Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 มิ.ย. 2017
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / alexoc
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
I had another opportunity to visit Premier Christian Radio (link to full show below) and debate popular Christian apologist Frank Turek on the moral argument for God's existence. The camera on Justin (the host) cut out around half way through the video, and so there is only one angle from there on out.
-------------------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------------------
Full show: www.premierchristianradio.com...
Cross Examined: www.crossexamined.org
Frank's book: amzn.to/2s5YzG0
Justin's book: amzn.to/2rK4GiM
----------------------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
---------------------------------------CONTACT------------------------------------------
Business email: cosmicskeptic@gmail.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
College campuses are a breeding ground for skepticism? Yeah, we call that education.
Mike Carter couldn't have put it better myself pal
Exactly, they're a place that gives education and teaches you to think critically in order to formulate a logical answer to questions.
LightheWorld444. They say 'Ignorance is Bliss'. Enjoy your Bliss mate 😊
If you want to straw-man it THAT way....
Haha yeah. If you want good scientists, then they HAVE to be skeptical, about EVERYTHING. Apparently this man wants people not to be skeptical, essentially destroying our scientific community.
All credit to a Christian radio station which is prepared to have a really open and intelligent discussion that goes to such intellectual depths with a non-believer.
We often see beliefs be held in very close circles that don't often acknowledge or talk to the other so I'm really glad that Unbelievable does this because it opens these circles up to discussion and debate.
He politely and constructively crucified him and his argument
@@badbadnotgoodgoodgodnotbad2930 Who are you talking about?
Amen for that. Jesus bless
Religious narcissists always believe themselves to be above the "unbelievers", having no self-awareness.
This is how two grown men with differing opinions should talk to each other. Good job to both you guys.
Agree , nice debate there was no Jesus christ sucking my dick , he didn't even said he sacrificed his testicle in cross -all those nonsense religious fairy tales something likes that
@@ogaplibang7803 Huh???
@@xeres-robloxgaming4556 :(
Two sofisticated gentlemen
@@ogaplibang7803 There is something called respect, I hope you understand that your secular beliefs shouldn't be a reason to disrespect Jesus like that.
I'm about halfway through the video, but I just had to pause and comment how polished, polite, and well spoken all three individuals are.
Agreed this is actually an amazing conversation
Agreed. Seeing such contemptuous, arrogant disrespect that is often displayed by skeptics, this is a refreshing change. Granted, my impressions are based on anecdotal experience so this certainly doesn't represent all interactions on this topic. But hubris and disrespect generally tend to be evident from a significant number of interactions in this context that I've observed.
Thats what happens when you have people who do not allow differing view points to get in the way of their respect for each other…if everyone was like that we would have far less problems in this world.
Agreed. Although Religious have at time become disrespectful, it pales in comparison to Athiest behavior. Most, NOT all, have a serious case of arrogance. Hitchens and other similar to him, are very condescending, arrogant, disrespectful and love to mock others. One might say they get that way only when their "opponent" throws the first figurative fits full of mud. But that's not the case. Just about every video I have watched has them being less than civil. Humbleness and respectful is beneath them. Sad but true.
Intelligent radio exists and big idea debates have narratives that most people can follow and appreciate, they just don't sell ad revenue like jingles and jokes, and joviality! You really have to look for them.
The fact alex was 17/18 here is crazy. So clever and well spoken
Yeah, It really surprised me I'm currently in my first year of A-levels I wouldn't dream in a million years that I would be able to debate efficiently and with such respect.He much has a real passion for these debates
Alex O 'Connor is not clever - he's quite stupid. All he has learned is how to manipulate sentences and language - he never arrives at any meaningful conclusions. In every so-called debate O 'Connor is completely out of his depth - he understands nothing, yet pretends to. He is always very disingenuous.
This debate isn’t fair because Alex has a British accent, instantly making all of his points 30% more credible
Cristian _
That's a subjective statement 🤔
The 99%
Well I don't see any black philosopher's stepping up to the mark, the opportunities are there for everyone based on how good you are in your field, nothing to do with colour.
@The 99% Is 0.99 your IQ?
Yet hes still losing. I think the British accent makes him sound dumber
@The 99% look up voddie baucham. I'm white and watch Him more than any other youtube. I notice though that almost all proud atheists are white. And yes, very privileged
I'm so proud of you Alex for getting a chance to debate Turek, and stepping up to it, on a theist's show, while you're doing finals, before you're 20.
A-Levels are done by 18 year olds throughout the country, it's the norm. In the UK many finish High-schools at 16, and then go to a an A-Level college. and finish at 18. :P
Right? Boss level. Alex, you're amazing.
jamie M
You misunderstood what he meant. You think he said "you're doing finals before you're 20," but in reality he meant them as separate points. "[debating] before you're 20" and "[debating] during exams."
I have a feeling that Alex is going to become incredibly influential in the future. He may be one of the great thinkers of our generation.
Dont think that he will be one of the greatest thinkers of our generation. He's a good debater, but only time will tell.
And just because I believe he will not be, I can be wrong.
As a Christian, I appreciate Alex's ability to control the discussion with discipline and kindness.
Yes but why are you a Christian
Alex is a fool!
@@toke0009 May be. But he's an honest fool.
@@skyylarpearl4125 he's not even an honest fool..otherwise he would've admit that he is wrong, and accept knowledge and wisdom from TMH..he is just FOOL! Just like Darwin the biggest FOOL ever..
@skyylarpearl ..Lol! You're not a Christian.
It's always refreshing watching a debate/discussion/talk as polite as this one.
That's actually bad news and makes me not want to watch this. I need fire debates not civil ones. Boring!
@@devontolly1596people like you, are the reason why people can’t get along
One thing is for certain: Neither of these guys spend much time watching mindless television.
lmao.. so true
Frank is just the typical full of shit apologetic. Nothing he says is factual good doesn’t equal god especially not the biblical god. Frank is just too indoctrinated to see pass what he was brainwashed to believe. So therefore everything must be because of god.
Frank is too stupid to explain truth or reality. We don’t get our morality from the Christian god. Only dumb brainwashed morons. Are stupid to believe morality comes from the Christian god. Our morality comes from empathy.
Frank is a creationist that’s bottom of the barrel stupid.
Jennifer Jackson Where does empathy come from?
Zack Derese it’s natural ok sorry stupid it not from god who says to have a disobedient child stoned to death. Sorry we definitely don’t get our morality from the evil immoral fictional god of the Bible.
(Paraphrasing)
Alex: 'Reasoning is subjective'
Turek: 'Is that objectively true?'
Damn, that was good.
I can get where Turek's coming from because at first, it looks like a contradiction but to say that you cannot call anything subjective because it would be an objective claim is rather counter-intuitive because you've succeeded in saying nothing.
Also, I may be making an assumption here but I'm glad you enjoyed the debate.
@@radgooklos2453 I enjoyed it. I've only just discovered KosmicSkeptic. I like listening to him.
@@dippy9119 As do I, the topics he covers fascinate me
Peter Piper our ability to reason came naturally and it evolved into something that feels objectively true. But if we know that our ability to reason has gotten us so far and we can prove that, then it is still subjective and just as credible. We evolved into a society that believes racism is wrong and we let our children believe the same things but it’s so subjective that the idea that racism is wrong could change and we could all hate black people or something. At least that’s how I think of it lol what the hell do I know
Imagine if the COVID virus gained consciousness, allowing that virus to know its own nature. Given that it's nature is to go forth and multiply, it's reasonable that whatever morals the virus developed would be on the basis of ensuring that, as a species, the virus continues to flourish. It is reasonable then that the virus would consider "Murder" of its own by its own as an immoral act because that would specifically act against it's own ability to flourish. To the virus this could easily feel like an objective moral, but it is only objective if you accept the notion that the virus flourishing is a good thing. Which subjectively I doubt any human would agree with.
This is the point of Alex's that I don't think Frank was able to understand. Our own nature is to survive, to flourish, and is why we feel objective morality about things that ensure our survival, but it is not objective that humans flourishing is a good thing unto itself. It's good for us, but there are billions of creatures on this planet, who if provided consciousness would absolutely, subjectively, disagree with that underlying assumption.
I’m so impressed that Alex was pre university here and able to make cogent arguments around ideas like ontology, epistemology, logic, etc. I couldn’t get my head around these ideas into well into my 20s and couldn’t argue adeptly around them until I was in my 30s and well read.
