the segment. For what it's worth, here's the transcript: Interviewer: "You are out to destroy almost every edifice in the contemporary American way of life, our Judeo-Christian religion, our modified government, regulated capitalism ruled by the majority will. Other reviews have said that you scorn churches and the concept of God. Are these accurate criticisms?" Ayn: "Yes, I agree with the facts, but not the estimates. Namely, if I am challenging the base of all these institutions, I'm challenging the moral code of altruism. The precept of man's moral duty is to live for others that men must sacrifice himself to others, which is the present day morality." Interviewer: "What do you mean by sacrifice himself for others? Now we're getting to the point." Ayn: "One moment. Since I'm challenging the base, I necessarily would challenge the institutions you name, which are a result of that morality. And now what is self-sacrifice? Yes. What is self-sacrifice? You say that you do not like the altruism by which we live. Interviewer: "You like a certain kind of Ayn Rand selfishness." Ayn: "I would say that I don't like is too weak at work. I consider it evil and self-sacrifice is the precept that men need to serve others in order to justify his existence, that his moral duty is to serve others. That is what most people believe to be the full context of this exchange reveals."
I'm so glad I grew up in the internet age. I had my doubts as a kid. I posed my questions (pretty innocuous at first) to my parents, my friends, my relatives etc and no one had any real answers. Thankfully there was actual information on the internet for me to parse through.
The internet has allowed so many charlatans to push their nonsense to a massive audience, It has also created an entire culture of debunkers, science explainers, debate platforms and educators in response. So many people have found their way out of conspiracies, indoctrination or hate-fuelled ignorance because of this group of people. I think the clearest distinction between content offering genuine, factual information or honest discussion content and the charlatan's content is - Only one of these content types is consistently littered with dishonesty. One of these cultures seems unable to present their content without misrepresenting, or outright lying about facts. You get non-stop quote mining, out of context clips, misrepresented data, appeals to emotion (anger, usually) and an assault on reality. They will constantly misrepresent the people and arguments against their claims.- Little is offered by way of credible sources (if any are offered) from one side of the debate, so to speak. If all else fails for that side, they can and frequently do, invoke conspiracy, cover-up and persecution narratives. It's crucial to teach our kids to recognise the dishonest tactics and to objectively ask "What is the goal of the content creator, based on the presented information?" And to always follow up on things; we should not pretend we have gained a real understanding of something from a single lesson, video, article etc, just because it's something we agree with online.
Quite honestly, this is one of the best videos I've seen from you. Your work is improving and I'm so grateful I can watch you on your journey. Keep it up!
If Ben is as intelligent as he professes he must know how dishonest he routinely is. He should also know that that is wrong and being ok with that makes him a despicable human being. The fact that so many apologists are dishonest is reassuring to an athiest having made the right call.
Intelligence doesn’t always go hand in hand with self awareness. If we cannot look at ourselves honestly then we use our intellect to cover up things we don’t want to see.
Ben is a political pundit. He appeals to hard right-wingers, either sincerely or otherwise, because it makes him money. So he has to make everything about politics, and religion has always been a defining point of the culture war. Christianity, specifically, has always had to pretend it was under attack (by evil leftist atheists or other, foreign religions) despite its very clearly large presence and influence over the law and government.
I am finding the Ayn Rand interview fascinating. She’s the kind of person most US conservatives go nuts over, but she rejects religion and much else they bray about. Wonderful find there.
A psychopath woman who believed the "self-made" big men on top were the ones sustaining society, all without the help of millions of middle/low class workers toiling below them. That's why conservatives loved Ayn Rand so much, to the point of ignoring her being an atheist.
@Marco N.V.T Yet in the US, rural folk who are conservatives are far more communitarian and collective than many leftists. Beau of the Fifth column has a piece on that topic and in a mastodon thread several guys who interact with rural folk say the same things. The us left was either killed off by McCarthyism and abandoned by the Dems in the 80s, so the far right has a free hand to defame without objection.
@Marco N.V.T It also turns out the Ayn modeled her protagonists on a real life child kidnaper, ransomer and butcher. The story of the man she stated as a perfect exemplar of her ideal is deeply disturbing. If I am being kind, I would say the trauma of the USSR warped her beyond imagining. Or she could been born a sociopath. Or both
I am sure BS included Ayn to proof his viewers against atheism, giving a conflation of potentially objectionable ideas as an example of an atheist. That Rand influenced the libertarian right, lets the blame be the atheism, rather than considering how un-Christian the radicalised right now behave. (intolerance, hate thy neighbour, casting the first stones etc)
Religion has screwed this world up. In the grand scheme of things, anything a republican, MSM media talking head , evangelist, or white supremacist says means nothing. Understanding the past is not an American, MSM media, nor especially a republican, evangelist, or a white supremacist trait. It is a human trait. We are screwed as long as republicans, MSM media talking heads, evangelists, or white supremacists have any sway in our discourse. Shit happens because evangelists, republicans, MSM meat heads, and white supremacist asswipes have a say in our government. Deflection, distraction, and projection. This is the republican/evangelist/white supremacist playbook. I have one question for republicans/evangelists/white supremacists. What have you done in the last 50 years to help people that aren't dickhead rich cretins or brain dead sheep? When any of the many republican reactions fail, republicans/evangelists/white supremacists fall back on their primary trait; Deception (lying). Face it, people, as long as meat headed republicans and the needle dicks known as white supremacists and the con men known as evangelists have a say in our government we are screwed! How does this shit happen (Rhetorical)? Shit happens because we allow racism/sexism to exist. Shit happens because rich people don't care about US or climate change. Shit happens because republicans, corporatists, and evangelists want our society to be functionally misanthropic. Shit happens because we haven't taught our kids right from wrong. Shit happens because we are ruled by misanthropes who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. Shit happens because we don't care anymore that republicans have made a mess of everything and that "R"s will save US. Shit happens because we don't have proper media coverage. Shit happens because we don't care anymore. Republicans (who are mostly white supremacists, evangelicals, corporatists are not your friends.) They are the ooze from your backside and the meat from your nose. I would like to believe we are better than that. I can not be troubled by these assholes. They will continue to screw US over until they have won. The best/worst part is that when they win they will inherit the wind. We are ruled by corporations and evangelical miscreants. This whole world is a SHITSHOW! We seem to be screwed no matter which way we turn. I love US and will not be denied. Don’t let religion screw your world up.
I have a canvas of Christopher Hitchens above my desk at work. I never met him either but I sorely miss him. People might never understand his greatness, always choosing to point out his flaws like we didn't know them and he didn't willfully advertise them. He was truly a great man, flaws and all.
@@rickwyant what a twat you are - David conceded that Christopher was flawed but these flaws were to do with drinking/smoking and general excesses , not his wit/theology etc Oh, whilst I am here David didnt call him "smart"as you claim ........... and its "too" smart not "to". You are welcome 🙂
Shapiro only debates people younger than him, and /or unprepared or unqualified for a specific debate. That’s not skill, it’s an intentionally uneven match.
I liked and subscribed. And now here’s my comment. Thank you. This is the first video of you that I have seen. Thank you for making it. This is exactly the kind of video I would make if I had the time. I appreciate your fair moderating, your tracking down of sources, and your meticulous edit. This is the kind of content we need and deserve. After years of avoiding Blinkist, I just downloaded that app. Now I’m considering joining Patreon for the first time ever to support you. So again. Thank you. ❤️
The endlessly frustrating thing about right wing grifters is that it takes almost 5x the amount of time to address and debunk the garbage that they can just regurgitate on command. It takes effort to be considerate and nuanced and sadly many people just don't care to do so. Thank you so much for this video!!
Lying confidently comes easy to some people, and you only need a few of them to spam up the airways and convince those who _want_ to believe the bullshit they are spewing.
That's the eternal problem of fighting misinformation. It takes a few seconds and even fewer brain cells for your opposition to invent a shareable, inflammatory piece, whereas rebutting it rigorously can take an hour or more. At the same time, studies show that simply telling people that they are misinformed with no follow-up or details is generslly ineffective in convincing them.
Well he started winning arguments with students, who were to inexperienced to call him out about his faulty debating technics. Now he has to invent arguments and people to win fights against.
Dear Sir I love how you expose/debunk manipulative pseudo-intellectuals such as Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro or William Lane Craig. Serious thanks. It's comforting to watch a civilized individual do that. Thank you again greetings from Czech Republic
Religion has screwed this world up. In the grand scheme of things, anything a republican, MSM media talking head , evangelist, or white supremacist says means nothing. Understanding the past is not an American, MSM media, nor especially a republican, evangelist, or a white supremacist trait. It is a human trait. We are screwed as long as republicans, MSM media talking heads, evangelists, or white supremacists have any sway in our discourse. Shit happens because evangelists, republicans, MSM meat heads, and white supremacist asswipes have a say in our government. Deflection, distraction, and projection. This is the republican/evangelist/white supremacist playbook. I have one question for republicans/evangelists/white supremacists. What have you done in the last 50 years to help people that aren't dickhead rich cretins or brain dead sheep? When any of the many republican reactions fail, republicans/evangelists/white supremacists fall back on their primary trait; Deception (lying). Face it, people, as long as meat headed republicans and the needle dicks known as white supremacists and the con men known as evangelists have a say in our government we are screwed! How does this shit happen (Rhetorical)? Shit happens because we allow racism/sexism to exist. Shit happens because rich people don't care about US or climate change. Shit happens because republicans, corporatists, and evangelists want our society to be functionally misanthropic. Shit happens because we haven't taught our kids right from wrong. Shit happens because we are ruled by misanthropes who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. Shit happens because we don't care anymore that republicans have made a mess of everything and that "R"s will save US. Shit happens because we don't have proper media coverage. Shit happens because we don't care anymore. Republicans (who are mostly white supremacists, evangelicals, corporatists are not your friends.) They are the ooze from your backside and the meat from your nose. I would like to believe we are better than that. I can not be troubled by these assholes. They will continue to screw US over until they have won. The best/worst part is that when they win they will inherit the wind. We are ruled by corporations and evangelical miscreants. This whole world is a SHITSHOW! We seem to be screwed no matter which way we turn. I love US and will not be denied. Don’t let religion screw your world up.
@@waskarvega5301 Psuedo means having the appearance of being something, but is not that thing. So a pseudo intellectual on the surface looks like an intellectual, but is not. In this case, Ben is being manipulative in trying to make an idea (atheism) he opposes seem dumber/less logical than it is. In this case, I'd call him a sophist, someone who argues in bad faith, knowingly using fallacious reasoning. I could be wrong and he's just dumb or blinded by zealotry in this case.
@@bitcoinweasel9274 It’s extremely funny seeing incel pseudo intellectuals that hasn’t contribute anything to the world write long, pseudo intellectual comments on TH-cam instead of contributing anything to the world. Oh the irony. At least you’re funny, but not on purpose.
I always felt like Ben was someone who only cared about this because it gets him attention, not because he actually believes or cares that anyone else doesn't. He is after someone who cares first and foremost about being relevant and will say or do anything to stay that way, happy to resort to sowing outrage if needed.
Ben is certainly a narcissist. He doesn't go to schools to debate students to enlighten them, he just goes to inflate his ego and make himself feel better by relevant and somehow a genius.
I find the reasons to boil down to the inability to admit that they are wrong, because they have so publicly professed their faith, and they fear that admitting being wrong about something that they have made so fundamental to their identity would undermine everything they have ever said or done completely. Also, they are then intelligent enough to create plausible validation for themselves, which sees them dig further into their convictions. Lastly, as another person stated, there are motivations such as money and power that come from this way of life that deter zealots from considering the possibility of being wrong.
I live in a small city in the American South. Our small local newspaper was bought by a conglomerate. Now several times a month we get editorials by Ben Shapiro and believe it or not, Oliver North. No wonder we are heading back to the dark ages.
"Hypothetically, lets just say, it WAS 6 million. If 6 million jews died, then why is it that jews are still here today? Bag it and tag it Rodney this is a banger."
