O'Conner: "Religions assert ownership of things that those religions were previously against" Shapiro: "I'd buy that, except [*asserts religious ownership of things those religions were previously against*]" It's rare to see someone so clearly reinforce their opponent's position.
@@LadyDoomsinger When you claim anything including magic...well your set for anything...sadly they bring their own bias and needs into the religion instead of just saying god>all. End of story.
Ugh. Ben is just irritating to watch. I also hate his whole "I don't claim to understand it all so I don't have a burden of proof for everything I assert....but you have the burden for anything you assert" and "I have a big escape hatch" routine. It's such a weasel move.
It's not whether or not Ben understands what he asserts, it's whether or not he asserts anything. If people don't have a burden of proof in things they don't understand but assert regardless, then science deniers clearly don't have a burden of proof because they lack an understanding in science. And that just makes things worse.
What I despise is that's how these major conservative people get popularity. They'll debate a college kid, who hasn't had any experience in debate... Then the thumbnail says "BEN SHAPIRO OWNS CRYING LIBERAL ON TRANSGENDERISM" Or some shit like that
When Ben dodged the question and tried to pivot away from the point by saying, "which is more likely, that a guy coming to kill you is doing so for selfish reasons or because he has religious conviction that he should kill you?" Well, Ben, that's an attempt to change the subject, but the answer is, "if I were an out homosexual almost anywhere in the world, probability would favor the motive being religious"
Not to mention that a guy who is coming to kill you for religious reasons *_is doing it for selfish reasons._* Oh hmm gee the two options are 'cake' and 'chocolate cake' it's such a dilemma of two mutually-exclusive answers oh gee oh dear. It isn't like religious people ever think "Man God is asking me to do stuff again he's such a jerk making me do shit I don't like". God is a figment of their imagination, they're doing what they want and justifying it by thinking their imaginary friend is dangling a reward at them for good behaviour. Inherently, openly selfish.
@@mindlander Are they really good for doing such a horrible act, no matter how "real" their devotion is to them? Can they be otherwise good and then out of the blue do a suicide bombing? If god has to ask a person to do things like that, is that god good? Why should you listen to that? Where does their personal responsibility and free will end? Or start? Nothing about religion is good. All churches are just one fanatic away from turning into terrorists..
I got to admit, Ben was able to rein in all but the last dregs of his usual proclivity to spew lies and fallacy. Something about Alex seems to make him want to be as honest as he can be.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394his calmness. Shapiro's whole shtick is wait for his interlocutors to rile themselves up while putting on an air of calm on his end, which is normally easy since the topic is always something that doesn't him personally and affects his opponents immensely. If I were to hold your dog at gunpoint, I guarantee I would be a lot calmer than you. That just doesn't work with Alex, who's calm past the point of sainthood. So Shapiro's best move is to have a pleasant, open conversation and make it seem like their opinions are equal.
@@sigmascrub Makes sense. He's part of that crowd who use every means available to "win" an argument, just so long as it doesn't involve actually being right.
I see two fully functional intellects and one of them being wrong, in my opinion Ben. I wish people would abandon this childish notion that whoever's on the side they think is wrong must necessarily be an idiot. They're both highly intelligent and Ben didn't get a Harvard law degree by only having a semi-functional brain.
@@Durzo1259 Remember when Ben said people should just sell thier homes and move if climate change floods low elevation cities. This guy is an idiot or a grifter delibretly acting like an idiot to make money.
@@Durzo1259 Don't confuse intelligence with ability to pass exams. I know people with PhDs who are thick as a brick and not someone you would go to for advice or answers. Listening to Shapiro over the years, he sounds intelligent but has an inability to seriously reflect over his viewpoints and simply pushes them as correct even when they are quite obviously not.
@@tomstamford6837I completely agree. Even the smartest person will be considered dumb if they deny facts based on their opinions. I try not to fall into this pit of "I'm never wrong" even on things I'm experienced with for fear of getting into this denial mentality.
@@IiiiIiiIllIl As long as you're aware of this then you will be fine. It's when you don't and have even the most innocent of sense of infallibility is when you come to grief.
Shapiro’s dodge of Alex’s argument by the challenge “which is more probable, that someone would be coming to kill you for selfish reasons but is stopped by his religion (the idea that their god is against murder), or that someone would be coming to kill you for religious reasons?”, is a challenge I am welcome to take on. Look at all the bloodbaths through history… humans often tend to be very warmongering. Yet most humans through history were religious. It never stopped them. In fact, we have many examples of wars started on religious motives, and very few of wars avoided because of religious motives. And even in modern times: the least religious places on earth are statistically overwhelmingly atheistic. The prison population is overwhelmingly religious. And the most recent example of an atrocity is happening in Israel, pretty clearly perpetrated by religious people.