If you had to choose three books - which ones would you say helped you the most to make that progression into being able to participate in conversations effectively, like this?
Nah he made some stupid statements. Like reason is subjective because we disagree with one another. Reason is the ability to think, understand, make judgments using the process of LOGIC. It’s akin to saying civil engineering is subjective because mankind can make faulty bridges and buildings. Which is foolish to say because it’s the application of physics, which when applied by flawed people can err. Same with reason, it can err when used improperly.
Edit: then he further contradicts himself saying that he doesn’t subscribe to the statement of “the fact that people disagree about morality proves that it’s subjective”. Yet reason is subjective proven by people disagreeing? He got outclassed here. He rehashes typical mainstream atheist arguments.
@@OhhhUtuchMYtralala That's, not at all what he meant - if objective reality were true created by a spiritual being everybody would understand objective reality but with free will could still have differing arguments that they know are just fundamentally false due to the laws of nature of physics etc: but these things are not so clear to us - objective reality leaves no room for subjective reality therefore everything like should pineapple be on pizza would be a truth claim ultimately then everything needs a burden of proof
Thank you all three of you for a well spoken, interesting, incredibly respectable discussion.....
"If evil exists, good must exist" - Sure. - "And if good exists, God must exist" Woooah that escalated quickly.
PfEMP1 HONESTLY
I laugh so hard when He said that XD
PfEMP1 Yea, there's uhh levels to logic mate, you just Hulk jumped up 12 levels. It gets even better when apologist do his giant leap and then do another big one to "then my God is the real God." What??!!
Mr. Satan That sir, would definitely be a comedic miracle in my book.
PfEMP1 this is the Ravi Zachariah fallacy.
I don't think people realize what a big deal it is that an 18-year-old can hold his ground (with apparent ease) against a _professional apologist_. Well done to Alex.
daz7887 with apparent ease? Look at the whole podcast again and look at his hands. Idk if that's anxiety or anger or maybe even ocd. Idk but man. He definitely does not look at ease.
He may have been feeling anxious, but I don't think it was obvious. But anyway, I didn't say he felt at ease; I said he handled the debate with ease. That is to say, he wasn't stumped by any of the things Frank Turek said or anything like that.
DURR HE HELD HIS GROUND LOL. Refusing to address the substance of an argument because you dont have burden of proof or because "well not quite theres 2 types of athiests!" This channel is nothing but angsty 15-17 year olds who are naive and have little understanding of reality. Once you experience the evil in the world and real hardships you will realize why people believe in god.
Jonathan, only weak minded fools who can't handle the real world believe in god. Believers in fairytales are nothing but little snowflakes.
Frank Turek takes the stance that there is a god. He is the one that has to show why he thinks that. Alex then goes into the subject very carefully, as to not say anything that these guys can pick him out on (e.g. 36:53 "MORAL CLAIM MORAL CLAIM").
This is a great conversation and a great example on how two people who disagree with each other can still have a respectful and cordial conversation. I applaud all people involved, Alex, Frank, and Justin and I wish we could always be civilized when having discussions with people we disagree with.
I generally think that most people, regardless of religion, beliefs, political alignment, and what not generally want to do the right thing, but just disagree what that right thing is. And that's fine. I think if people are willing to have conversations like this, we could come to some compromise and general agreement.
It was nice to see a calm and collective discussion.
Alex as a Christian I would like to thank you for being a very reasonable sceptic, I appreciate that you don't insult your opponents (unless there absolutely asking for it) you have shown me a new look into the atheists perspective, and even shown me different views of my own faith. Thank you for the authenticity you put into your conversations and content.
Same. I too as a Christian am thankful that there are people like Alex. People should be skeptic and then choose what to believe.
Same for Frank. As an atheist I have to say he made some good arguments and wasn't hiding behind usual sophisms.
The nature of mathematics and the "objectivity" are really interesting questions which are almost impossible to correctly answers from an atheist point of view. Alex lose himself a little bit in semantics at this point of the video.
Same, I'm glad there are others out there
@Randy Shields That's not the correct term. You need to stop skipping English class.
@@MacCadalso you could have just admitted you missed the joke
Okay, so he's 18 and doing his A-levels and I'm 26, sitting here and trying desperately not to lose track of this debate. wow
I don't blame you this debate was beyond convoluted
25 here and trying hard to grasp what’s the conversation all about
Maybe it's because English isn't your first language or you've ADHD
@@user-rn5dl6tf8r wow, thanks
@@user-rn5dl6tf8r they’re joking 😂😂😂
Thank you for the debate all. Really respectful and interesting discussion .
Alex I’m a firm creationist and I have to say I admire the fact that you have the ability to keep the debate chill and respectful. So many atheists (and christians too sometimes) lose it completely and make the world of debating very uncomfortable.
I found myself subscribing to your channel even though I don’t share the atheist view
Alex you’re a legend even though we disagree with you. And you were young here. Good on you
This video taught me two things: 1 Alex is way smarter than I assumed; 2 Frank is way smarter than I assumed lol
Frank is more more full of shit than I imagined was humanly possible ,so there must be a god,but where did god come from? Oh he just always has existed.
@@rodbob11 I think you fail to realize that from a Christian worldview God is outside of time. That makes logical sense. Even if your an atheist, you have to at least try to understand who you are debating.
Roy Licona
Finally someone said it. Thank you!
@@rodbob11 didn’t science already prove that time, space and matter came to existence at one point? (S.U.R.G.E. , Stephen hawking)
It supports the Bible completely.
Anything before that had to be timeless, immaterial, and spaceless
@@marcocortes9968 This does not support the Bible - it technically supports every religious creation story _ever._ However, since there is no evidence that anything supernatural is even possible to exist or happen, the _reason_ for this appearance of space and time is almost certainly not god/s.
Furthermore, science _never_ 'proves' anything. It may be that we have a different 'best explanation' tomorrow, with another piece of evidence. This does _not_ mean, however, that everything else we found out so far is wrong.
Wow. Honestly every discussion/debate needs to be done like this. The amount of respect, clarification, and fairness in this is amazing. Well done Alex and Frank
Agreed. Politicians, take a lesson!
I would point out the multiple interruptions to Alex's opening and the complete absence to Frank's. The bias is subtle but speaks volumes. Always watch for the "let's move on " maneuver to avoid a difficult point.
@@DavoidJohnson dude if alex "lost" (I put cotations because i believe this is not a competition) that debate doesn't mean there is bias involved.
a random panda I don’t think there is a loser in this conversation. It is two people laying out their beliefs and asking questions of the others beliefs. Good conversation.
@@pat08mullins there is clearly a right and wrong Alex worldview has lead him to the belief that there is no objective right or wrong there is no laws of logic or anything it's "you believe or you don't ".
Very good conversation. Well done from all parties.
Everyone is respectfully talking with each other, that really made me enjoy the discussion. It's so much better when people are not allways getting interrupted and purposefully missunderstood.
What I loved, though, was all the respect exchanged in this debate.
Yes, I wonder why we can't have that in the comment section of any of their videos.
@@AnuragKumar-xh3wc sorry. I may be a little slow today. How do you mean...exactly?
@@stevecortes9216 I was referring to the battle going on in the comment section. My comment was just a rhetorical question on that.
Look up Christopher Hitchens
@@AnuragKumar-xh3wc Regardless of whether someones beliefs are delusional or not, we owe them the right to establish their claim and argue for it. Debates on the existence of god allow for that to happen.
I absolutely love how respectful all three participants have been towards each other. This is a standard that the rest of us could learn from!
Trust me ,no Athiest has respect for any one who believes this guys garbage.These kind of conversations are not even debates. I dont know why people waste their time with this nonsense.
Then why are you watching it hypocrite 😂
@@Mike00513 l
¹¹1¹¹¹11¹1qqqqqqqq
@KING JOSH Yes I can, ALL!!!
I agree with the respect level and that we can learn from this conversation but through this conversation he is exemplifying God’s standard. Which should be all our standard.
“but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,”
1 Peter 3:15
Hey Alex, I am a Christian and I love listening to you speak! Thank you for pushing back on a staggeringly brilliant level. Keep up the amazing work.
Evolution is proven. Fossil records are the main proof. Creationist nitpick at Evolution and made little sense. Fossils of now-extinct species, showing that different organisms have lived on Earth during different periods of the planet's history. The science of carbon dating is unquestionable. Older materials can be dated using potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium and uranium-lead dating. The world is about 13 billion years old, Earth is 4.5 Million. Homo sapiens are approximately 200,000 thousand years old.