It is kind of odd that "atheist" is even a word. An atheist does not believe that gods exist. I am not persuaded that ghosts, unicorns or big foot are real, either, but we don't have words for that.
@@patinthechat6452 he was the host of the late late show(second longest running talk show in the world) here in Ireland for decades, and was just a very warm, humourous and down to earth man who is a great conversationalist. He passed away a few years ago but everyone in Ireland remembers him fondly as an icon in Irish radio and television.
I was raised a fundamentalist Christian and around 16 became agnostic and at 17 became an atheist. I always had an interest in philosophy and I learned a lot from channels like yours and watched a lot of your videos on theological arguments for god back in the day. It’s been a long journey to get to where I am now and learn all that I have. It’s actively painful now listening to people like Ben talk, almost everything they say has so many flaws that it can be overwhelming like such an absolute logical mess that it’s difficult to even know where to begin with people like that. Don’t know how you do this for a living but I’m glad you do 👍
I’m similar in being an atheist but I’ve read my share of theology and theism enough to find the commons and build my own moral baseline. I look at Jesus as more of just a philosopher, like Aristotle, Plato or Aesop before him. Yeah there were some wars and crusades but only some of that’s down to religion. Mongols weren’t preaching, Pearl Harbour wasn’t bombed for being Christian. More or less religion have society a fundamental moral compass and framework. Laws like freedom of speech that you enjoy. Religion held societies together for almost 2000 years. That’s pretty good empirical evidence & there’s aspects of neurology for instance that support the roles and reasoning. I don’t think it’s necessary to believe in god, but I think there should be respect for those who do, the trauma it carried our ancestors through and the society it created.
I'm sure it is painful for you to listen to people like Ben. God is waiting for you to return to Him if indeed you ever were an actual Christian (as opposed to someone who went to church because their parents did or just went along with churchy things until it was no longer convenient.) God will always make himself available to you. If you need help understanding anything you think is a "flaw" with Christianity, I'll be happy to explain.
It's hilarious how obvious his grift is. "You can spend years researching and learning about X, or you can just pay me and I'll walk you through it and you'll learn everything you need to know in just 15 minutes". Imagine if you said that about virtually any field of science.
You mean just like every science textbook? You do realize that Ben's statement is exactly the premise upon which all knowledge is based, right? If everyone had to rediscover everything on their own, no one would get anywhere. What you actually disagree with is his supposed lack of citation and reference, which, by the way, you're free to research from the same public sources on your own. The reason you haven't, is because that's a lot of work. So instead you choose someone who believes the same things you do and trust them to do all that research for you... Sounds familiar...
@@wesleydahar7797 I see you attended a similar school of misrepresentation. The criticism is not, 'you should rediscover everything since the beginning of time yourself', it's, 'Any immensely complicated subject summarized in 15 minutes should be taken with a grain of salt' (let alone, any given individual being an authority on it). Citations aren't the problem either, though in a vacuum they should be disqualifying; it's the incompleteness of what's being referenced without citation that supposedly he should have delegated authority to teach on. This isn't Ben's textbook being discussed here, it's 15 minutes of talking over cherrypicked out of context clips. The person whose video you're commenting on is providing the context he ignored over the course of an hour. You then equivocate between them, not to defend one, but disparage both.
@@onemllnonetoone To your points, in order: 1. Ad Hominem 2. Slippery Slope It might be an unreasonably large grain of salt or have requirements for specialized education to form conclusions. Complicated things often have simple explanations and I'd go so far to say that anything over 15 minutes isn't really a summary anymore, but obviously that depends on the subject matter. If you say "do some research, but don't do all the research" you have to draw the line somewhere, and, to my initial remark, I was making that argument to show it is not so unreasonable for Ben to say what he did. 3. Appeal to Authority There is no council of knowledge that decides who may share knowledge, not even universities. Degrees and diplomas simply give weight to education. Peer review and repeated testing provide the validation of knowledge. The matter of context is simply what is relevant to the points being made. I would say that disagreeing with Ben's conclusions is not a reason to claim insufficient context. I didn't get anything substantial out of the additional context and would say that for the purpose of summary Ben was painting with a broad brush, so don't nitpick. And be honest, his context is essentially the public domain, everyone already knows a lot of this. 4. Accusation of False Equivalency That's exactly what I said. You trust one instead of the other because it more closely aligns with what you believe, i.e. it makes sense and seems consistent because it relies on the same assumptions to which you already hold. I'm not disparaging either one. It's hyperbole to emphasize that it is not an issue for one to stand on the shoulders of giants, but only that care must be taken when choosing upon which giants to stand.
@@wesleydahar7797 As a correction, it is not an Ad Hominem. Common mistake. If I were to have said that, and nothing else, it would be, but I proceeded to explain why your characterization is wrong afterwards. The same way as if I had said 'you're ugly', and then explained how you were wrong, I wouldn't be saying you're wrong because you are ugly, I would just be insulting you as well. Being incivil isn't synonymous with an Ad Hominem fallacy. Quite the contrary, complicated things, or even simple things for that matter, rarely have simple explanations. They may be attributable to a confluence of relatively simple things, but their interplay makes the result complex and multifaceted. The belief otherwise I'll wager is why there's a disconnect here in the first place. It is possible to summarize complex things, yes, but that summary will a. Not be equivalent in explanative power to the full explanation, and b. Not be comprised of misrepresentations of the elements. Accordingly it's clear how this is not a 'Slippery Slope'; no delineator was stated, nor a requirement for any particular schooling you interpolated, nor that the content shouldnt be consumed, nor Ben shouldnt discuss his views or conclusions, etc. Merely the observation 15 minutes, or if youd prefer, replace in situ 'incomplete summaries', will not substitute actual understanding. Even a summary should be accompanied by further learning, and such should be encouraged. In this way, it is quite unreasonable in point of fact for Ben to say this was a viable alternative to studying something for years, even for a layman. Or, to say in brief, 'take it with a grain of salt'. Moving on, I find it curious you read my use of the word 'authority' as an appeal to one, since I was quite obviously criticizing treating individuals, any individuals, as authority, in both this paragraph referring to Ben, being the self-defining authority on a breadth of subjects apparently in his series, as well as in the previous paragraph, where I say, "let alone any given individual being an authority on it", speaking to how any single person DOESN'T represent an authority to be appealed to for entire sibjects. This sort of writing, btw, is why I compared you in my not-ad hominem opening silo to being in the same school of misrepresentation as Ben; you each somehow managed to read the exact opposite point being made by your opposition. "Everyone already knows a lot of this", what, the venues and interviews he's pulling from? The worldviews being described? The ones Ben disregards or contradicts? Clearly his video then is navel-gazing. Sarcasm aside, anyway, again, the point of this video I invite you to rewatch, is that Ben's *support* for some of his conclusions were evidently built, if not on, then around, the views included by him from a swath of Atheist noteables. Those clips weren't garnish, they were included to convey certain perspectives of an opposition. Perspectives which were, out of context, conveying different messages than what they were actually saying. (And also not in alignment with each other, but that's neither here nor there) Talking about epistemological pragmatism, instead of some intrinsic fallibility of faith in all senses, for instance, is not a trivial difference. The reason insufficient context is claimed isn't because there is disagreement with the conclusions, as you assert; insufficient context is claimed because there is insufficient context; the takeaways, some of them cut off mid-sentence, are contrary to what they actually said. We can argue about his extrapolations, or his other conclusions elsewhere, that's not what this was about. If we're being rigorous, it's even possible for him to be right in all of his conclusions if he is speaking in some general 'broad brush' way, but despite that, just included speakers who were at times outright contradicting his then point. That would still be a terrible way to frame your argument. While also not mentioning sources. (The material being public domain doesn't matter, come on, you're better than that my interlocutor; Shakespeare is also public domain, but if I make a claim about a text without citation for checking, or even mentioning the play it's from, that's shoddy work at best, outright obfuscation at worse) Lastly, this isn't about trust. Step outside of the presuppositional paradigm please. I used the terms equivocate and disparage because your response as written didn't actually defend Ben, in the sense that it justified his mischaracterizations, instead saying that, well, they both gave abbreviated breakdowns, i.e. bad, insofar as they could be called bad, in the same way. My counterpoint you side-stepped, was this video provided context the first ignored, and as a result, provided more information about the subject than Ben's (This is often the consequence of allowing people time to express their full thought). Ben focused on overarching statements, in contrast to what was actually being said by the examples he gave. This video provided his statements, full-er context for the examples, and some counterpoints. Regardless of one's presuppositions, this video had more relevant content, while not pretending to be an adequate summary of any whole topic. This is not, please take note, the same thing as treating this video as authoritative, or the best source. Merely a slightly better one. A better one yet, would be one which had yet more analysis of the subject, more comprehensive definitions, a non-celebrity selection of perspectives, and less hyperbole (from RR, or Ben, or yourself). To round this out, I would rhetorically ask you to consider, or reconsider, why you're interested in defending a shoddily sourced, misrepresentative, overly brief, non-authoritative summary, instead of, well, not doing that. (And to throw in one last jab, Id also ask you to not just label things fallacies willy-nilly. Legit, this reads like you just skimmed Know Your Fallacy and decided to go ham, it's amateurish. If you were one of my students with work like this, I'd fail you)
@@onemllnonetoone You have certainly gone above and beyond in your response. I regret we couldn't hash this out in person, since I'm sure a conversation with you would be to my edification on rhetoric. Though, I hope, with a bit less of the condensation that often comes with the territory of the TH-cam comments section. While I certainly feel my earlier statements were quite reasonable, it seems I was ineffective in communicating my point and we have diverged from what I believed to be the topic at hand. While I retract no statement of my own, I anticipate the battles will not be worth the war. As consolation for this last, and comparatively underwhelming, reply, I will concede to you the rare honor of having won an argument on the internet. All the best, Wesley Dahar
Yeah, about as baffling as hearing, “There’s no all-knowing being in the universe?” “Wouldn’t stating that claim as a fact require you to be such a being?” ……..
@@DeshCanter "Wouldn’t stating that claim as a fact require you to be such a being?" Wouldn't stating that there IS an all-knowing being require you to be all-knowing yourself? Now, imagine you are a being. How do you determine that you are actually all-knowing? How do you know that there is no partr of reality beyond your knowledge? How do you know that you are not a brain in a vat that only believes that it is all-knowing? There is no possible way you can know such things. You can believe that you are not a brain in the vat, you may even be correct about that, but you can't actually know that you are correct in that belief. I don't think "all-knowing" is a coherent property for a being to have.
@@WhiteScorpio2 No. I look at the available evidence and conclude that God is the best explanation. Can I prove this? No. It does involve faith. You look at the evidence and conclude there is no God. You can’t prove your claim either, so your definitive statement that there is no God is a statement not of science, but of faith.
@@DeshCanter "No." Yes. "I look at the available evidence and conclude that God is the best explanation." And what evidence have you encountered that made you conclude that there is an all-knowing being? "You look at the evidence" What evidence? I haven't seen any evidence for God. Are you making a claim that there is evidence for God? Can you support this claim? "your definitive statement that there is no God is a statement not of science, but of faith" It can also be a logical conclusion. If you define your God in a logically incoherent way, then your God simply doesn't exist. For example, if you say "Gos is an existing being that doesn't exist", it would be an incoherent statement. My position regarding Christian God is that such God is described incoherently. I already pointed out that the "all-knowing" attribute is incoherent. Existing before time is incoherent. Creating time is incoherent. The idea of Trinity is incoherent. The whole story of Jesus' "sacrifice" is incoherent. I can go on. The idea of Christian God is incoherent, so I'm perfectly comfortable in stating that such a God doesn't exist, because it can't exist. Now, could some other god or gods possibly exist? Probably. I have no reason to think that it does, though.