Yeah, it was an incredibly stupid thing for him to say. And I'm pretty sure that literally the only reason he felt comfortable saying it is because of the old _"WWII was the fault of atheism!!!"_ propaganda that apologists and preachers love so much. Because without that lie, they have absolutely nothing to back up the claim that irreligious societies would somehow be worse than religious ones.
In the 20th century alone more people were murdered by atheist regimes than in all crusades and jihads combined. And that's after less than a hundred years or so of becoming a "mainstream" worldview.
The prison population isn’t overly religion because of religion though. What do you think the main factor is that causes people to be in jail in America?? You think it’s they’re religious?? That’s a horrible false equivalency, at least be competent and coherent when you make a point. Maybe understand socioeconomic conditions and also systemic racism because you assert a position that has no basis to the underlying reason. I’m not religious, I’m an atheist but this doesn’t do anything to convince people of anything. Your argument is just ad absurdum.
@@henrytep8884 Even if the prison population didn't commit crime "because" of religion, the data clearly doesn't suggest that people would commit more crime if they were less religious (which is half of the challenge... Religion doesn't stop people from committing crimes... clearly). As for the other half of the challenge, we know very well that at least some crime very often IS religiously motivated (terrorism, child mutilation, war crimes... to just name a few.)
@@TsunamiNR you talking about circumcision or some other form of child mutilation? I don’t think circumcision is a legal crime, let’s be honest, and secular terrorism also exist especially done in the name of white nationalism. Yes the Middle East have some insane relationship with religion but that’s because of the Muslim religion more than it is because of the Jews in Israel. Even then, Muslim on Muslim religious wars are way more common and deadly versus the Jews fighting Muslims, this is straight facts. I’m not advocating for religion, I’m secular, but this doesn’t mean we get to make weak arguments like every argument you’ve literally made. Why not just be more intellectual rigorous with your argument and maybe you don’t have to make such emotionally charged statements that aren’t based off anything concrete. You’re not going to win anyone by being disingenuous with your rhetoric, it comes off blind and ignorant.
Thanks, professor, I haven't seen an Alex O'Conner video in a long time. Debates of this Atheist vs Theist type were what got me started on TH-cam. Those long multi-person affairs in front of large audiences where some of the greats like Dawson, Hitchens, Fry, Dennet, were usually running roughshod over their opponents. I have to admit I hold Shapiro in the same contempt I hold the new rolling, odometer, style of views, likes and time counters TH-cam has adopted. I watched this likes counter on this video go from something like 89 to 00 and then 08 and then 12 and then 122. Right now it's saying 1, 4 or 5, 0.
The views, likes and comments are a server thing. TH-cam got lots of servers and you will be using the one that is the best for you but comes at a cost of the counts being inaccurate as it tries to update.
Yeah, as the guy before me said, any new video with a high engagement will have crazy and random looking view numbers on the individual client side until the views get post s certain point where the difference between individual servers is insignificant. Each one will keep it's own count and only update the real total every now and then. There's probably some other weirdness in there too knowing TH-cam
Religion is the cornerstone to the eventual collapse of any society..... A society embracing science, to me, is one that will embrace more openness, care more for human life and love what's around them, all while trying to push mankind to the stars.....
I consider Ben Shapiro's intellectual level to be slightly above of Kent Hovind, that's why I didn't even watch the debate. This concise overview is so nice to have. Thank you. 👍
People have always had strange belief systems. Before 'proper religions' existed, do you think people didn't believe in some arbiter of their demise? Let me ask this another way... Do you believe human CO2 emissions are causing the Earth's climate to warm?
@@VariantAEC any part of the co2 emissions over what is possibly needed that end up in the atmosphere blocking heat in do cause climate to warm yes? At least for around 1000years when it possibly may have fallen down again?
@@skagenpige88 "any part of the CO2 emissions over what is possibly needed to that end up in the atmosphere blocking heat in do cause the climate to warm yes? No, but thanks for confirming that you believe that an increase of CO2 less than one in thirty-eight-thousanth of our atmosphere will warm the climate. Venus is hot because its atmosphere is really dense while Mars is practically an ice ball despite having an atmosphere with 2% less CO2 by volume than Venus' atmosphere, but there is still 2,400 times more CO2 by volume in Mars' atmosphere than in Earth's atmosphere. I know, when you actually know these things the CO2 excuse looks pretty wrong when you factor in at the small changes in solar irradiance provided by proximity between all three planets in this solar system and the sun. How could a 150PPMv increase cause more than a 2°C rise in temperatures? It can't. Even if we are just talking about CO2 gas in isolation subjected to specific bamds of IR light or simulated sunlight, the result won't be an infinity warming loop. This idea of CO2 warming the entire planet so much is an absolutely preposterous one.