All of this contradicts the Bible. And the Bible has hundreds of misstatements and bad dogma that people just brush over as if it's nothing.
Awesome of Justin checking in with Alex if he was feeling the debate was a two against one, because beyond the intellectual arguments, there is an emotional upperhand a person who is backed by other person can have, even if they are still only agreeing on intellectual grounds👏👏
Absolutely brilliant, it is really impressive that at your age, you are able to express yourself in such accuracy.
You're a complete moron, so is Alex and all of his subscribers.
And what makes us morons, if i can ask?
I agree, even i'd like to know this.
Jon, that's a half-ass argument. Care to explain, if you're so sure?
Dude. Were you watching the same video? In no way was anything he said in any shape or form to be called "accurate" it was basically epistemological word salad. Alex's world view(if one can call whatever he presented one) was on a spectrum. Non binary pretty much when it comes down to it. Lol
This debate made me realize i need to read more lol. So many times i had to pause and google search definitions of the words these guys were using. Lol.
Funny how two semingly opsoing sides of the intelligence scala can teach you so much.
Now we need for these two guys to read up and google meanings of words. It would cut down on a lot of side discussion.
@@alanroberts7916 I thought to myself "What is this guy talking about?" I am currently at the 30 minute mark and these are the types of conversations I have when I am stoned. The religion argument is over because one side of the debate does not change and relies on (quite frankly) baseless individual perceptions of the world to stay alive. They are basically sharing theories on how humans came to perceive evil as we do today. Rather than explaining why he believes that God sending his son Jesus down to have him sacrificed for the sins of his other (much less impressive, by choice) children, is a rational explanation for our breakthrough in moral understanding. I'd say if God was real our perception of evil could have very well stemmed from him but not in the ways that Frank chooses to believe it did.
I recommend audio books as well! Nothing beats good old fashioned reading but you're still ingesting the book!
@@youngdrosenumbaone8371 I wonder why Christians and others enjoy saying that it took god to set us straight on our moral way. All the while obeying laws, rules, regulations, ordinances and limits all of which needed no god because they were all written by PEOPLE.
I enjoyed this!
Question...what about moral ideals that are not conducive to human prosperity? Like self-sacrifice to save a less viable person than yourself.
Or helping an enemy?
Im sure there are other that dont come to mind. But if survival-instinct is the source of morality then why do some moral choices not support survival?
In any event the reason that "drives" evolution being survival, does not imply a motive. And it would take a motive to go from survival-instincts to a broader desire for the betterment of your species, civilization, planet, etc.
Animals being naturally selected are only randomly selected because they have the mutated advantage to survive, themselves. But there is no inherent desire for the species to survive there. Its just personal.
The chipmunk doesnt want to die, but he doesnt care about chipmunk-kind.
Only humans think in those terms. About whats best for society, and so on. So what about all the evolutionary steps that preceeded us? What was their motivation?
You sir are logical. They didn't even discuss this.
Interesting questions
I think I kind of understand what you're saying. I believe in general being selfish in nature is what lets you survive. If you think about it this way, being selfish can have multiple outcomes. If you're selfish and you meet another selfish animal, you will likely fight, one will die and one will live, either way the selfish trait lives on. Selfish vs. not selfish favors selfish, the not selfish won't be as likely to fight over that. Not selfish vs. not selfish they likely share but neither get to fully exploit the resource. So as a whole, selfishness is a very desired trait at least for more solitary species. As for why some animals don't self sacrifice for the greater of their species, well, the animal that has the desire to self sacrifice will likely die and not pass on that trait. As for many of cases, that sort of thought requires a great intelligence, that of which nature doesn't really demand because species will survive regardless.... As for humans, I just believe we're a remarkable exception due to our massive civilization and high intelligence. Self sacrifice is in a way, abstract.
For why some moral choices aren't exactly conducive for survival, that is definitely an interesting question. But it's important to note that at this point us humans are kind of "beyond" nature in the fact that even the weak survive. People with disabilities and flaws have accommodations and aren't just discarded. It's a very complicating question indeed. I think it arises from humans ability to think more abstractly and abstract thought arose from the "side effect" of being extremely intelligent.
There is the idea that through evolution, we've evolved to be social creatures, that taking care of those around you helped your group or tribe to survive. The more that the tribe worked together, the better they are able to protect themselves, Hunt and reproduce. Even animals will protect their young at risk to themselves.
@@rntoimata
From the perspective of evolution, by a theist:
Part 1) Protecting your own young is selfish in nature. Because you are protecting the part of you that will still be here when you die, and everything dies. Your only shot at immortality is though your genes/lineage.
Part 2) Protecting someone else's young is less selfish depending on the number of shared genes (a case can easily be made that your siblings are partially "you" genetically due to them sharing [in all but a single case that you get 1/2 of your mom, and 1/2 of your Dad, but you sibling gets the perfect mirror of both halfs] some subset of your gene pool). The only way to protect someone completely unselfishly is to do so where you are now less likely to survive, AND they share no genes with you...
Logic for part 1:
1) Nothing lives forever
2) the best you can achieve is your genes (lineage) to live on.
3) Protecting your genes is therefore selfish as it furthers your best outcome.
Logic for part 2:
1) Nothing lives forever
2)The best you can achieve is your genes (lineage) to live on.
3) If you genes exist in someone else, then its is therefore selfish to help those with them live on.
4) IF someone contains more of your genes they are therefore a greater payload of your genes moving on, and therefore it is more selfish to help them due to the larger amount that is furthers your best outcome.
5) The opposite of 4 is also true, that someone with less genes is a lesser payload of your genes and therefore you are being less selfish due the the reduced amount said help would further your gene pool
Very civilised debate, and I think the young man held his ground well.
Regardless of which side is right, it's refreshing and rare to see an actual debate like this where it's not just a shouting match. This actually looks like a couple of people discussing a topic, being respectful of each other(not using personal attacks), and listening to each other instead of just waiting to get in the next word. Look at the world and look how angry and closed everyone is towards each other, that's not what we need more of. Please have more debates like this!!
I agree. People need to be more respectful. It is indeed good to see people who disagree so strongly have a friendly debate like this one.
That's the essence of the "Unbelievable? with Justin Brierley" radio show. Great stuff on there. It's always an exercise of actual thought from disparate views, unlike many other forums... I love it.
can you site your sources please?
Eli Winter sentences should be commenced with a capital letter. Did you mean “cite” your sources?
Thomas Carroll why didn't you correct the person above me? contrary to what you may think it do know proper grammer, i just don't use it when i'm on social media because no one cares. but yes, i did mean "cite", thank you.
Well after that 58 mins I feel objectively uneducated in a subjective kind of way.
🤣🤣🤣🤯
Troll alert!!!
@fynes leigh
Very good question. Reading the line back to myself, not sure why I put the word well at the start of it.
Proving my piont on how uneducated I must be.
@fynes leigh
Thank you for your reply. I enjoyed reading it. I didn't take your first comment in a negative way so no need for the apology, but thank you anyway. Picking up on my response and if I'm honest I have really worked on understanding the importance to balance humbleness against the ego over the years and the importance of knowing when to use and show both. When someone like myself is lacking in knowledge its important to me that I listen and try to understand others opinions and questions and keep moving forward. I am in awe of the young man in this video and will watch with both enjoyment and interest his future videos.
Eckhart Tolle is another person I can watch and listen to all day.
I wish you well Fynes, and thank you again for the question and if honest making me conscious of something I was unaware I typed and why I typed it. Lol.
well ok then
You’re absolutely fantastic!
As a christian, i am grateful for his attitude in these conversations. Zoned out after half way but he was very respectful
Coming from a believer, Alex brought a very good argument and helped me understand why Atheists believe the way they do. The respect from all parties really shows the best in both parties. It shows how not every Christian or atheist is out to kill the other and dismiss the opposite belief. They came together to gain understanding from one another and let the convincing take place in the heart if it even happens. Beautiful
👍Very well put!
👍
BELIEVE OR BE DECEIVED!!
1 John 4:1
1)Beloved, believe NOT every spirit, but try the spirits whether they ARE OF GOD: because many FALSE PROPHETS are gone out into the world.
Matthew 7:15
15) Beware of FALSE PROPHETS, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly THEY ARE RAVENING WOLVES.
Matthew 24:11
11) And many FALSE PROPHETS SHALL RISE, AND SHALL DECEIVE MANY.