@@DeshCanter "I look at the available evidence" What evidence? "It does involve faith." So your "evidence" doesn't actually support your conclusion? Then why call it "evidence"? You can believe absolutely anything on faith, sure, though I have no idea why you would want to. "your definitive statement that there is no God" My statement is that Christian idea of God is incoherent. Logically incoherent things are impossible, so Christian God doesn't exist. Some other god or gods may possibly exist, but I have not been presented with any coherent reason to believe so.
I loved your words and feels regarding Christopher Hitchens. Miss him heaps. Thankfully he was prolific in getting his message out there. Lots of stuff to read and to re-watch. ❤
It's so hard to even listen to Ben's voice never mind what he's saying. I'm just astonished that this is the guy the right picked to be their smart guy.
What i found interesting was the criticism of Ayn Rand. For a while she was a high priestess among the GOP. They would carry a book of her quotes in their pocket when others would carry the pocket Constitution.
Its a shame that both of us live pretty close where CH was born but never got to meet him. But as you point out, we can meet him, through his writings and public speaking and for that, we should be thankful.
The more I hear from Ben Shapiro the less I respect him as an intellectual. It’s not even that all his arguments are bad, but more that when he does make a good point, you can often find the same general point raised in a more well reasoned way and/or with less hyperbole by someone else.
@@oscarolvera9069 I mean he's very knowledgeable, way more knowledgeable than I am. So in my view, he's an intellectual even if he's terrible at arguments.
Give Stephen an A for countering! Good to see a longer one again, well argued (as always), and with expanding clips for context! More expanding clips! They do context so well!
How ridiculous is it that Shapiro even used Gervais as a "source". Absolutely Gervais does speak quite well on the topic and his discussion with Colbert was an accurate representation of atheists' position. But he's a stand up comedian! He's not a scholar; he doesn't work as a spokesperson for any atheist organizations that I know of. Shapiro picked him so that his flock could point and say, "Look at the silly funny man talking like he knows anything at all about God!" It's like if someone was doing a documentary on gender issues and used a clip of Tucker Carlson in an interview saying what he thinks on the topic as proof of anti-trans ideology's validity. Positioning Carlson as an "expert" on the subject because... he's famous and has an opinion? Might as well ask a random person on the street their thoughts on supply side economics and cite them as in a documentary as a knowledgeable person in global economics.
I doubt that either of those guys are even religious. It's an act for their Christian viewers and to influence others to become Christians - obedient, guilt ridden and easy to control.
peterson isnt trying to convince rather hes saying that theres alot to learn in the stories of the bible that is timeless and you see in many modern stories movies and etc.. and tht it can be applied to better life in the real world... so hes trying to make the point to live life as if god is real.. not that you should go and buy in entirely in a religion lmfao
The fact that so few of them know anything about their religion does make you wonder. Whether they believe or not, they aren't interested in knowing or following the Bible, they stop at worshiping it.
Get 25% off Blinkist premium and enjoy 2 memberships for the price of 1! Start your 7-day free trial by clicking here: www.blinkist.com/rationalityrules
Yawn
Hi. How about "absence" instead of "lack"? For me, "lack" connotates I'm missing something that needs to be replaced.
To answer your question honestly, "who doesnt like a little Ricky Gervais?"
Trans folk. And Christians.
Just sayin'
Freedom doesn't care about Ben's facts or feelings or anybody's for that matter.
Always fun watching Shapiro get dunked on. Cherrypicking and right wing grifters. Name a more iconic pair.
Ben’s series isn’t about debunking anything. It’s a primer on how to run a fast loose argument against college freshmen.
debating college freshmen is the only thing Ben is an actual expert in, so i guess uh.. good on him for leaning on his strengths?
@@eabea Absolutely. He does have one other speciality --- taking on Hollywood celebrities who aren't in the room.
@@eabea Its easy, just do as Ben and make up facts and sound convincing. When debating in real time, proving that what he is claiming is untrue is.. well hard
Nowadays against high school students!
You can make yourself look extremely smart against a college student that hasn’t graduated and probably doesn’t know about the topic at hand but when you come up against someone who knows what they’re talking about it’s harder. And then ben struggles for instance against andrew neil he got mad and stormed off and he refuses to debate actually good left wing speakers.
"You could spend years researching these topics or just hang out with me and become an expert!" - every quack ever
Really though, it’s just too hilarious that this isn’t a parody of a snake-oil salesman… he actually markets like this. What a cartoon.
@@8114梦见 It is kind of terrifying how many things we see in real life that SHOULD only exist in a ridiculous parody. 😐
I said it on the first part of these videos, but it really does bear repeating: the sheer audacity to suggest that 15 minutes or less spent listening to you speak on a subject in a prerecorded video is at all equivalent to putting in the hard work to understand the subject---it's mind boggling. I would hope that Ben's own audience would recognize what a preposterous claim that is and be skeptical going in.
@@jacobd1984 yeah his audience really isn't going to as long as benbo says what they want to hear.
@@jacobd1984 It's not ridiculous at all.
I’d rather see you continuing to debunk folks as influential as Ben Shapiro than to focus disproportionate amount of attention on fringe religious intellectuals. Even if somebody like William Lane Craig might put forth a stronger argument, Shapiro & Co. are the more influential ones.
Then stay subscribed, as I've switched gears.
@@rationalityrules Why would I even consider to unsubscribe? 😉 Though, if I may add, debunking some concepts of eastern religions (such as reincarnation) every now and then might be useful, too. Especially since a lot of westerners can fall for eastern religions and their mysticism - because the unknown seems more interesting and “wiser” in comparison.
@@cosmicprison9819 I agree with you, but I also really like to hear stronger arguments get dismantled. I say, keep 'em both coming. 👍🏻
@@cosmicprison9819 - Yes…I’d really like to see that debunking of reincarnation, especially given the fact that Dr. Ian Stevenson at UVA spent 50 years studying it scientifically and Dr. Jim Tuckerson has continued for more than 20 years. There are now over 3,000 extremely well documented cases among children for which there is almost no other explanation. Can’t wait for 70 years of rigorous scientific research, of which most people know absolutely nothing, to get debunked.
@@rationalityrules do both
You seem to assume Ben Shapiro is mistaken rather than deliberately dishonest …
For the purpose of convincing an audience that doesn't already agree, its almost always more productive to err on the side of that assumption
You cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep
@@XavIsOnline that's so eloquently put! :)
This is exactly the dead on comment and why we should be using the word disinformation rather than misinformation
@@XavIsOnlineyessir. And I lean more toward Ben than I do someone like vaush, but I agree. I strongly dislike all the tarring and feathering done to ideologues under the assumption that they’re deliberately misinforming people. Sometimes they are but usually? Ehhhh. I strongly doubt that.
Thank you for minimizing the time we had to listen to Ben's voice.
🤣👍
But he mixed the audio poorly. Ben was much louder than Steve. I had to pipe Firefox's audio output through a limiter to be able to handle it.
I guess it's all about your feelings lol
It's an excellent public service. I also feel grateful for this.
@@yawninghamster7238 Suee you do and it's because you don't know anything.
Ben Shapiro is the best example of mistaking a fast talker for an intelligent one
100% spot on, I have seen thoroughbred race horses gish gallop slower
I can see how it works in real life, but anyone can pause a video and digest what's just been said, fact check it, etc. It really boggles my mind that so many people don't do any of that with his videos.
He is intelligent, but he's not perfect. There are things that I'm pretty sure Stephen agrees with him and a lot of things that he disagrees with him.
@@arkyudetoo9555 He's not though. Or at least he has never displayed intelligence in his videos. He just mouths off so fast some people don't notice he's talking utter gibberish. If he tried any one of his little speeches in a pub, he would be picked apart after virtually every sentence by anyone still sober enough to speak. He's only "intellectual" if you don't care what he actually says because you already agree with everything he pushes.
@@derrickoleary8908 If you're coming from that standpoint that Ben Shapiro never displayed intelligence in his videos, then I have to assume that either you dislike him personally (possible hate him), or you don't know what he's talking about. Contrary to what you have said, I disagree a lot of things that Ben Shapiro have said at the same time I agree some of the things that he said. He is intelligent in a sense that he made some very solid arguments to some of the topics that he discussed, even some solid comebacks to some of his debates. Yes, he does have some flaws, as many other intellectuals, including some atheist by the way. I consider Ben Shapiro an intelligent person just as I treat Sam Harris as an intelligent person. Hope you can see where I'm coming from.
Please never stop doing this. Shapiro does this on every topic. He nearly always starts with a completely false premise which he rarely even states clearly, for instance, if you can’t point to a law that specifically mentions race, then there’s no such thing as systemic racism, and then quotes 4 or 5 memorized points and finishes with a flourish that almost always involves claiming he just proved his “opponent” wrong.
All though I’m sure it’s tedious, the world badly needs you to keep doing this!
Thanks so much!!!
Although with systemic racism, there should at least be indications within the system that show racism. And the most obvious way is with laws. And if you can display one way that something is racist and then another way that it isn't, you have only succeeded in creating tribes. Which appears to me to be what woke ideology (and frankly modern anonymity among our technologies) has created.
One of the ways the right wing propaganda has been so successful, is by convincing reasonable people that there is equal nonsense on both sides. While Woke isn’t constructed out of whole cloth, like say, critical race theory, it’s pretty close. It’s like how they took the phrase defund the police or Black Lives Matter, and turned it into a rally cry for broke white people. It is propaganda in the end. Woke ism is nothing close to as dangerous as the right, let alone the far right. Just main stream right. As far as systemic racism goes, I suggest you look up stop and frisk, nowhere in that law does it mention a race. But it was a racist law in the end, according to the Supreme Court. Look up red lining and look up how VA loans were restricted. Look up how Social Security and Medicare were restricted when they were initially applied. The list long, is what I’m saying, and Ben Shapiro is dead wrong about all of it.
Or the left just has a real hard time with comprehension. We know they gaslight and lie constantly.
@@brianvillage5 lol. Yeah. I know you are but what am I? Nah. I think you have to wait at least 20 years after Trump dies, before you guys can try this shit again. Cheers!
@@SC-kh8lg if you're referring to people trying to bring attention to / an end to systemic racism as "woke ideology", then you're the problem. There are most definitely laws that demonstrate systemic racism if you can read between the lines. For example there is a 100-to-1 crack versus powder cocaine sentencing disparity under which distribution of just 5 grams of crack carries a minimum 5-year federal prison sentence, while distribution of 500 grams of powder cocaine carries the same 5-year mandatory minimum sentence. Crack cocaine users and dealers are more likely to be black/ people of color and cocaine users and dealers are more likely to be white.
I love how he just says he’s using facts and logic and then doesn’t
talk fast maybe no ones listening!
He just makes up different reality where his argument works. He often says "lets say hypothetically" and just spews his arguments like its reality.
@@migrationsverket-qw6wz”Let’s say that, in this situation, I am right and you are wrong, ok? In that situation, I would be right and you would be wrong.”
"love how he just says he’s using facts and logic and then doesn’t"
Your statment is incoherengt with out an example of these facts. You are guilty of the same. Your low IQ loser lol.
Ben’s capacity for intellectual dishonesty is breath taking
I'm not sure what's worse: Ben's dishonesty or his fellow Daily Wire writers, Walsh and Knowles,'s dullness.
No Ben is a man of facts.
@@kangaroo3708 That's not true, some Bens are men of facts.
@@jacobd1984
Ya I was being sarcastic anyway
@@kangaroo3708 I legit thought you just forgot to use a comma between no and ben. Took me a few seconds, tbh.
Ben's favorite line has got to be, "I do all the research so you don't have to"!
Sounds like a con artist saying "just trust me...."
I think your autocorrect misspelled "lie" with an extra 'n'.
@@jwmmitch Yup, why think and learn for yourself when you can let someone else do that for you? Quit using your brain and just follow along like a good sheep.
He leaves out the second part, which is "I actually depend on you not doing research, so you don't find out how full of shit I am"
@above
Yep, he relies on the feels of the people he's pushing his narrative at. They like the way his nonsense makes them feel about their world view- they're less likely to check into what he claims.