Matthew 24:24
24) For there SHALL ARISE FALSE CHRIST'S, and FALSE PROPHETS, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they SHALL DECEIVE the very elect.
Luke 6:26
26) Woe unto you, when all men SHALL speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the FALSE PROPHETS.
2 Peter 2:1
1) But there were FALSE PROPHETS also among the people, even as there SHALL BE FALSE TEACHERS AMONG YOU, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves SWIFT DESTRUCTION.
Jeremiah 14:14
14) Then the Lord said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.
Lamentations 2:14
14) Thy prophets have seen vain and foolish things for thee: and they have not discovered thine iniquity, to turn AWAY THY CAPTIVITY; but have seen for thee FALSE BURDENS and causes of banishment.
Deuteronomy 13:5
5) And THAT PROPHET, OR THAT DREAMER of dreams, SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH; because he hath spoken TO TURN YOU AWAY from the Lord your God,
1 Corinthians 5:12-13
12) For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore PUT AWAY FROM AMONG YOURSELVES THAT WICKED PERSON.
1 Timothy 2:5
5) For THERE IS ONE GOD, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS;
1 Timothy 3:16
16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Mark 3:29
29) But he that shall BLASPHEME AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST HATH NEVER FORGIVENESS, BUT IS IN DANGER OF ETERNAL DAMNATION:
Matthew 12:31
31) Wherefore I say unto you, ALL MANNER OF SIN AND BLASPHEMY SHALL BE FORGIVEN UNTO MEN: BUT THE BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST SHALL NOT BE FORGIVEN UNTO MEN.
John 12:48
48) He that rejecteth me, and RECEIEVETH NOT MY WORDS, HATH ONE THAT JUDGETH HIM: THE WORD THAT I HAVE SPOKEN, the same shall judge him in the last day.
John 5:22
22) For the Father judgeth NO MAN, but hath COMMITTED ALL JUDGMENT UNTO THE SON:
Job 21:22
22) Shall any teach God knowledge? seeing he judgeth those that are high.
Job 36:31
31) For by them judgeth he the people; he giveth meat in abundance.
Psalm 7:11
11) God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
Psalm 58:11
11) So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.
Romans 9:22
22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Romans 1:18
18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Psalm 116:11
11) I said in my haste, All men are liars.
Jeremiah 50:36
A sword is upon the liars; and they shall dote: a sword is upon her mighty men; and they shall be dismayed.
Hosea 4:6
6) My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
Jeremiah 6:30
30) Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them.
Titus 3:10
10) A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Matthew 21:42
42)Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Mark 7:9
9) And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Luke 12:47
47) And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Hebrews 3:12
12) Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
Hebrews 10:31
31) It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Deuteronomy 32:22
22) For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.
Job 19:29
29) Be ye afraid of the sword: for wrath bringeth the punishments of the sword, that ye may know there is a judgment.
Matthew 25:46
46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Revelation 7:17
17) For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
Revelation 21:4
4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
What an evil statement, only someone who secretly does not love God would say that. Romans 2:11.
For there is no respect of persons with God.
@@tonybarron6377 what makes you think that excerpts from the bible mean anything to me? This stuff is gibberish for all I care. *Think about your emotions towards the Quran or the Vedas. That's exactly how I feel about the bible as well.*
Regardless of who's right, this is how we learn, grow, and discover for ourselves - Rationality and respect. Well done.
I must say it's so nice to see a calm debate between Christians and atheists
I'm just bummed that Frank doesn't talk about the things that are impossible to argue though. Like "the earth is held by nothing in empty space" thousands of years before discovery of space science. Or Job 40 talking about dinosaurs and as the creator God was able to wipe them out. Or Blood being the life of flesh and how we can now get blood tests that tell us the life of our flesh. Or how the bible told us Russia would align with Ethiopia, Lybia, and Iran which perfectly surround Israel.
@@Tony-qt4zv fr I got so mad when he said none of the indisputable proof and that how the dumb kid could be right and he is not 100 % sure God is real but he better learn cause it says in the bible u must believe in me with all your heart not 99% but 100%
@@DannyBashy God bless you mate. It's okay though, God made the world so that it is how it's supposed to be, that includes this debate. I just wish the arguments about God included the things you can't physically argue, because how would anyone in the time BEFORE Jesus know anything they testified about?!
@@Tony-qt4zv amen brother
brilliant chat
Came for Frank, but it was refreshing to hear an atheist actually try to debate with a composed and respected tone. Great talk.
What a silly passive aggressive comment. Historically, religious people were the ones who lacked composure and respect towards nonbelievers.
Do devout Buddhists have no way of telling good from evil ? Turek thinks so.
@@guywilletts2804All humans without severe mental handicap can tell good from evil. Not all of them can justify it.
@@guywilletts2804I don't think that's what he believes. I could be wrong but I think his claim is that God has given the moral law to all humans, regardless of whether they believe in Him or not.
Actually, that's how most atheists try to debate.
*Alex makes a point that they can't refute* WELL LETS NOT GET OFF TOPIC HAHAHA GREAT HAVING YOU ON THE SHOW
They interrupt him and change topic every time he begins to make a point.
Typical dishonest theists.
But what do you expect from a death cult that worships a blood god and prays for the "end times" to come....
I,,,, never thought of it like that
They interrupt him and change the topic EVERY time he starts to make a point.
To be fair, it's not the topic they should be discussing on and the host guy said that they were running out of time 10 minutes prior. Also why being so hostile towards them? It's not about who's winning the debate it's seeing the other aspects opposite party has to offer and getting close to the answer.
To be Fair... Frank Turek was the one who kept changing the topic, and getting to give his side of that topic and when Alex tried to respond they accused HIM of being off topic and cut him off. Repeatedly
Christians are rarely ever Fair. Christian Apologists like Turek make a living telling lies. His initial attempt to derail by redefining atheism is just one example of his dishonest nature and tactics. I mean really... Is it Fair or Honest to open a debate on morality by arguing over the semantics of the word "atheism" rather than even letting Alex state his own position.
These are typical apologetic tactics and are dishonest by their very nature.
Watch again and count how many times the host derails and cuts Alex off and how many times turek changes the topic rather than let Alex even finish a sentence.
No, Apologists like Turek have no interest in "fairness".
"Humor and ridicule have its place, but if you want to make a change, you'll have to take them seriously."
More insightful of a quote than you think it is. Brilliant debate.
Exactly 👍
It’s hard to say. Good satire may make people feel silly for their positions, but that doesn’t mean they won’t double down on them out of spite.
tad valente I would say that quote should be common sense. As a Christian, it’s hard to have a conversation with most unbelievers because they take the approach of ridicule rather than reason.
@@djvdiddy I can sympathize with that; sometimes I may even be guilty myself. Hope we don't give you a hard time in the future ;)
Jin p these “idiotic religions” and “how stupid religion is”? I know you THINK that you are above us who acknowledge our creator, but when you shut down conversation with these kind of uninformed insults, it comes across to us as a defense mechanism to avoid logically reasoning through your worldview. Honestly, it makes me feel sorry for you. We know you haven’t even cared to understand what we hold to. Someone who is thoughtful and rational doesn’t have to do what you did. It’s very disappointing
Hi Alex, I just found out about your channel 12 hours ago and i'm still watching cause it seems I'm in the same boat as you in terms of (dis)belief. Is there any chance of you talking to Frank Turek again in the future? Since I really love how Frank Turek explains things, I think this is the best video I've seen so far and would absolutely love to see you talk to him again. Especially about your struggle on divine hiddenes. My guess is that Frank is pretty good at explaining a matter like that.
God is waiting for you to seek him. Bless you
Let me guess his answer is "the bible."
I admire Alex’s brilliant patience and calmness and his ability to have a sincere genuine discussion 👍
As a believer in Jesus I absolutely enjoyed watching this. Much respect to these men for their dialogue. We need more of this composer in our world.
jesus was a man . you think god has human form ?. lool
Ravi Singh yes I do believe God did have human form in Jesus. If God created the universe He certainly has the ability to do things that defy our natural laws and comprehension. I believe it because of the evidence and my own personal experience. Jesus took away my misery, depression, anger, uncontrollable lust and suicidal thoughts. He gave me peace, love for others, identity and a sense of purpose that surpasses all understanding. I can understand why people laugh and mock this idea of God being in human form. I was once one of those people too. But all I know is that I was one way, now I’m different (healed) and in between that was Jesus. Thank you for your response. I pray nothing my peace in your heart my friend. ❤️
Bob Smith I totally identify with your reasoning and skepticism. Much of your questions are exactly the same I had prior to my experience I had with Jesus a few months ago. But something happened... when he revealed himself to me (mind you I’m completely sober) it was the most amazing experience I’ve ever had. It’s hard to believe. I would have scoffed the same way many people do when they hear me. I get it and I don’t condemn or get angry when I hear it now. But much of what I was doing was contempt prior to investigation. I implore you. Since we’re in lockdown, check out this homicide detective’s story. th-cam.com/video/OEsB2NWJv68/w-d-xo.html either way man, I pray you and your family are well. Peace be with you brother. 🙏🏼
Ravi Singh where did you come from? Where did your parents come from? Where did your grand parents come from? Where did your great grandparents come from? You get the point? God can only answer this, jesus is truth, I will pray for you Ravi ❤️
@@raulbarasa5855 Most, if not all, of these so called amazing personal revelation stories turn out to be totally unremarkable, unconvincing, bogus stories.
I didn’t know Gordon Ramsey produced podcasts
They both look like Gordon Ramsey ngl
He is Ramsey long lost brother
He's not Ramsey, he's Jazza
@@MRakshay-fb2mu we are all Gordon's long lost grandchild/nephew-niece/sibling/uncle-aunt/grandparent if you go back far enough. So is a cow, a lobster, and a tree :)
Untrue.
My favorite moment of this video occurred between 18:30 and 19:30 into the video. Alex points out that Frank is also an agnostic. Did you notice how fast Frank wanted to change the subject?
It is true that he did, but in my experience (and from others I’ve heard speak about it) atheists are the only ones who don’t doubt what they believe in. This, contrary to what most atheists claim they do, is not skepticism or scientific, it is blind faith. Christians all doubt what they believe, I only recently became an actual Christian, and it is amplified much more because of that. However, if you have no doubt in your mind at all, is it really that you are skeptical, or are you settling? I also don’t think the reason that he wanted to move off of it was because Frank was wrong or something, it is just that he doesn’t 100% know God exists because, just like it is impossible to know if reality exists. This doesn’t prove he isn’t a Christian, or he doesn’t believe in God or something, it just proves that he is skeptical of his own beliefs, which is good.
@@phlyweekly6822Most atheists, me included, have at one point said "sure there's no absolute proof that god does or doesn't exist". That's as agnostic as anyone else in this video.
I'm more as listening to beliefs posited to me and not finding them convincing. If not being persuaded is blind faith, it seems we're all fanatics with at least something.
@@kingster14444Christian “faith” is just that. It’s faith. I don’t really know many or maybe any Christians that go around saying they “know” this or that, but rather they believe. Jesus and Christianity is founded on faith, not believing in an undeniable fact. Jesus said “Blessed are those who believe without seeing”. There’s clearly an emphasis on this in the Bible. Even as a strong Christian I would never be ignorant enough to go around saying I know things about my faith are 100% true, because that’s an oxymoron. Faith cannot be proven, or it wouldn’t be faith.
I don’t consider myself agnostic but if we’re going by the technical term than I guess every human ever would be agnostic because nobody really knows.
@@FrigidHeights Faith and trust go hand in hand though. It's not just believing. It's making steps with that faith in mind. For example: Saying that a bridge is strong enough to hold your car is one thing. But if you really believe/trust it, then you will not only say it, but you will also use the bridge when you have to go to the other side.
@@sherlockhomeless7138 yes absolutely. and I think this is demonstrated by both Christians and atheists
This was really very good.
19:25 for the convo to start.
Thank you.
Thanks 😊
Wtf were they doing for a wholse 20mins
pngballar24 THANK you
I found the discussions before the main points equally as interesting, so I recommend not skipping over them
I know I did something similar only recently, but I couldn't help sharing this with you. Thanks again to Premier for hosting me.
Edit: the intros last for around 7 minutes - feel free to skip.
Thanks for having an honest and open discussion!
I'm not finished yet but it drives me nuts that many people say we need an objective standard for morality yet their God giving the objective standard doesn't meet the objective standard.
+CosmicSkeptic The suffixes "ism" and "ist" are designed to define a person or group, not an object like a book. Why didn't you call Frank out on this?
Eion HD
Cos rape isn't a good way to pass on your genes.
Rape victims are less likely to lead to emotionally and physically healthy descendants than 2 available loving parents.
at around 53:15 you started to really kick his arse haha. this was a very interesting talk and I'm grateful you shared it thanks.
+Eion HD
Try reading this
www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/morality_evolved_first_long_before_religion/
It’s nice hearing a civil discussion.
I’m 19, but it’s shocking to me Alex is this intelligent when he was younger than me… 😭
I felt scared coming to the comment section of this video(I am a Christian and the atheists that comment on Christian videos are very harsh) But I have to say I really respect all of you for not being so heated in the top comments
L Marsh heck yeah
That's kind to say. Perhaps you'd care to ruminate on what might explain the origin of the hostility you say you're observing towards Christians. I hope this is an opportunity to honestly evaluate if the behavior of Christians at times fails to build the type of goodwill towards your non-Christian neighbors that is suggested in the New Testament. Just a thought to consider.
@@Mr.H-YT42 Now I can't speak for the people in the comments. But I think a lot of the hostility that I experience is coming from the typical anti-gay views christians have( And I don't share). With that in mind, I understand why others would be hostile towards christians when there are plenty of Christians who are hostile towards gays without reason
@Bobsyouruncle Wilson on atheist podcasts, at each "Christian" comment, someone reply bashing it. On theological podcasts when someone comments "I am atheist but..." You only see supportive comments not hate. I watch both atheist and theological podcasts on TH-cam so believe me. The hateful christians you are a talking about are a small minority highlighted by leftist media. Get educated before talking trash.
L Marsh I think that’s a good start. Why else?
just because the conclusion leads to something you don't like, doesn't disprove the conclusion.
Amen Sister
Yes but you could say that both from atheism and Christianity.
Here's one of my favorite quotes from my dad, the reason why most people believe in God is because believing is easier than thinking.
Atheists have no fantasies, it was them who started calling religion a fantasy, not the other way around. Atheism is no religion, of course, I'm no atheist, but there is no possible way you can "conclude" that God exist, so don't bother.
@@logans.butler285 so your christan how do you know god is real??
@Christopher C. Morgan No, I'm no Christian. Geez, apparently the term "atheist" applies for anyone who doesn’t believe specifically in the Christian God, right?
@@logans.butler285 so, do you believe in some other religion or do you call yourself an agnostic? Just curious
I appreciated this debate. As a believer my feeling is that we can speak of evil and good etc in theory but when we are faced with it and we see it there is something in every man that desires justice. Atrocities in the past, men committing evil for the sake of it; all of these must be accounted for and that is a standard I believe every person desires, believer or not. So whether we debate around morality as subjective or objective, ultimately I find comfort in knowing that evil will be dealt with. If not on this earth then certainly beyond.
For the atheist, it seems that if you get away with it here, then you got away with it. Shouldn’t the lesson be to just not get caught? Not thinking so from that perspective would be stupid imo. Be selfish, get all you can at any cost, no need for guilt and victim blaming makes perfect sense.
Because there would literally be no point to this life since an ultimate authority never intended for people to live in a certain “right” way.
THAT is unreasonable to me.
@@gmb7200 it depends who is going to catch you and who/waht you believe the final authority in this world is. If it is a government or a justice system then sure, you may well get away with it - many people have. But your conclusion contradicts reality. Everyone wants justice and there are certain boundaries that the atheise will not pass over. For example, you say be selfish etc - well to what extent? To the extent of whose life? Sure, if you want to be selfish without impacting anyone, go ahead. But if you do injustice to others in your attempt to be selfish then even the atheist will have a problem with that.
The reality is that in your last sentence you make a truth claim and then put the word right into inverted commas. So your claim is self-contradicting. I'm saying that my comfort comes because there is a higher being - God - who will one day bring justice BECAUSE people do all they can - in most cases because of the selfishness you mention - to thwart it. Fortunately, do what they will, justice will one day be done. And for me there is comfort in that.
@@gmb7200 i find it plausible that "selfish thinkers" would instill religion upon other potential "selfish thinkers" so that they could get more in this life for being selfish, whilst those who are tricked into religion believe they are getting the better selfish deal in the next life
There is something going on with new atheism which I see quite often in Alex and others, the position they claim to be holding "I don't know and nobody knows for sure"(something like that), but this is no position at all.