Well done, Sir.
HI ARON RA
Hell yeah!
A familiar face in the comment section! Huzzah!!!!
Agreed. RR is coming along nicely.
Ben needed to be put in his place, RR did a fantastic job.
Auran Ra! Lol e your channel!
I love how Ben considers it delusional NOT to take the primitive writings of ancient people who didn't know where the sun went at night at face value..
As opposed to thinking everything comes from nothing. 🙄
@@DeshCanter do you think that the creator of the universe is cool with his followers genociding other people and keeping their little girls as sex slaves?
Cause the God of the Bible says those things are fine.
Numbers 31:
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves"
@DeshCanter Suppose the universe did come from nothing somehow: Certainly it is not an intuitive concept to us, as our observations indicate that prior effects correlate with what we see proceeding from them.
What difference is there in saying the universe is uncaused, and supposing that an entity is actually the uncaused causer with the attribute of being eternal.
Not understanding how the universe came to be in this way is not sufficient evidence to imply that there was no way it could have done so. Instead we call the eternal God. What if the universe is eternal? If God can be eternal, why cannot existence?
@@GTproductor1
It could be. The better question is in which direction do our reason and experience lead us?
Have you ever personally experienced something come from nothing? Is science based on cause and effect or “stuff just happens and we’re ok with it?”
It seems like your line of thinking indicts science, not theism.
@DeshCanter Go read Richard Krauss's book, and you'll understand where you're going wrong with your statement.
'Never have I missed a man I never met so much, so fiercely'
Beautiful way of words good sir. I wholeheartedly agree with you
What does "good sir" mean?
Antique respectful form of address. Greetings from Ye Olde England
Ben popularized the saying "facts don't care about your feelings" yet it's all about his feelings.
Well yeah. His feelings was hurt. How dare we hurt his feelings with facts he didn’t wanna hear
He’s such a snowflake
Every time
I still use that a lot, though I don't often agree with Bennie boy
@@vinnieg6161
It's still a good saying if you're not a hypocrite about it and also remember that feelings to some degree are also science.
It's just bad when you try to argue with religion and emotion like Ben likes to do.
It's nice for Benny that despite his writing career failing dismally he's still managed to find a job producing fiction.
"Let me tell you, my dramedy was so good. The liberal elites just didn't want my genius unleashed." Maybe Ben Shapiro
Lol this comment made my day
I didn't know it was doing so poorly. Makes me happy.
Maybe he can return to peddling cheap chinese products being advertised as luxury products for outrageous amounts of money.
His given name is *_Benjamin Aaron Shapiro_* ! Use it ;-)
He's acting rationally. He knows he'll get money from very rich and powerful people to tell lies.
So very true. There's money to be made in a polarised world, polarising the world further.
This. Ben is paid well to give the impression that there are rational arguments for far right policies.
So in your low output mind rich people only exist to tell lies lol😂😂
"Ben very much embodies the attributes he claims to despise." RR
That pretty much sums up Ben and his acolytes. Well said!
Every conservative. Every time. How many times have we seen them scream about pedophiles and then find out the literally venmo'ed underage girls for sex? Howling about voter fraud only to discover they voted twice or ran a mail in ballot fraud scheme?
Projection is a key part of their mentality.
Projection is a prominent feature of the conservative mind.
@@MojoHaiku Projection is a problem on the right and left tbh
@@jackbishop769 ''gurr durr both sides''-you
oh look a false equivalence and projection by a snowflake conservative that felt called out, what are the odds?
cope harder
It's so sad that the people who need to see this the most will never be open to seeing it.
Exactly. They'd just say it's fake news
It depends. Ben's audience is predominantly younger people who are thusly not so set in their ways
If youre like me you listen to all the stupid people everywhere 😅
The algorithm only just showed this to me today - but it’s as relevant as ever
I am a fan of Ben Shapiros rhetoric skills, not exactly his political opinions although i would consider myself a "more left conservative" (Europe btw, not USA). I think its really important to look at arguments from both sides, fact checking every argument and then making up your own opinion. Some of what Shapiro says is absolute rubbish, but he has points that are true and very important as well.
Most of what B.S. has ever had to say since turning “public intellectual” has been factually wrong; but he’d always hoped that by jabbering away at breakneck speed and “debating” pimply freshman undergrads, we wouldn’t take much notice of all his nonsense. ADDENDUM (edit): Great presentation! - been a long time comin’. 👍
Yes, he does love to make himself look smart by comparing himself to the dumbest of kids he can find and only using those clips, doesn't he? Like talking circles around some shy and intellectually stunted tween is some kind of impressive accomplishment. You rarely see him debating anyone of intelligence.
There is a reason why Ben Shapiro’s initials are BS
@@davidvondoom2853 Thanks to Andew Neil we know why he he likes to avoid any kind of intellectual opposition even from fellow conservatives.
@@rolfj953 - And then they say there’s no GOD...
Self righteousness seems to run in the Shapiro family genes.
Ben is just a little man that has no idea about the harm he is causing people.
A quick look at Chris Hedges will show the good works, the care and concern a religious person can bring to humanity.
Ben has never grown up, never matured into a thoughtful reasonable human.
Thank you Stephan for all the time and energy you have put into this fine videos.
he is not dumb. he’s literally just paid millions of dollars to lie, and he does it well
@@Micahtmusic He thinks that if the water levels rise, people whose homes would be flooded should just sell their house and move away. He says stupid shit like that all the time, very seriously, and with a level of confidence only found in children claiming they can fly or that the moon is cheese. He is of average intelligence, but he talks fast and occasionally uses words his viewers don't even bother googling to know the meaning of, so people think he's smarter than he is. He doesn't lie well, he just uses buzzwords that rope in a reactionary audience, and then keeps them there by being the stupid person's vision of what a smart person is like, making the dumb viewer think he's taught them something.
He knows about the harm, he just doesn't care
He cares about the profits, and in that regard he's akin to a less-tragic less-destruxtive edition of Fox News Corp.
To his credit, he likely won't ever get massively sued or fined for what he says / mistates.
He is getting rich off of it, so I don't think he cares. I view him more of a con rather than clueless or stupid
Trump said he understood the system, so only he could fix it.
Shapiro said he read the books, so we should let him interpret them for us.
The pattern matching parts of my brain just lit up.
Same as the Catholic Church providing an interpretation of the bible to the illiterate masses …
This is what happens when the cleverest kid in his class grows up and no one explains to him he's not the cleverest person in the world
True but he's always been a wanker.
The realest boy in the puppet-maker's workshop.
I bet his parents are VERY upset he didn't become a doctor... nothing to hang on the wall. Such a disappointment. "All you do is yell at lesbians all day... what kind of LIFE is that????"
Thinks he's the cleverest, u facked up in the first sentence.
@@jeffbaer5851 his parents are Hollywood lawyers.
It’s telling that the easiest and most efficient way to completely debunk Ben Shapiro in almost all of his cases, is to play the entirety of his selected sources.
That is true of apologists in general, I have noticed.
What about his view that men cannot carry babies? He's right about that.
@@thewerewolfofnorway437 there are lots of women than can't carry babies so by your reasoning they are not women?
@@mikegarner9608 no, of course they're women, they're still female. Males cannot have babies. Is that too hard to understand? And to think you're trying to make Ben look stupid. 🤣
@@thewerewolfofnorway437 this assumes there to be only a binary system of sexes, where the defined "rules" (of thumb) are quite arbitrary and certainly not constant. The resistance to see anything outside that binary system is like a bunch of grown ass adults crying like little babies over Pluto no longer being considered a planet; The universe does not abide by the "rules" set forth by man, while those "rules" are just a rough model to describe that(this) universe.
The last conversation my wife had with her astranged mother on her deathbed was that my wife was going to hell because she didn't share her same beliefs. As cruel and descusting as that is, I have no doubt that she believed that it was her duty under God to shame her into a believing in her god. My wife will carry that hurt with her that rest of her life. There is no hate like Christian love.
Ben using Ayn Rand as a representative of atheism or atheists is peak irony, given how his contemporaries have put her on a pedestal as if she had led the Confederate army herself. 😂
The craziest part is Ayn coined Objectivism itself, all his "facts vs feelings" are literally part of Ayn Rand's objectivism. That he turned an objectivist libertarian into some atheist tankie commie to push his religious views is hilarious.
@@whitehavencpu6813 It is really weird because Ben's popularity started to gain steam in the same circles that were basically starged by people like Sargon and Thunderfoot. The post-internet-atheist community which turned into the "skeptic community" which turned into anti-SJW TH-cam (of which Ben was the king).
I'd bet a large amount of his audience, despite noe having a lot more older conservative Christian types, is those same people who either are still atheists or fell into some politically-induced religious leaning
@@man4437 I wouldn't put Thunderfoot in the same category as Sargon. I find his videos rather enlightening, mostly when it comes to Elon Musk.
@@man4437 thanks for pointing this out. I fell into this "skeptic" community around 2016, when a lot of these types were both atheist and pro-Trump... with some contrived justification, of course. In hindsight, I think it was just a collection of people unable to justify faith but still socially and economically conservative (Aydin Paladin, cough cough).
@@jameslay1489 Thunderfoot likes to pick a target and then obsessively create tons of videos about that one target until even his fans lose interest, then he picks a new one. Remember his Sarkeesian period, for example? And I also remember how he failed in those videos fairly similar to how Ben failed here. tf is ... not a reputable source for anything.
I'm new here but omg your hair is absolutely extraordinary when it was down!
Keep up the excellent work. Hopefully more Americans will wake up to fact they are being duped
*Flips hair* :)
I actually miss Metal Steven. Was a good look for him
@@rationalityrules🤣
@@rationalityrules show off! Hahaha
@@rationalityrules I also love your hair down.
"Never have I missed a man, I never knew, so much", you just put into words what Ive been feeling for over about a decade. I have the same feeling with Carl Sagan.
George Carlin :(
Putting Christopher Hitchens against Ben Shapiro is like putting Einstein against Kim Kardashian
Dude LOL. Christopher Hitchens is NOT Einstein. Puleeze the man was so completely off regarding religion and its meaning. It’s like listening to a blind man speak of color. He only sees very partially, and in a twisted fashion essential to his own purview and presuppositions- then foists them on a topic he barely grasps.
I love Hitch, he was an amazing writer and pundit and on other issues, absolutely cracking. On religion? He was a self-righteous boor.
He doesn't define delusion, he demonstrates it.
Dude shut up
He orchestrates it
he is the definition it self. =D
@@banishedbr A picture of his face should be put next to the definition of delusional.
@@ararepotato1420 And also next to the definition of sh*thead.
You are doing gods work.
Well... I mean... You get the point
And by god, you mean ishtar/ereshkigal/rin tohsaka. The goddes of thighs.😍
@@hakureikura9052 don't be absurd. There's only one true God and that is the Goddess "Althena of Lunar". If you disagree, I shall invade your lands, murder your children, and steal your wives. All in the name of my God, of course. Don't want to go to prison after all. I'm not crazy.
@@1georgekitchen 😱😭😅😆🤣
love the celeste profile pic! are you also a friend of blahaj?
Ahmen, i mean your right.
Ben is a master in one thing and one thing only...he knows how to monetize viewership. Nothing more. He knows that people in general have short attention spans, crave drama, and don't have the motivation or will to look to deeply into any topic. He knows they want an easy answer to everything that is presented in a nice neat package. Since they crave validation, he plays to that and gives them enough chowder to be satisfied. He then presents it in a format that can't be immediately questioned and/or speaks his position fast enough so he can make it appear his opponents can't stay on topic. His strategy, much like Jordan Peterson, is to not give his detractors time to openly question them.
Idk, man. I believe Ben, and to a greater extent Jordan Peterson, are much smarter than you.
Utter nonsense.
You have to have a creative mind.
Like think in scenarios and with pictures and images.
Its the same skill as comedian , novelist, musician , artist.
Its just he can do it instantly.
I find myself quite good at it but only with lots of time and reference.
Hasan can do it, but with chad like scathing put down "OH MY FWARKING GOD, ARE U FKIN SHITTIN ME BRO, GET THE FCK OUTTA HERE".
Some ppl are just fast at coming up with great quips. Funny steady flows. Package it off with spiralling ending.
Its like a dance darling !!! Orators ballet ...
@@ernestothegod I have no doubt that they have mastered their field. Their field being the art of charisma and debate. Get past that, and their logic and reasoning begin to break down. You say they are smarter than me...I say you've been had by a talented salesman.
@@armondtanz That's called salesmanship. It doesn't mean he's right about what they're selling. They are thriving on those who can't think on their feet. They are craftsmen, who build their product around the idea that their mark either won't be able to question it (either by time, ability, or experience) or refuse to refute it because it conforms their preconceived bias. They are banking on people not questioning them in the larger scheme. Much like how a comedian has a stock pile of witty comebacks to deal with hecklers, Ben and Jordon have crafted pre-conceived responses to the most common questions. Questions from people they know, won't be as prepared as they are.
Just watch all of the most common Ben videos on TH-cam...first, most of them are 30 seconds or less, cutting out all the telling parts. The longer ones are usually fallacy heavy if you know what to look for.
You're correct...it is a dance. One that Ben and Jordon bank on you not knowing the steps to and then claiming they are smarter than you.
@@ryant115 Critical Thinking & Vigilance is their kryptonite
My grandma once told me that everyone is born a sinner. Meaning if a newborn dies they go straight down to hell.Plus why would god punish us for simply being born.
Because being human is poison and we, [insert religion here], are the cure!
You can't make people convert to your version of reality, for which there is no hard evidence of even being true, without first instilling fear.
What does sin mean?
So that you give the Church money and get your babies baptized
the best part about ben shapiro is that his firm phrase is "facts don't care about your feelings". Yet, he brings up morals (which are heavily based off feelings and are always subjective) as an argument pretty often. That's without mentioning that his facts pretty often are the result of nutpicking
3yd
,jmvbnzjh
Jj.kh
Dn.rnvznfjx. kz
.bnh.zyjcdnv
H3
R
Yzdnbhnjnm g
D
M
H
ZhM
G.c,c
Gnbh
GH.
ZF v
Gghgn
Hnun,
3,dh
Jmgnfjhjz.gmz
GdhbmnZ
Vjmd j.n n h
.jgnn
H
Zv.g
Chhhmghhdgnkthh.nchbh
Ch
Mdh
.mhvb..h
Jjmxb
n
J
BjgkhC
.h vhdmbh6
.hmc..h.j .jj,
D jg d.bh
J
..iblhng ..6hnjgfb.dbgj,6jhbgh
N.hz
ud
Nng..n
. Jdh.b
N
.bnjdg ibgn
Hu
NU
Nz
Bz.m.djb
Mj.g
H
jgdj
Hh
B
Mi
Hmgk
D dn
Cmd
G
K
.bg
Mn.v.hh6mnzmz jxbdjgu,d.,
He's a wet ass P word.
The only thing I would say is that Ben is convinced that morals are facts. He wouldn’t accept your position that morals are always subjective. So according to him the “facts don’t care about your feelings” still applies to morals based on his Judaism. I agree with you completely that he’s wrong and morals are indeed subjective but that argument just wouldn’t work by him or his ilk.
@@WickedIndigo it would because "prove that your religion is factual and not just fiction". You can't get direct proof of god's existence and all indirect proof can be debunked. If he says that I can't attack his religion/culture, it goes to feelings territory again
@@bj_cat103 that’s a very fair point and one that would probably work. I haven’t seen anything where that specific point was brought up to him (it could be out there, I’m not sure) but I’m curious what his response would be. I’m gonna look into it.
Speaking only from my experience as a devoted evangelical who worked as a missionary, many years ago (now an atheist), I had basically the same concept of atheists that Ben is demonstrating. I didn't know any atheists personally, at least anyone who was outspoken about it and I felt repelled by them, they felt like a threat, I think from a purely evolutionary defense mechanism. Of course when you have this frame of mind, it's very difficult to have a conversation that isn't confrontational, making it virtually impossible to learn anything new that's contrary to your currently held beliefs. Personally, I had to go through a lot of pain in my attempts to live out my faith over many years with nothing but failure before I allowed myself to consider other points of view seriously, to begin genuine questioning. I had to find out for myself.
What were you hoping to get from your faith?
Thanks for sharing.I believe we all have to find out on our own.
At least you came around. How many people go through their entire lives with blinders on?
❤
What does being an atheist mean to you though? Are you spiritual? Do you have any level of spiritual introspection?
"Facts don't care about your feelings, but they do need to be convenient for me to be true". - Ben Shapiro probably. (Before I even watch this video I bet this sums it up nicely)
Did it sum it up?
@@rita_calamity Yes.
Accurate after watching
I'm shocked that Ben actually put Ayn Rand in his vid and tried to pass her off as some leftist tankie commie... She literally coined Objectivism!
Ben should watch Carl Sagan and the Pale Blue Dot from the series Cosmos
I shared with my son that Shapiro cherry picks bit of truth then builds a wall of BS around it and calls it truth. Now I am doubting if he even has a bit of truth at all.
I think the fact that Ben wanted a career in Hollywood but was unable to make one says it all about him!
Sour grapes
Yeah, Hitler didn't get into art school.....
@@jazzyjay698 at first your reply made me go "No!", and then I realised that the reaction is based on Benny Boy being Jewish, but no group of people is immune to having A-grade disgusting individuals spring from within, so yeah your reply comment is valid.
11/10 for shock value
Good actors have extreme empathy. Conservatives don't do empathy well.
Steve Bannon as well. There are a few conservative pundits that didn't make it in Hollywood and now go after the industry they failed in. Same way as Trump going after the NFL during his presidency due to their banning him from owning an NFL team.
Everything Ben does just makes me cringe so hard my teeth shatter into a million pieces
Damn! Sorry about that!
Ouch...
His voice m'est nails on chalkboard.😬
@@caroleanderson4020 His voice should have been banned by the Geneva Convention.
"Never had I missed a man that I never met so much so fiercely." So well said about Christopher Hitchens.
who said that?
24:53
100% agree
probable a lot of people feel that way about Christopher, especially last few years that have made his passing even more of a human tragedy
Anyone who suggests that you just listen to them rather than to do your own research and draw your own conclusions immediately strikes me as being untrustworthy.
Should we listen to you or do our own research? If it’s the latter, why are you commenting?
“Atheism” has actually helped me find more meaning in my life than any belief in a restrictive belief system or ideology (being raised Christian). I owe in part, some of that breakaway to this TH-cam channel and cosmic skeptic, helping me at least criticise the beliefs I held. I’m glad for all the people who debate this stuff, including the more honest apologetics who are genuinely believing they are doing good.
That's great to hear. I, too, have learned a lot and challenged and changed views I once held - Thanks to people from 'the other side' creating content.
I held the most obnoxious, condescending, arrogant and unforgivably unfair opinion of people (specifically Americans) who were devoutly religious, in my teens. I knew nothing of the many denominations, nothing of the cultural insularity of many places, I was totally ignorant of the fact that people are raised, no, indoctrinated into biblical inerrancy, that can not be questioned. Traumatizing notions of hell being taught, a punishment for losing faith.
I grew up without religion, with non religious friends, non religious family, secular education. My opinion of American Christians was entirely based on my perception that the south was nothing but faith healing mega churches, with some snake handling and speaking in tongues thrown in.
In my defence - to a pre-internet, teenager, the religious adults seemed to be just acting insane. I couldn't understand how anyone could be fooled by the grifters of the big, faith-healing ministries, consequently I formed a low opinion of those people.
I know more now. I understand more about religious indoctrination, psychology, philosophy, societal norms, cultural mores, the teachings of the religions themselves and the trickery employed by professional apologists to keep people from questioning it.
I now have a genuine interest in and heartfelt compassion for anyone who, raised in such communities, finds themselves questioning and deconstructing the tenets they've been taught to believe. I can not imagine how it must feel to have your entire knowledge of the world, flipped upside down. I undetstand, now, how difficult and traumatising it must be.
I continue to consume content that deconstructs certain ideas, and I still find myself learning and re-evaluating my opinions.
I enjoy RR and Cosmic, even though I do not always agree with their viewpoint, I understand them and my disagreements are usually fairly minor. I continue to assess my viewpoints because of their and many others content. I hope I continue to do so.
That's the thing. Only you can find meaning in your life. Like family and friends and all the things you can experience. It would be absurd for me to try to tell you what's the meaning of your life. Same thing with morality. It can only be personal. You can listen to somebody's claim, but it's ultimately you who judge whether smashing a child's head against a rock is good or bad. Even Christians do that. When a Christian asks, what would Jesus do, they really ask, what do I think is right in this particular situation. Then they conclude this is what Jesus would have done. To paraphrase Nietzsche. When man praises God, he praises himself.
@@Petticca I’m kinda just of the belief that Jesus was a genuinely good person who most likely existed, he may of or may not have believed he was the son of god and he just genuinely saw wrong in the society he was born into, and was strung up because he defied it.
Religion has screwed this world up.
In the grand scheme of things, anything a republican, MSM media talking head , evangelist, or white supremacist says means nothing.
Understanding the past is not an American, MSM media, nor especially a republican, evangelist, or a white supremacist trait. It is a human trait. We are screwed as long as republicans, MSM media talking heads, evangelists, or white supremacists have any sway in our discourse.
Shit happens because evangelists, republicans, MSM meat heads, and white supremacist asswipes have a say in our government.
Deflection, distraction, and projection.
This is the republican/evangelist/white supremacist playbook.
I have one question for republicans/evangelists/white supremacists. What have you done in the last 50 years to help people that aren't dickhead rich cretins or brain dead sheep?
When any of the many republican reactions fail, republicans/evangelists/white supremacists fall back on their primary trait; Deception (lying).
Face it, people, as long as meat headed republicans and the needle dicks known as white supremacists and the con men known as evangelists have a say in our government we are screwed!
How does this shit happen (Rhetorical)?
Shit happens because we allow racism/sexism to exist.
Shit happens because rich people don't care about US or climate change.
Shit happens because republicans, corporatists, and evangelists want our society to be functionally misanthropic.
Shit happens because we haven't taught our kids right from wrong.
Shit happens because we are ruled by misanthropes who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
Shit happens because we don't care anymore that republicans have made a mess of everything and that "R"s will save US.
Shit happens because we don't have proper media coverage.
Shit happens because we don't care anymore.
Republicans (who are mostly white supremacists, evangelicals, corporatists are not your friends.) They are the ooze from your backside and the meat from your nose.
I would like to believe we are better than that.
I can not be troubled by these assholes.
They will continue to screw US over until they have won.
The best/worst part is that when they win they will inherit the wind.
We are ruled by corporations and evangelical miscreants.
This whole world is a SHITSHOW!
We seem to be screwed no matter which way we turn.
I love US and will not be denied.
Don’t let religion screw your world up.
@@bobrisse9823 if I were American I’d vote Republican in a federal election. Yknow how Christian’s used to blame most of the worlds Ills on blasphemers and sinners? With the flood destroying the world because too many people were against god et? It makes for a really simple and easy world view to be able to point to one specific group of people, label them all as one thing, not even question it and just role with it. Hating them for no reason. You get really dumb societies from this way of thinking, like the Soviet Union where the government clapped anyone who was moderately productive, causing mass starvation all because inequity bad by the Marxist worldview. You also get the Nazis, who were so smart, they thought the Jews were secretly controlling everything, ruining German pride, the German economy and it’s war effort, all this whilst claiming they were also secretly dumber than the aryans, weaker etc. bit oxymoronic.