It is definitely smart (and I would argue that only a very smart person can come up with this) but it looks, at least to me, like a well carved defensive mechanism to avoid pushback/redirect from anybody, even another atheist. That is, they are basically shutting their senses to any and every questioning from without, but at the same time allowing themselves the right/privilege to question everything outside.
This basically makes it that nobody can win a debate against them, they cannot be wrong at least in the sense that they cannot be held accountable for anything they say or don't say despite them criticising everything anybody says.
This might not have reached this far end yet, but it seems to me that this is what they are building up to. And looking at the state of the world now, I think it is one of the most dangerous things to do, being unaccountable to everything and creating this sort Faraday cage which can only give out information, good or bad, but can't take in anything.
I see the same thing going on in the heads of people being interviewed at Trump rallies. It is not healthy.
What impressed me the most with Alex here is that he’s outnumbered 2-1 here and is debating people significantly older than him and he stays very composed. Not easy to do. Well done!
Of course we can trust ourselves. Our logic is demonstrable. Under a theistic mpdel we cant trust ourselves because there could be a god that hides truth from us or gives us fallible logic or consciousness. Under a naturalistic model we can know whatever we can demonstrate.
Some Time With Sam I agree we did not cone from monkeys and not to mention which God is real there is over 1000 religions and 100s of Gods insane right
Some Time With Sam yea no, you sound very biased most likely because you're apart of the christain religion but i find it funny that you say your religion is the only one that could be right because you stand up to atheist but you lose almost every single argument that's not really defending that's being gullible and stuck in an ideology the fact that you say that morals come from god but even in christinanity Catholics and Baptist disagree on the God given morals yet follow the same God. That is my entire point and no Christianity is the least credible religion not the best only a Christian would say that and the difference between your religion and most others is they encourage doubt and say to find answers for yourself Christianity on the other hand discourages any form of doubt. It's also funny how if God's word is absoulute why did mankind make a 2nd testimate surely just because man has changed does not mean that the word of God has you get all of the b.s. or none of it
Some Time With Sam no actually if anything the Buddhist God's are tje most loved and spread the most love they dont need to be worshiped to be in a happier place just a good person but if you choose to look into something else and see how fucked up and retarded Christianity is. I was Catholic for most my life I am well aware of Christian beliefs that shit was forced down my throat since i was a kid lol sounds wrong but it's not. You people are backwards and only do things nice to people because yoy want to be accepted in the afterlife not because youre nice people. Look into Buddhist God's and then learn their religion and tell me honestly your God spreads love cause he does the opposite and I'm glad knowing if any God exist it DAMN sure isn't that one your bible legit says in the first paragraph God created light a couple days layer then somehow created stars which litteraly give us the light he created in the 1st day. Ironic right not to mention it says the world is 6000 years old we have pyramids older than that but you dont wanna accept that because it would mean you're wrong show me evidence of God and how do you know he made us in his image LITERALLY NOBODY KNOWS WHAT GOD WOULD LOOK LIKE IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW THAT'S SO STUPID LOL I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU WORSHIP SOMETHING THAT CREATED YOU FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF YOU BEING HIS SLAVE AND TREATING HIM LIKE A KING I'M GLAD I DONT BELIEVE IN A GOD THAT WOYKD BE LEGIT HELL
Some Time With Sam I'm good I'll pass there is no evidence he existed the acts he did were impossible and ya know what I woulda killed him too fake ass b.s. for somebody that can heal on touch y would he put sand into a blind persons eye just seems like this Jesus guy is a massive douche bag not to mention he doesn't exist and never did and I'm sure u think imma go to he'll but that's fine good night dude it's 417 in the morning on the east coast and I wanna sleep before my wife has this baby which will most likely come tmr bye.
In conclusion: *We live in a society*
Or do we?
I wonder who can save us from society
@@Ephesians--zs6pv Jesus.
@@ultraman6950 amen
Lmaoo the best series of comments
I enjoyed this a lot. All 3 men stayed very respectful and calm. Christian here and the point that Connor kept bringing up how evolution leads him to the want for human prosperity was the main one I didn’t get. Given we are just an accident and happened to be how we are I don’t see any reason not to use someone to my own benefit.
A: "if reason is not subjective, how did we both come to separate conclusions..."
F: "because of free will"
free will to reason?
I love how Frank says "Way to go Man!" to Alex at the end. I saw some videos before of Frank preaching that made my skin boil with rage. But after watching this discussion, he seems like a much more likable guy and you can tell he respects Alex. This was an all around respectful debate.
Micah Buzan Frank is an amazing, kind, and understanding person. I don’t understand how you can get mad at his preaching. He never says anything based off his opinion that could make someone angry unless they are ignorant. He purely quotes scripture and then explains it.
@@conquerneptune1171 You have to remember that people don't really hate you. They hate what you talk about, Jesus.
What was it about frank that made your "skin boil with rage"?
@@smedlz I'll tell ya. Christ.
@@smedlz he is a lot friendlier here than in many clips you can find online. I wouldn't go as far as saying he makes my skin boil, but he's usually a lot more obnoxious.
the host better give alex some more fuckin time than the last video
Gabe Holmes I totally agree!!
The Occultic Scholar wth...
The Occultic Scholar Ohhhh lol makes sense now
How refreshing to hear a respectful dialogue between people with polar opposite views. I really get frustrated when someone with conflicting opinions use nothing but anger and insults to score points.
I love what I hear💯
Great discussion for both sides. As a Christian I Appreciate the cosmic skeptic for being well- rounded in reasonable discussion
Very civilized discussion, well done.
Alex, only 18 but so intelligent.
Intelligint to believe or not to believe
Well the Bible calls him a fool. There's no such thing as atheism. Romans 1:19
@@keishahenry8200 Hi Keisha, intelligence is more to do with the ability to learn and apply that knowledge and less to do with differences in opinions. Intelligent people can have different opinions on things.
For example I am intelligent enough to know that in your first sentence you actually meant something along the lines of "according to what is written in the bible" because we are both intelligent enough to understand that an inanimate object can't express an opinion.
My personal definition of intelligence is the ability to learn from one's own mistakes because I have seen the same mistakes being made so many times in various jobs.
yea... and if these idiots spent only 2 minutes looking up the definitions of atheist and agnostic, they would have needed no explanation from Alex at all.
Or young and dumb
I love Alex's statement about the non-objectivity about 2 + 2 = 4, however this is a very hard thing to explain, and I also don't know if I can do a good job.
Basically, math assumes some axioms. We can prove that they will not be simultaneously complete and consistent (godel's incompleteness theorem). We can also prove that it is unverifiable in a consistent set that they are consistent lol. Using these axioms we assert that if they are true, then these other statements are true.
For example, consider a logic system where we have a thing called a set, and we assert the empty set exists, and that if a set exists, then the set of that set also exists. These are subjective, they were defined 'pseudorandomly' (note a lot of work goes into this, it's not really random. We want them to be consistent and as complete as possible, so we get rid of any inconsistencies).
However, once we have our logic system, any statement made in there is objective, but technically the statement "the set of an empty set exists" is actually, "[if the empty set exists] and [if a set exists then the set of that set also exists], then [the set of an empty set exists]"
Because of this, when Alex is saying that reasoning is not necessarily objective, he is correct, because the axioms of reasoning are not objective, even if any statement made using reasoning (of the form if [all the reasoning axioms] are true, then [reasoning result]) is objectively true. and when Frank said he was objectively holding 1 book, this is not objectively true. However it is true that objectively if [language axioms - including the definition of 1 book and holding] are true, then [he is holding one book]. But subjectively 1 book could mean 1 atom of a book, or 1 page or 1 cubic metre of books depending on the context. Do note that I'm not saying that a general person would think a cubic metre of books is 1 book, but that we could define it that way and still be subjectively correct.
This answers it all. It's a paradox, and both are correct.
Oh he absolutely did not enjoy being (accurately) described as an 'Agnostic Theist'
Haha I was just going to say that. When he realised what Alex said and that he was right he cut it off pretty quickly.
No such thing as as an agnostic theist or atheist. I own Cambridge University dictionary of philosophy along with Oxfords. Definitely in top 10 of best universities in the world and you never see this illusory construct solely based your primal in/credulity. You can't rely on you making uneducated , pop-atheist erroneous conclusions.