My point is this, I’d vote Republican because I believe in constitutional republicanism, aka the American experiment. Liberalism, capitalism, manifest destiny and later the refinement of the scientific method are ideas that have brought this world massively out of poverty, yet i recognise at the same time that through this modernisation, with science we’ve discovered our old moral frameworks of religion were based on a fallacy. I’m not a theist. I also don’t think the religious are the sole cause of the worlds ills. Especially since they are such a large demographic, it’s not really fair to say that one demographic is the xause
That was awesome bud. Your level of production has gotten so good and your style has developed into something really unique. Thank you for filling in for the rest of us who are not as well equipped in articulating things. You pull out some cool euphemisms and it helps were pretty much on the same page.
Why would you do this to yourself? Are you a masochist? How can you tolerate his voice?
Don’t you understand? Life is suffering, but we can find meaning in the struggle… 😂
The speed up option is a blessing in disguise.
@@stephenhousman6975 mute button is also good with closed captioning
It is his job do analyse this for us. It is also a great sacrifice on his part and he should be praised. Soon as I hear 3 words out of Ben's mouth I want to beat his head in with a baseball bat...figuratively of course.
If you put it on 2x then you can imagine a chipmunk is talking
It's atleast tolerable then
I never believed anything Ben Shapiro said
What you said, solidified it
How so?
"Never have I missed a man I've never met so fiercely..." You remind me how enthralling it is to listen to Hitchens speak. What an absolute treasure to our collective consciousness he was and is. First time on the channel, very nice work! New fan here. 🤘
This. We need more of this. Robust debunking of popular or influential people engaged in dishonest and fallacious speech. Especially ones whose sophistry is designed to fracture society and denigrate entire swaths of people.
Opinion is debunking?
@@daa5249 That’s how life has always gone.
Opinion vs Opinion debate.
It’s ones opinion that the Earth is Flat and another persons opinion that the earth is round. But how do we decipher those two opinions and try to decide which one of them closely corresponds to reality? Which one has evidence.
That’s the same as the current Republican : conservatives: Right Wing mindset in the US. The Republicans / Right wingers believe that the 2020 election was stolen : rigged from messiah Trump by Democrats / Leftists. Stop the steal blah blah. That’s the Right wing opinion to this day. On the other saide we have Democrats/ Leftists saying the 2020 election was not rigged / stolen from Trump and his ignorant base.
So as an independent/ rational thinker: How do I come to an intelligent conclusion about those 2 opinions?
All opinion is not equal. Some opinion can end up closer to reality than another.
My opinion is that humans can’t fly. Other people might be of the opinion that some humans can fly.
So how do we try to objectively rate those 2 opinions? 👍🤞
Isn’t it?
@@daa5249 this isn't opinion. It's practically discourse analysis. Worlds apart on their analytical capability as a research method.
@@disremembered371 it’s an opinion 😑
In what way is this just an opinion rather than fact? Ben says a lot of factually wrong things in this video, and the rebuttal demonstrates that.
I too miss Christopher Hitchens. The world is a poorer place without him.
He's have eaten Ben alive
@@falconeshieldWith Ease
His words will last, a saint of and for reason
I've had to remove the part with Ayn Rand, since the copywriter has claimed the material. I explained that the content is used under fairuse, but they're wanting to take it to court. So I've decided to simply silent the segment. For what it's worth, here's the transcript:
Interviewer:
"You are out to destroy almost every edifice in the contemporary American way of life, our Judeo-Christian religion, our modified government, regulated capitalism ruled by the majority will. Other reviews have said that you scorn churches and the concept of God. Are these accurate criticisms?"
Ayn:
"Yes, I agree with the facts, but not the estimates. Namely, if I am challenging the base of all these institutions, I'm challenging the moral code of altruism. The precept of man's moral duty is to live for others that men must sacrifice himself to others, which is the present day morality."
Interviewer:
"What do you mean by sacrifice himself for others? Now we're getting to the point."
Ayn:
"One moment. Since I'm challenging the base, I necessarily would challenge the institutions you name, which are a result of that morality. And now what is self-sacrifice? Yes. What is self-sacrifice? You say that you do not like the altruism by which we live.
Interviewer:
"You like a certain kind of Ayn Rand selfishness."
Ayn:
"I would say that I don't like is too weak at work. I consider it evil and self-sacrifice is the precept that men need to serve others in order to justify his existence, that his moral duty is to serve others. That is what most people believe to be the full context of this exchange reveals."
I'm so glad I grew up in the internet age. I had my doubts as a kid. I posed my questions (pretty innocuous at first) to my parents, my friends, my relatives etc and no one had any real answers. Thankfully there was actual information on the internet for me to parse through.
The internet has allowed so many charlatans to push their nonsense to a massive audience,
It has also created an entire culture of debunkers, science explainers, debate platforms and educators in response. So many people have found their way out of conspiracies, indoctrination or hate-fuelled ignorance because of this group of people.
I think the clearest distinction between content offering genuine, factual information or honest discussion content and the charlatan's content is - Only one of these content types is consistently littered with dishonesty.
One of these cultures seems unable to present their content without misrepresenting, or outright lying about facts.
You get non-stop quote mining, out of context clips, misrepresented data, appeals to emotion (anger, usually) and an assault on reality. They will constantly misrepresent the people and arguments against their claims.- Little is offered by way of credible sources (if any are offered) from one side of the debate, so to speak. If all else fails for that side, they can and frequently do, invoke conspiracy, cover-up and persecution narratives.
It's crucial to teach our kids to recognise the dishonest tactics and to objectively ask "What is the goal of the content creator, based on the presented information?"
And to always follow up on things; we should not pretend we have gained a real understanding of something from a single lesson, video, article etc, just because it's something we agree with online.
Yeah man 😅
Quite honestly, this is one of the best videos I've seen from you. Your work is improving and I'm so grateful I can watch you on your journey. Keep it up!
If Ben is as intelligent as he professes he must know how dishonest he routinely is. He should also know that that is wrong and being ok with that makes him a despicable human being. The fact that so many apologists are dishonest is reassuring to an athiest having made the right call.
Intelligence doesn’t always go hand in hand with self awareness. If we cannot look at ourselves honestly then we use our intellect to cover up things we don’t want to see.
Not only atheists. Agnostics hate Ben too. Salute.
The thing that annoys me the most is Shairo trying to equate atheists with Leftists?? What on earth does politics have to do with believing in gods??
Ben is a political pundit. He appeals to hard right-wingers, either sincerely or otherwise, because it makes him money. So he has to make everything about politics, and religion has always been a defining point of the culture war. Christianity, specifically, has always had to pretend it was under attack (by evil leftist atheists or other, foreign religions) despite its very clearly large presence and influence over the law and government.
I am finding the Ayn Rand interview fascinating. She’s the kind of person most US conservatives go nuts over, but she rejects religion and much else they bray about. Wonderful find there.
A psychopath woman who believed the "self-made" big men on top were the ones sustaining society, all without the help of millions of middle/low class workers toiling below them.
That's why conservatives loved Ayn Rand so much, to the point of ignoring her being an atheist.
@Marco N.V.T Yet in the US, rural folk who are conservatives are far more communitarian and collective than many leftists. Beau of the Fifth column has a piece on that topic and in a mastodon thread several guys who interact with rural folk say the same things. The us left was either killed off by McCarthyism and abandoned by the Dems in the 80s, so the far right has a free hand to defame without objection.
@Marco N.V.T It also turns out the Ayn modeled her protagonists on a real life child kidnaper, ransomer and butcher. The story of the man she stated as a perfect exemplar of her ideal is deeply disturbing. If I am being kind, I would say the trauma of the USSR warped her beyond imagining. Or she could been born a sociopath. Or both
I am sure BS included Ayn to proof his viewers against atheism, giving a conflation of potentially objectionable ideas as an example of an atheist.
That Rand influenced the libertarian right, lets the blame be the atheism, rather than considering how un-Christian the radicalised right now behave. (intolerance, hate thy neighbour, casting the first stones etc)
Religion has screwed this world up.
In the grand scheme of things, anything a republican, MSM media talking head , evangelist, or white supremacist says means nothing.
Understanding the past is not an American, MSM media, nor especially a republican, evangelist, or a white supremacist trait. It is a human trait. We are screwed as long as republicans, MSM media talking heads, evangelists, or white supremacists have any sway in our discourse.
Shit happens because evangelists, republicans, MSM meat heads, and white supremacist asswipes have a say in our government.
Deflection, distraction, and projection.
This is the republican/evangelist/white supremacist playbook.
I have one question for republicans/evangelists/white supremacists. What have you done in the last 50 years to help people that aren't dickhead rich cretins or brain dead sheep?
When any of the many republican reactions fail, republicans/evangelists/white supremacists fall back on their primary trait; Deception (lying).
Face it, people, as long as meat headed republicans and the needle dicks known as white supremacists and the con men known as evangelists have a say in our government we are screwed!
How does this shit happen (Rhetorical)?
Shit happens because we allow racism/sexism to exist.
Shit happens because rich people don't care about US or climate change.
Shit happens because republicans, corporatists, and evangelists want our society to be functionally misanthropic.
Shit happens because we haven't taught our kids right from wrong.
Shit happens because we are ruled by misanthropes who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
Shit happens because we don't care anymore that republicans have made a mess of everything and that "R"s will save US.
Shit happens because we don't have proper media coverage.
Shit happens because we don't care anymore.
Republicans (who are mostly white supremacists, evangelicals, corporatists are not your friends.) They are the ooze from your backside and the meat from your nose.
I would like to believe we are better than that.
I can not be troubled by these assholes.
They will continue to screw US over until they have won.
The best/worst part is that when they win they will inherit the wind.
We are ruled by corporations and evangelical miscreants.
This whole world is a SHITSHOW!
We seem to be screwed no matter which way we turn.
I love US and will not be denied.
Don’t let religion screw your world up.
I think Cody Johnston summarized at least my perception of Ben's utterances quite well: "Is Ben Shapiro lying or stupid?"
no, he's just found a high profile way to earn a living - a performer - who covets fame!
Lying
Oh come on why not both?
Have at it my friend😃@@johnchambers9836
My absolute favorite episode of Some More News.
I have a canvas of Christopher Hitchens above my desk at work. I never met him either but I sorely miss him. People might never understand his greatness, always choosing to point out his flaws like we didn't know them and he didn't willfully advertise them. He was truly a great man, flaws and all.
Not to smart if he sent himself to an early grave with his excesses
@@rickwyant what a twat you are - David conceded that Christopher was flawed but these flaws were to do with drinking/smoking and general excesses , not his wit/theology etc Oh, whilst I am here David didnt call him "smart"as you claim ........... and its "too" smart not "to".
You are welcome 🙂
He was an eloquent and passionate man. I miss him too.
@@rickwyant The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long.
@@rickwyant What is the appropriate length of time to live then? Also, the word you're looking for to criticize someone else's intellect is "too". 🙄
Shapiro only debates people younger than him, and /or unprepared or unqualified for a specific debate. That’s not skill, it’s an intentionally uneven match.
I liked and subscribed. And now here’s my comment. Thank you. This is the first video of you that I have seen. Thank you for making it. This is exactly the kind of video I would make if I had the time. I appreciate your fair moderating, your tracking down of sources, and your meticulous edit. This is the kind of content we need and deserve. After years of avoiding Blinkist, I just downloaded that app. Now I’m considering joining Patreon for the first time ever to support you. So again. Thank you. ❤️
Is the video good, considering the difference in content between the picture at 32:20 and the clip from 50:40 to 50:48?
Edit 1: Changed 32:58 to 32:20
The endlessly frustrating thing about right wing grifters is that it takes almost 5x the amount of time to address and debunk the garbage that they can just regurgitate on command. It takes effort to be considerate and nuanced and sadly many people just don't care to do so. Thank you so much for this video!!
Not particularly unique to the right wing, though.
Lying confidently comes easy to some people, and you only need a few of them to spam up the airways and convince those who _want_ to believe the bullshit they are spewing.
@@Malentor in terms of politics, they have the lions share of it
@@xBINARYGODx yeah, no they don’t
That's the eternal problem of fighting misinformation. It takes a few seconds and even fewer brain cells for your opposition to invent a shareable, inflammatory piece, whereas rebutting it rigorously can take an hour or more. At the same time, studies show that simply telling people that they are misinformed with no follow-up or details is generslly ineffective in convincing them.
Well he started winning arguments with students, who were to inexperienced to call him out about his faulty debating technics. Now he has to invent arguments and people to win fights against.
Now there's a match for the ages: Ricky Gervais vs Ben Shapiro.
HAHAHAHA. Omg. Ricky would make Ben cry. I'd pay to see that match.
You know Ricky is a comedian right
@@vinnieg6161 You know your comment is completely pointless, right!?
@@Lola_Santoro like your life?
@@vinnieg6161 LAME!! Wow, you suck at social media.
Dear Sir I love how you expose/debunk manipulative pseudo-intellectuals such as Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro or William Lane Craig. Serious thanks. It's comforting to watch a civilized individual do that. Thank you again greetings from Czech Republic
Religion has screwed this world up.
In the grand scheme of things, anything a republican, MSM media talking head , evangelist, or white supremacist says means nothing.
Understanding the past is not an American, MSM media, nor especially a republican, evangelist, or a white supremacist trait. It is a human trait. We are screwed as long as republicans, MSM media talking heads, evangelists, or white supremacists have any sway in our discourse.
Shit happens because evangelists, republicans, MSM meat heads, and white supremacist asswipes have a say in our government.
Deflection, distraction, and projection.
This is the republican/evangelist/white supremacist playbook.
I have one question for republicans/evangelists/white supremacists. What have you done in the last 50 years to help people that aren't dickhead rich cretins or brain dead sheep?
When any of the many republican reactions fail, republicans/evangelists/white supremacists fall back on their primary trait; Deception (lying).
Face it, people, as long as meat headed republicans and the needle dicks known as white supremacists and the con men known as evangelists have a say in our government we are screwed!
How does this shit happen (Rhetorical)?
Shit happens because we allow racism/sexism to exist.
Shit happens because rich people don't care about US or climate change.
Shit happens because republicans, corporatists, and evangelists want our society to be functionally misanthropic.
Shit happens because we haven't taught our kids right from wrong.
Shit happens because we are ruled by misanthropes who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
Shit happens because we don't care anymore that republicans have made a mess of everything and that "R"s will save US.
Shit happens because we don't have proper media coverage.
Shit happens because we don't care anymore.
Republicans (who are mostly white supremacists, evangelicals, corporatists are not your friends.) They are the ooze from your backside and the meat from your nose.
I would like to believe we are better than that.
I can not be troubled by these assholes.
They will continue to screw US over until they have won.
The best/worst part is that when they win they will inherit the wind.
We are ruled by corporations and evangelical miscreants.
This whole world is a SHITSHOW!
We seem to be screwed no matter which way we turn.
I love US and will not be denied.
Don’t let religion screw your world up.
What's a pseudo intellectuals? And how are they manipulative?
@@waskarvega5301 Psuedo means having the appearance of being something, but is not that thing. So a pseudo intellectual on the surface looks like an intellectual, but is not. In this case, Ben is being manipulative in trying to make an idea (atheism) he opposes seem dumber/less logical than it is. In this case, I'd call him a sophist, someone who argues in bad faith, knowingly using fallacious reasoning. I could be wrong and he's just dumb or blinded by zealotry in this case.
@@bitcoinweasel9274
It’s extremely funny seeing incel pseudo intellectuals that hasn’t contribute anything to the world write long, pseudo intellectual comments on TH-cam instead of contributing anything to the world.
Oh the irony.
At least you’re funny, but not on purpose.
@@reidarthorsen24 Lol, sure.
The only thing I believe Shapiro could debunk in 15 minutes is his ability to debunk anything, in any length of time.
Ben "every accusation is a confession" Shapiro is as on point as Ben "I'm not emotional, you're emotional" Shapiro
Religion often takes problems of survival and makes laws against them.
I always felt like Ben was someone who only cared about this because it gets him attention, not because he actually believes or cares that anyone else doesn't. He is after someone who cares first and foremost about being relevant and will say or do anything to stay that way, happy to resort to sowing outrage if needed.
I mean, what else is he gonna do? it’s not like he can get another job that he’s actually good at
Spot on!
Ben is certainly a narcissist. He doesn't go to schools to debate students to enlighten them, he just goes to inflate his ego and make himself feel better by relevant and somehow a genius.
He is all about facts and logic. Unless it is about his religious beliefs, then it is about feelings.
I liked Ben till I learned about his religious views, completely throws all logic and reason out the window
Interesting that you feel that way.
Who are you talking about: Ben Shapiro, Rationality Rules, or someone else?
I'm always fascinated by how some people can be so smart and yet so dumb at the same time.
I think the people you are referring to are not smart, but rather clever.
Financial and power gain can motivate us to to ignore what is right and wrong.
@@solacedagony1234 That is a damn good answer. Kind of reminds me of the abortion issue. We will do horrible things for our own convenience.
@@synthetichappiness7564 I agree. Theists/conservatives will claim that there is no justification for abortion when that is trivially not the case.
I find the reasons to boil down to the inability to admit that they are wrong, because they have so publicly professed their faith, and they fear that admitting being wrong about something that they have made so fundamental to their identity would undermine everything they have ever said or done completely. Also, they are then intelligent enough to create plausible validation for themselves, which sees them dig further into their convictions. Lastly, as another person stated, there are motivations such as money and power that come from this way of life that deter zealots from considering the possibility of being wrong.
Doesn't he look like a sociopath? Full of anger...
“Now we’ve got the beautiful Greek god who goes by the human disguise of Stephen Fry. “
Well done 👏
You mean the liar who wrote "A Million Little Pieces"?
@@unintentionalprovocateur2158 Aaahh, no. That was James Frey.
I live in a small city in the American South. Our small local newspaper was bought by a conglomerate. Now several times a month we get editorials by Ben Shapiro and believe it or not, Oliver North. No wonder we are heading back to the dark ages.
"Quite frankly, it is surprising to me that Ben would be so intellectually dishonest" - Nobody, ever
"Hypothetically, lets just say, it WAS 6 million. If 6 million jews died, then why is it that jews are still here today? Bag it and tag it Rodney this is a banger."
It is kind of odd that "atheist" is even a word. An atheist does not believe that gods exist. I am not persuaded that ghosts, unicorns or big foot are real, either, but we don't have words for that.
The moment the guy who is interviewing Stephen Fry leans back in his chair and stares at the ceiling bring so much joy to me.
Gay Byrne was a legend and a national treasure here in Ireland
@@h.d.5194 oh cool! What is he known for? Is he journalist? I’ve never heard of him.
@@patinthechat6452 he was the host of the late late show(second longest running talk show in the world) here in Ireland for decades, and was just a very warm, humourous and down to earth man who is a great conversationalist. He passed away a few years ago but everyone in Ireland remembers him fondly as an icon in Irish radio and television.
I was raised a fundamentalist Christian and around 16 became agnostic and at 17 became an atheist.
I always had an interest in philosophy and I learned a lot from channels like yours and watched a lot of your videos on theological arguments for god back in the day.
It’s been a long journey to get to where I am now and learn all that I have. It’s actively painful now listening to people like Ben talk, almost everything they say has so many flaws that it can be overwhelming like such an absolute logical mess that it’s difficult to even know where to begin with people like that. Don’t know how you do this for a living but I’m glad you do 👍
hope you can get independent as soon as possible. it must suck being an atheist living in a fundie home, no?
@@qwertydog9795 cringe
cringe
I’m similar in being an atheist but I’ve read my share of theology and theism enough to find the commons and build my own moral baseline. I look at Jesus as more of just a philosopher, like Aristotle, Plato or Aesop before him.
Yeah there were some wars and crusades but only some of that’s down to religion. Mongols weren’t preaching, Pearl Harbour wasn’t bombed for being Christian. More or less religion have society a fundamental moral compass and framework. Laws like freedom of speech that you enjoy. Religion held societies together for almost 2000 years. That’s pretty good empirical evidence & there’s aspects of neurology for instance that support the roles and reasoning. I don’t think it’s necessary to believe in god, but I think there should be respect for those who do, the trauma it carried our ancestors through and the society it created.
I'm sure it is painful for you to listen to people like Ben. God is waiting for you to return to Him if indeed you ever were an actual Christian (as opposed to someone who went to church because their parents did or just went along with churchy things until it was no longer convenient.) God will always make himself available to you. If you need help understanding anything you think is a "flaw" with Christianity, I'll be happy to explain.
Excellent video. Well done for putting your self through so much of Ben’s madness to bother creating a response. The world needs it
It's just pathetic how they literally just cannot engage with the topic at all.
It's really really funny knowing Stephen Fry as the narrator in LittleBigPlanet when I was a kid, and now hearing his unfiltered thoughts on God lol
Thank you for this. Is it vital that people like yourself speak out with such clarity against such popular liars as Shapiro.
It's hilarious how obvious his grift is.
"You can spend years researching and learning about X, or you can just pay me and I'll walk you through it and you'll learn everything you need to know in just 15 minutes".
Imagine if you said that about virtually any field of science.
You mean just like every science textbook?
You do realize that Ben's statement is exactly the premise upon which all knowledge is based, right? If everyone had to rediscover everything on their own, no one would get anywhere.
What you actually disagree with is his supposed lack of citation and reference, which, by the way, you're free to research from the same public sources on your own.
The reason you haven't, is because that's a lot of work. So instead you choose someone who believes the same things you do and trust them to do all that research for you... Sounds familiar...
@@wesleydahar7797
I see you attended a similar school of misrepresentation.
The criticism is not, 'you should rediscover everything since the beginning of time yourself', it's, 'Any immensely complicated subject summarized in 15 minutes should be taken with a grain of salt' (let alone, any given individual being an authority on it).
Citations aren't the problem either, though in a vacuum they should be disqualifying; it's the incompleteness of what's being referenced without citation that supposedly he should have delegated authority to teach on.
This isn't Ben's textbook being discussed here, it's 15 minutes of talking over cherrypicked out of context clips. The person whose video you're commenting on is providing the context he ignored over the course of an hour. You then equivocate between them, not to defend one, but disparage both.
@@onemllnonetoone To your points, in order:
1. Ad Hominem
2. Slippery Slope
It might be an unreasonably large grain of salt or have requirements for specialized education to form conclusions. Complicated things often have simple explanations and I'd go so far to say that anything over 15 minutes isn't really a summary anymore, but obviously that depends on the subject matter. If you say "do some research, but don't do all the research" you have to draw the line somewhere, and, to my initial remark, I was making that argument to show it is not so unreasonable for Ben to say what he did.
3. Appeal to Authority
There is no council of knowledge that decides who may share knowledge, not even universities. Degrees and diplomas simply give weight to education. Peer review and repeated testing provide the validation of knowledge.
The matter of context is simply what is relevant to the points being made. I would say that disagreeing with Ben's conclusions is not a reason to claim insufficient context. I didn't get anything substantial out of the additional context and would say that for the purpose of summary Ben was painting with a broad brush, so don't nitpick. And be honest, his context is essentially the public domain, everyone already knows a lot of this.
4. Accusation of False Equivalency
That's exactly what I said. You trust one instead of the other because it more closely aligns with what you believe, i.e. it makes sense and seems consistent because it relies on the same assumptions to which you already hold.
I'm not disparaging either one. It's hyperbole to emphasize that it is not an issue for one to stand on the shoulders of giants, but only that care must be taken when choosing upon which giants to stand.
@@wesleydahar7797 As a correction, it is not an Ad Hominem. Common mistake. If I were to have said that, and nothing else, it would be, but I proceeded to explain why your characterization is wrong afterwards.