Oyster Popsicles
For someone who owns Cambridge University dictionary of philosophy along with Oxfords you have terrible grammar.
Cyba IT Are you completely daft? Is your IQ so egregious that you don't understand the difference between a dictionary of philosophy and grammar? Its banal that you don't and that you've never even opened one. Let's keep your red herrings, ad hominems fallacy (poisoning the well fallacy) where they belong, in the garbage.
Oyster Popsicles triggered
Alex is pretty intelligent, that was a deep conversation with logic. I hated the fact that this was a 2 vs 1 debate, they were ganging up on Alex but damn son, Alex kept his cool and defended his position pretty well.
A blade forged in truth will never break
I tend to believe that if folks think about things, and are honest with themselves, then the truth will emerge.
A 1 vs 2 debate is actually a good thing.
And even better would be a 1 vs 3 or 1 vs 10.
In a 1 vs 1 you are at the same level, not in the 1 vs 10.
If you need 2 person to debate with one, it kind of show one side has a problem.
I don't think he was ganged up on, he was being pressed fairly. The moderator, though way more involved, was fair and tried to get clear answers.
D-Hunter Van Der Horst No, he wasnt ganged up. Moderator was just asking Alex that Alex's argument is harder to explain "a weaker premesis", and Alex said these things still bother him, something he cant explain
Alex conflated subjectivity and understanding.
Alex also contradicted himself. In the beginning of the talk he said “if reason isn’t subjective then how do we come to different conclusions?”
He later said, “I’m not saying that if we disagree on things that morality must be subjective.”
So he said disagreeing means there’s subjectivity, and then said that disagreement doesn’t mean the topic is subjective.
Very interesting.
Host: Alex, what do you think of this?
Alex: Well -
Other Guest: NOW HOLD ON LET ME STOP YOU THERE
Let the person who knows there is an invisible man living in the clouds do the talking.
Not what I seen at all lol....
Turek - Alex are u wearing headphones and talking into a mic tell me what u think?
Alex - well, let’s talk about this p, the.
Turek - mhmm
Alex- Ok let’s talk about this p,
Turek - mhmm, right
Alex - now I’ll answer ur question about am I wearing headphones and talking into a microphone. I do not confirm and deny. I do not belief that I am or that I am not. I know that I can and Could be and I can and could not.
Turek - mhmm 🤔
@@voiceinthewild5751 Alex needs to be able to explain his position before Turek and the host (and you obviously) make assumptions about where he stands. You can't discuss whether a boat will float without having a common agreement of whether you're talking about a sail boat or a picture of a boat or the mere idea of a boat. Given that many people have incorrect assumptions about what an atheist is, Alex must explain what he means when he says he considers himself an atheist. Sorry (not sorry) that those clarifications ran contrary to your assumptions.
@@SundayMatinee no he played it safe
You're in an ACTUAL DEBATE with Frank Turek?
50 minutes of Frank Turek and Alex O'Connor is pure bliss, especially since I'm looking for something to watch right now.
I know enough about Turek to not expect any meaningful intellectual debates, but I honestly enjoy his voice. The video of Armoured Skeptic debunking his video is one of my favourite atheist videos.
this is great just how they talk more like old friends than enemies trying to cut throat each other
Interesting debate, thank you. It would be fascinating to hear perspectives on collective human flourishing in the context of gene editing and whether this is likely to result in collective flourishing or likely more individual greed, selfishness, and ‘evil’ in the world, which is not what I would consider human flourishing but rather simply just survival of the fittest and more like a hell on earth than somewhere pleasant to live - I don’t see how rejection of God can result in an improvement of moral values
This is how it should be in a discussion not making fun and saying things like "oh wow your floating man's so special" or "look at that turtle he's your grandpa" having a rational discussion is how I wish it would be most of the time .
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
8
But my grandfather looks like a turtle. How do you explain that?! Checkmate Atheists. /s
But how can you actually have a rational discussion with someone who believes in a floating sky daddy? You really don't get it; faith is an irrational position, period, full stop. There is no reasoning with someone who believes something on faith alone.
@@xXxTeenSplayer I agree w/you, which is all the more fortunate that Frank's faith is based on reason.
I loved this debate, you were all so respectful and empathetic to the other’s views your composure was really admirable. I love seeing discussions like this, just debating ideas, no name calling, no interruption, this is like asmr for my brain.
@Donald Nadeau you dont either
@@shariquenguyen4945 turek is claiming something to exist, alex is not convinced. The burden of proof is on the turek as the claimant.
I feel like the way he explained about atheist is quite confusing. It's like to be or not to be lol I dont know
@@robertlewis9132 Maybe, but the bigger burden falls on the omniscient Donald duck above who claims to know all things
@@sotharynhem2280 it's meant to be confusing, i've wayched people like turek and jordan peterson and they sound incredibly well educated, but they throw a ton of crap at you (rusty cars???) and try to befuddle, which works on the majority cos people don't know how to think, alex can hold his own, but joe public up against turek? brow beatering bible thumpers.
Great discussion
I love the fact that we can have this conversation in such a respectable manner, but I hate the fact that semantics took over instead of getting to the meat of the issue.
i am a christian but i do like the way that Alex makes an honest argument for atheism with out devolving into insults and sarcasm. good job!
Agreed! This was a very pleasant discussion to watch.
@@johnathancerda8976 But experiencing a relationship with Jesus is the best thing ever! My depression is gone along with years and years of trauma. And I feel such amazing joy!
@@jessemcilvenna2980 I can say the same thing for Muhammad, or Thor, or Azatoth, or Krishna, or my imaginary friend Bob etc. And people do in fact say these things. But that doesn't get you anywhere closer to finding out if any of these beings are real, does it?
@Delon Duvenage I watched the first 10 minutes and it's just nonsense coming from a sociopath. I really don't want to watch 30 minutes of this.. What were his reasons for becoming a Christian?
@@mcsuck1 I don't believe that what's holding back people from giving their life to Jesus has anything to do with lack of empirical evidence. It's a heart thing, not a head thing. Many people (myself included) have been hurt by people in the church and have transposed those hurts onto their view of God. Secondly, I don't think most people understand just how valuable they are to God! You are very valuable to Him. He's madly in love with you!
You have an astounding level of patience Alex, good debate! Keep at it.
For now. Give it a few years and I'd be willing to bet he gets sick of hearing the same garbage over and over.
This debate is so civil, its just so wholesome.
In your video, "the sophistry of Christopher Hitchens," you pointed out the numerous times he would use the Tu Quoque fallacy. Are you not also doing this here? @ 53:20 honest question and interested in your feedback.
lol I didn't know people actually used the title 'Christian Apologist' to describe themselves 😂
Actually, "apologist" is a Christian term - it comes from the Greek word apologia, meaning "to make a defense," used in 1 Peter 3:15. So the church actually invented the term. Fun fact. :)
unlike that other person who commented responding to you i appreciate this fun fact? thank you for sharing!
The first time I heard this term, I thought "wow, an ex Christian that want to apologize for is stubbornness"
I'm a chocolate apologist....In fact I could probably list a shed load of stuff but I will keep it short.
I'm a chocolate agnostic, I don't care if I like chocolate or not, I can't prove it
Love the handshake and ‘way to go man’ at the end. So good to see a gentlemanly, gracious debate.
Jesus called Judas friend when He asked him do you betray Me with a kiss ? Jesus washed Judas feet some ours before.
The host/interviewer talks too much, though.
This is a kid mentally, this alek guy is incredibly ignorant, a book cannot believe because it is an inanimate object... Oh my gosh... This is when atheist placate religious people to make them feel good about believing...
@@ILoveYou-sg5bi You're arguing a book possesses a belief of the divine? A belief in anything?
@@jackliechtenstein660 Gosh, are you serious?
But before one can go from a state of lack in belief one has first to go to a phase of non belief or " I don't believe " point or phase
As a Christian, I like how this discussion was conducted. Kind and rational from both sides.
Pre-judging from the top comments, I was expecting an ass-kicking from Alex, but Frank held his own pretty well. This felt more like a discussion than it did a debate and ended in a subjective stalemate.
Great job to Alex. As a Christian, I learned a lot!
The comments are not a good way to judge a discussion, people tend to exaggerate and be biased. I mean, I see muslims insisting under his Hijab debate and response that he lost, ignoring how dishonest Hijab was, misrepresenting everything Alex said. It's best to watch the debate itself
I agree Frank held his own, but I don't think it was a subjective stalemate at the end. Alex pointed out that Frank's objection to reasoning being based on evolution could also be applied to reasoning based on god. The conversation ended shortly after this.