The same way as if I had said 'you're ugly', and then explained how you were wrong, I wouldn't be saying you're wrong because you are ugly, I would just be insulting you as well. Being incivil isn't synonymous with an Ad Hominem fallacy.
Quite the contrary, complicated things, or even simple things for that matter, rarely have simple explanations.
They may be attributable to a confluence of relatively simple things, but their interplay makes the result complex and multifaceted. The belief otherwise I'll wager is why there's a disconnect here in the first place.
It is possible to summarize complex things, yes, but that summary will
a. Not be equivalent in explanative power to the full explanation, and
b. Not be comprised of misrepresentations of the elements.
Accordingly it's clear how this is not a 'Slippery Slope'; no delineator was stated, nor a requirement for any particular schooling you interpolated, nor that the content shouldnt be consumed, nor Ben shouldnt discuss his views or conclusions, etc.
Merely the observation 15 minutes, or if youd prefer, replace in situ 'incomplete summaries', will not substitute actual understanding. Even a summary should be accompanied by further learning, and such should be encouraged.
In this way, it is quite unreasonable in point of fact for Ben to say this was a viable alternative to studying something for years, even for a layman.
Or, to say in brief, 'take it with a grain of salt'.
Moving on, I find it curious you read my use of the word 'authority' as an appeal to one, since I was quite obviously criticizing treating individuals, any individuals, as authority, in both this paragraph referring to Ben, being the self-defining authority on a breadth of subjects apparently in his series, as well as in the previous paragraph, where I say, "let alone any given individual being an authority on it", speaking to how any single person DOESN'T represent an authority to be appealed to for entire sibjects.
This sort of writing, btw, is why I compared you in my not-ad hominem opening silo to being in the same school of misrepresentation as Ben; you each somehow managed to read the exact opposite point being made by your opposition.
"Everyone already knows a lot of this", what, the venues and interviews he's pulling from? The worldviews being described? The ones Ben disregards or contradicts? Clearly his video then is navel-gazing.
Sarcasm aside, anyway, again, the point of this video I invite you to rewatch, is that Ben's *support* for some of his conclusions were evidently built, if not on, then around, the views included by him from a swath of Atheist noteables.
Those clips weren't garnish, they were included to convey certain perspectives of an opposition. Perspectives which were, out of context, conveying different messages than what they were actually saying.
(And also not in alignment with each other, but that's neither here nor there)
Talking about epistemological pragmatism, instead of some intrinsic fallibility of faith in all senses, for instance, is not a trivial difference.
The reason insufficient context is claimed isn't because there is disagreement with the conclusions, as you assert; insufficient context is claimed because there is insufficient context; the takeaways, some of them cut off mid-sentence, are contrary to what they actually said.
We can argue about his extrapolations, or his other conclusions elsewhere, that's not what this was about. If we're being rigorous, it's even possible for him to be right in all of his conclusions if he is speaking in some general 'broad brush' way, but despite that, just included speakers who were at times outright contradicting his then point. That would still be a terrible way to frame your argument. While also not mentioning sources.
(The material being public domain doesn't matter, come on, you're better than that my interlocutor; Shakespeare is also public domain, but if I make a claim about a text without citation for checking, or even mentioning the play it's from, that's shoddy work at best, outright obfuscation at worse)
Lastly, this isn't about trust. Step outside of the presuppositional paradigm please.
I used the terms equivocate and disparage because your response as written didn't actually defend Ben, in the sense that it justified his mischaracterizations, instead saying that, well, they both gave abbreviated breakdowns, i.e. bad, insofar as they could be called bad, in the same way.
My counterpoint you side-stepped, was this video provided context the first ignored, and as a result, provided more information about the subject than Ben's (This is often the consequence of allowing people time to express their full thought).
Ben focused on overarching statements, in contrast to what was actually being said by the examples he gave.
This video provided his statements, full-er context for the examples, and some counterpoints. Regardless of one's presuppositions, this video had more relevant content, while not pretending to be an adequate summary of any whole topic.
This is not, please take note, the same thing as treating this video as authoritative, or the best source. Merely a slightly better one.
A better one yet, would be one which had yet more analysis of the subject, more comprehensive definitions, a non-celebrity selection of perspectives, and less hyperbole (from RR, or Ben, or yourself).
To round this out, I would rhetorically ask you to consider, or reconsider, why you're interested in defending a shoddily sourced, misrepresentative, overly brief, non-authoritative summary, instead of, well, not doing that.
(And to throw in one last jab, Id also ask you to not just label things fallacies willy-nilly. Legit, this reads like you just skimmed Know Your Fallacy and decided to go ham, it's amateurish. If you were one of my students with work like this, I'd fail you)
@@onemllnonetoone
You have certainly gone above and beyond in your response. I regret we couldn't hash this out in person, since I'm sure a conversation with you would be to my edification on rhetoric. Though, I hope, with a bit less of the condensation that often comes with the territory of the TH-cam comments section.
While I certainly feel my earlier statements were quite reasonable, it seems I was ineffective in communicating my point and we have diverged from what I believed to be the topic at hand. While I retract no statement of my own, I anticipate the battles will not be worth the war.
As consolation for this last, and comparatively underwhelming, reply, I will concede to you the rare honor of having won an argument on the internet.
All the best,
Wesley Dahar
I am an atheist because I'd rather live with an unanswered question than with a nonsensical answer.
man the nigerian prince joke in the beginning was golden
It's always baffling hearing the "If things were different, things would be different. Therefore, God." argument.
Yeah, about as baffling as hearing, “There’s no all-knowing being in the universe?”
“Wouldn’t stating that claim as a fact require you to be such a being?”
……..
@@DeshCanter "Wouldn’t stating that claim as a fact require you to be such a being?"
Wouldn't stating that there IS an all-knowing being require you to be all-knowing yourself?
Now, imagine you are a being. How do you determine that you are actually all-knowing? How do you know that there is no partr of reality beyond your knowledge? How do you know that you are not a brain in a vat that only believes that it is all-knowing? There is no possible way you can know such things. You can believe that you are not a brain in the vat, you may even be correct about that, but you can't actually know that you are correct in that belief.
I don't think "all-knowing" is a coherent property for a being to have.
@@WhiteScorpio2
No.
I look at the available evidence and conclude that God is the best explanation. Can I prove this? No. It does involve faith.
You look at the evidence and conclude there is no God. You can’t prove your claim either, so your definitive statement that there is no God is a statement not of science, but of faith.
@@DeshCanter
"No."
Yes.
"I look at the available evidence and conclude that God is the best explanation."
And what evidence have you encountered that made you conclude that there is an all-knowing being?
"You look at the evidence"
What evidence? I haven't seen any evidence for God. Are you making a claim that there is evidence for God? Can you support this claim?
"your definitive statement that there is no God is a statement not of science, but of faith"
It can also be a logical conclusion. If you define your God in a logically incoherent way, then your God simply doesn't exist.
For example, if you say "Gos is an existing being that doesn't exist", it would be an incoherent statement.
My position regarding Christian God is that such God is described incoherently. I already pointed out that the "all-knowing" attribute is incoherent. Existing before time is incoherent. Creating time is incoherent. The idea of Trinity is incoherent. The whole story of Jesus' "sacrifice" is incoherent. I can go on. The idea of Christian God is incoherent, so I'm perfectly comfortable in stating that such a God doesn't exist, because it can't exist.
Now, could some other god or gods possibly exist? Probably. I have no reason to think that it does, though.
@@DeshCanter "I look at the available evidence"
What evidence?
"It does involve faith."
So your "evidence" doesn't actually support your conclusion? Then why call it "evidence"? You can believe absolutely anything on faith, sure, though I have no idea why you would want to.
"your definitive statement that there is no God"
My statement is that Christian idea of God is incoherent. Logically incoherent things are impossible, so Christian God doesn't exist. Some other god or gods may possibly exist, but I have not been presented with any coherent reason to believe so.
I loved your words and feels regarding Christopher Hitchens. Miss him heaps. Thankfully he was prolific in getting his message out there. Lots of stuff to read and to re-watch. ❤
Ben certainly isn't the first person to discover that religious people send money.
It's so hard to even listen to Ben's voice never mind what he's saying. I'm just astonished that this is the guy the right picked to be their smart guy.
In fairness, he's probably one of the smartest among them, which shows what a state they're in.
@CanyonsEdge2076 it's bot a high bar to pass.
"If things weren't the way they were then they wouldn't be the way that they are!" -Ben Shapiro
Deep.
@@arthur52353 more like Deepak
Doesn't even make sense lol then again I am the dumb
@@kellydalstok8900 are you bieng racist, sir?
Great video Stephen. It is always a pleasure to watch them. 🤜🤛🤟
What i found interesting was the criticism of Ayn Rand. For a while she was a high priestess among the GOP. They would carry a book of her quotes in their pocket when others would carry the pocket Constitution.
Its a shame that both of us live pretty close where CH was born but never got to meet him. But as you point out, we can meet him, through his writings and public speaking and for that, we should be thankful.
The more I hear from Ben Shapiro the less I respect him as an intellectual. It’s not even that all his arguments are bad, but more that when he does make a good point, you can often find the same general point raised in a more well reasoned way and/or with less hyperbole by someone else.
‘as an intellectual’
Eh?
He is not an intellectual, he have a business and that’s all
@@oscarolvera9069 I mean he's very knowledgeable, way more knowledgeable than I am. So in my view, he's an intellectual even if he's terrible at arguments.
@@pythondrink he is BS
@@pythondrink saying a lot of words does not make you knowledgeable
37:58 "he's pulling his priors out of a theological orifice."
Possibly the best thing I've ever heard.
"Ben very much embodies the attributes he claims to despise." There may be no greater reason to do what you do. Keep it up good work!
Give Stephen an A for countering!
Good to see a longer one again, well argued (as always), and with expanding clips for context!
More expanding clips! They do context so well!
How ridiculous is it that Shapiro even used Gervais as a "source". Absolutely Gervais does speak quite well on the topic and his discussion with Colbert was an accurate representation of atheists' position. But he's a stand up comedian! He's not a scholar; he doesn't work as a spokesperson for any atheist organizations that I know of. Shapiro picked him so that his flock could point and say, "Look at the silly funny man talking like he knows anything at all about God!"
It's like if someone was doing a documentary on gender issues and used a clip of Tucker Carlson in an interview saying what he thinks on the topic as proof of anti-trans ideology's validity. Positioning Carlson as an "expert" on the subject because... he's famous and has an opinion? Might as well ask a random person on the street their thoughts on supply side economics and cite them as in a documentary as a knowledgeable person in global economics.
Rationality is the single most lacking quality in our society. It's also the single most important, I fear.
what did we expect from someone justifying oppression by quoting MLK...
Always wondered how intelligent people can be so obsessed with religion, and even try to convenience others. Jordan Peterson is another example.
I doubt that either of those guys are even religious. It's an act for their Christian viewers and to influence others to become Christians - obedient, guilt ridden and easy to control.
peterson isnt trying to convince rather hes saying that theres alot to learn in the stories of the bible that is timeless and you see in many modern stories movies and etc.. and tht it can be applied to better life in the real world... so hes trying to make the point to live life as if god is real.. not that you should go and buy in entirely in a religion lmfao
Jordan Petersons main goal is to make Jordan Peterson as rich as he possibly can be as quickly as possible.
Imagine looking in the mirror and seeing Ben Shapiro staring back at you.
Sounds like a very bad acid trip.
Fortunately I don't recall every looking in a mirror on acid. Always preferred the outdoors while in that state.
my heart just skipped a beat...
I'd kill myself
aaahh!! 😱
My experience is that there are probably as many "wagering" atheists in the pews on Sundays as there are self defined ones at home sleeping late.
The fact that so few of them know anything about their religion does make you wonder. Whether they believe or not, they aren't interested in knowing or following the Bible, they stop at worshiping it.
Its also about having those community connections. Churches are survival networks in a society with few secular variants.