@@Anonymous-de8uw I have to agree that that completely demolished Frank's argument against evolved rationality being reliable.
It frustrated the heck out of me though that Alex never pointed out:
(1) That it's objectively testable whether rationality works or not and that rationality has repeatedly met such tests.
(2) That evolution is the natural process of trying a wide variety of approaches and throwing away those that don't work in practice. It's true that evolution values effectiveness over accuracy, but to the extent that better comprehension of the world around us increases survivability we should *absolutely* expect that evolved rationality would be adapted to objective reality.
@@irrevenant8724 For (1) what kind of tests are you referring to? And for (2), I've thought the same thing yet never heard anyone else make this argument before. I've felt that it could be argued that the way reality is represented to us through our senses is pretty damn close to objective reality on the basis that objective reality is what produced (via evolution) these senses and that it's evolutionarily advantageous to have an accurate picture of reality. So, it follows that our rationalizing based on these senses is all but congruent with objective reality.
Granted, there are things like optic illusions which, as you say, may show where effectiveness was valued over accuracy in the evolutionary process, since we know reality isnt being represented to us perfectly in these cases and we can account for these discrepancies.
So, I agree. To the extent that accurate representation of reality aids survival, we ought to be able to say evolved rationality is objectively grounded. The question then becomes, how far does this extent go? Sure, it makes sense that it's useful to know when the objective truth is that there is a bear behind that tree that can eat you, but can we conceive a world in which it isn't ideal for survival to have a perfect representation of reality? We might need to conceive of some ridiculous lovecraftian nightmares to consider such a case, but perhaps that illustrates a point...idk.
I hope you see where I'm coming from and I'm curious if you have anything to add.
@@Anonymous-de8uw re: #1 to take one simple example we consider it rational to gather a reasonable amount of evidence for something before we consider it likely to be true. This can be tested by comparing the objective success rates of one approach vs the other.
I'm not clear what you're saying about Lovecraftian nightmares.
Alex is an exceptional person.
If as he says, he is in the middle of his 'A level' exams, then he is at max,
just turned 18 and probably 17.
Amazing.
we as humans have the ability to formulate thoughts according to experiences. If Ales is excpetional, does that not mean everyone is
@The Fabulous Eagle there is a Apollo/Dyonisus dichotomy out there. If you can find the bit where Bruce Lee expands on this topic on the net... it's not very long but he speaks clearly enough to understand. (animal/machine dichotomy).
40, 3, Alex is an exceptional person.
If as he says, he is in the middle of his 'A level' exams, then he is at max,
just turned 18 and probably 17.
Amazing.
i didn't find Alex that compelling
@@raysalmon6566 For a 17/18 year old he is pretty exceptional and very bright, his enthusiasm is unstoppable. I guess that's why he has 100,000 subscribers, successful to boot
Not that expetional tbh. He is just someone who happens to study philosophy at school. Unfortunately, I did not so I could have not done this. Not because I did not choose philosophy but it was never an option. Simple
Hi Alex! I was one of your first viewers and fans. Since then I have come to find faith in Jesus. He (and Christianity) truly is the way, the truth and the life. I'll be praying that one day you and those who learn from you come to the same realisation. God bless you mate
So you threw in the towel on rational objective thinking for easy answers. That sounds like a digression.
I am sure Alex appreciates your well wishes but wishful thinking isn’t going to change the minds of others.
If God, in fact, doesn’t exists the way you are claiming to, then Alex find no problem you doing whatever your cognition feels convenient to, on the other hand, if God, in fact, exists, then it’s just a matter of time for Alex to voluntarily choose to follow what you claim to be the Gospel of Jesus
The question that rises is: We can’t grasp the concept of time, but time is required for someone to accept Jesus, by definition, seems that no human can rationalize the dynamic of the intentions of ‘God’, therefore, any intent to actively interfere with ‘Gods’ work, falls apart almost as if God says: Son, you are missing the point.
If God is, by definition, that which transcends us humans in all senses, how could we judge wether a human already knows Jesus or no, at you could quote: by their fruits.
But then another Christian can enter the debate and say: no, they need a relationship with the Holy Spirit,
And then another theists enters and saysd: only God weight our hearts
And so on and so forth…
So it seems to me that the actual debate it’s not atheism vs theism as they both acknowledge their limits within their own epistemology and ontology, but between the hermeneutic among theists.
Hearing an atheist like Alex is the tip of the iceberg, thanks to globalization and internet,
But the deeper levels contains theists that cannot seem to grasp a cohesive hermeneutic of the Gospel
I’m curious
As a Christian I gotta send love to Alex here. Such a nice respectful dude.
*instantly clicks*
ditto
same haha
Many people are ungenerous. Ungenorosity cannot exist unless generosity exists. Santa Claus (or Father Christmas) is the epitome of generosity. Thus ungenerosity proves the existence of Santa Claus (or Father Christmas.)
Arthur Klym A very good way to disprove the argument. Great job🖒
Insert whatever completely fictional character you care to, then. Generus, god of generosity. There you go.
Yes, St. Nicholas did exist. However, fantastic stories have been added to his biography, and he does not exist now no matter what your parents may have told you.
I think it's more why should we care if generosity on ungenerosity matter or not if Father Christmas hadn't told us so (using your analogy).
😆
I am a Christian and although my faith is not shaken by Alex, I think he provides better arguments here than Frank is using. Thats not to say Frank is incapable, but I don't think he's doing as good of a job here as I've seen him do before. I will also say that I'm certain he is more equipped than I am. But then, he sounds more prepared to argue with someone who makes the knowledge claim that God definitely doesnt exist rather than God (or a higher power) probably doesnt exist. It is a slightly different stance. Its a lot easier, I think, to prove a possibility from the stance of impossibility than it is to prove a certainty from a possibility. I dont like the idea of suggesting agnosticism-gnosticism is a sliding scale from "99% atheist to 99% theist", but I suppose by definition that is correct. But at that point, I think it becomes a an almost useless label without a % to attach to it to explain where we stand.
If you want one of the BEST TH-cam apologist look up Eli Ayala, he is a presuppositionalist, and makes Far far better arguments than Frank Turek. I don't think Turek even referred to scripture throughout the whole debate, which was as if he would arguing with two hands behind his back! which is quite frustrating!
Frank tied him into an intellectual pretzel. "Would there still be 2 rocks on the earth?" "depends what you mean by 2"
“If evolution gave us morality, then why should we trust any of it?” I will never understand how people even come to that conclusion, why wouldn’t we trust it? Is he implying that the only thing stopping humans from murdering and raping is a few lines in an ancient book?
There’s evidence of our hominid ancestors showing compassion to one another two million years ago!
Thats just one fallacy in their arguments that is found in every single one of them
There’s also mountains of evidence of animals showing compassion when the circumstance is outside of the “food chain” motivations.
bro no offense but how in the world is anyone gonna prove some 2 million old monkeys were nice to each other
@@thesheriff720 just google “two million year old jawbone in Georgia” if you’re genuinely asking me. Then you’ll find the answer there. Take care!
Get a book out Alex...
I agree. It would be really interesting.
are you ancap?
or is that a sceen from greek religion
Alex... is it moral to send someone to hell for eternity because they lusted over another person? Why didn't you go for the throat? You have the force bro.....
I love how when Alex was delivering killer arguments there was a man seemingly doing nothing in the background....
Unique Username sisyphus actually from Greek mythology
I think it's absolutely fascinating that one of the core disagreements between Alex and Frank comes down to an ancient debate regarding the philosophy of mathematics which mathematicians still hotly debate today: "Is math invented or discovered?"
both...
@@zzzzzz69
My take is that the foundation is invented, but that the consequences are discovered; Conway invented his Game of Life, but he discovered the Glider within it.
The core principles of mathematics are discovered. But the methods we use to express mathematics are invented.
@@davelaneve2446 agreed
@@davelaneve2446 Ill start by saying I'm definitely not academic or gd at maths I'll like to hear different people's opinions on things without arguing with them what r the core principles of maths and how where they discovered when you say we use maths to explain it genuinely interested
This young man impresses me...he seems quite capable to carry a conversation of this caliber with more class, and respect then just about all the rest of the older more seasoned atheists any debate setting. Especially with a Christian... you didn't have to regress to ad-homonym insults and condescension to make his points.
Hats of....God bless you and teach you.