I haven’t believed in free will for thirty years, and it hasn’t changed the way I live my life. I rarely ever think about it because in the end it really doesn’t matter.
Guess it doesn't matter... but since you don't believe in free will you must believe something drives you to do the things you do. What in the world pushes you to do anything that might not benefit you? Is it social pressure? Biological urges? A mix of the above or something else?
@@VariantAECCognition. The ability to be alive is a pressure that ensures we take action to survive. Some people don't have that and they unalive themselves. Overall our subjective and collective memories shape how we perceive the world around us. And how it guides human behavior over generations. Or there could be other arbitrary reasons 🤷 Humans are complex and weird socially. Every individual is a superposition of possibility. Some take control of it, others coast. Just live your life and have fun 😊
@@VariantAECAlso I think the ability to learn is another massive driving factor. You know that feeling where something that was difficult to understand just "clicks"? Early on in child development this happens a lot. You could draw a comparison to AI and reinforcement learning; new information is stimulating!
Are you referencing a particular part of the video? If its about the free will bit... when has lack of wealth stopped people from doing whatever they want regardless?
@@VariantAEC I guessed it depends on how deep you want to take free will. Does a poor person skip teeth brushing because they want to or because they can't afford a new brush? Can the same person just quit their job and go on vacation? The point is that there are many factors beyond our own individual will that affects whether or not we can do whatever we might want. It's hard to enact free will when you have prior engagements that are required to do things like eat and have a home. No free will to follow your dreams in that.
@@sandeman1776 Lol, no, there isn't. You can use pine or oak bark from anywhere or these days you can just steal a toothbrush if you are so inclined in a hypothetical scenario you just created for me. What stops a poor person from doing any of that? Literally nothing. There is no excuse. It's not like we're talking about doing something that requires some real expertise there. When it comes to convincing others to let you do something they might not otherwise do so that you can also participate, then we are talking about stuff that extends beyond your free will to others and then you aren't talking about free will in its only real context. A living being's free will is exclusive to that one organism. Nothing stops anyone from stealing a toothbrush in this hypothetical scenario if that person really needed it and were too poorly educated or have too much pride to reduce themselves to using natural remedies or trying to brush your teeth with a plastic comb or something else that could get the job done... at the same time, theft may be stopped by another person's own free will. All that might be perceived by you as the illusion of no freedom of choice, but the reality is that your perspective is clearly incorrect and you have demonstrated that you are looking beyond your own actions when free will doesn't include other living entities feelings. You have all the freedom you could ever want and more... It's just limited to your own actions, and those actions can carry hefty consequences or none at all. Things get much more complicated when we add the effects of learned interactions between organisms over time, but that again extends beyond your free will, and you can not always know what any given stranger will think of any action you make.
I think that's due to the setting. Alex O'Connor isn't there to win, but to understand and come to conclussions. His entire life seems to depend on the pursuit of truth, and I'm under the impression that Ben realized that. Alex isn't a man who seeks the desctruction of others. He remains respectful and honest, taking all points seriously even though some may seem ridiculous. People can feel when they are being heard, and I believe that's why Ben seems to be so different here in comparision to other debates
I ditest the king of the jews as much as you, but this debate was well rounded and informative. It's always best to stock up on beneficial knowledge to defend our positions.
You have to speak for yourself because there are just as many good examples of peace being brought upon by religious synergy. For 800 years there was a time that Jews, Christian’s, and Muslims lived in peace. So it’s not fair to say it’s not good just like how it’s not fair to say it’s necessary. Like anything that spins our societies round and round there’s pros and cons, good and bad to everything. Religions brings peace and stability to people, but it can be abused to manipulate the masses. That’s why responsible and accountable people must be the ones qualified to give religion a good name. It’s not necessary to have a religion, as long as you have a belief. If that belief is science, and you’re intellectually convinced science is the truth then more power to you.
@@ZunamiRevert"Religion brings peace" to whom? Lying to yourself about death and people killing each other over which one is correct, women being oppressed.. yeah, if that's peace, then I'm not buying..
@@ZunamiRevertsaying religious people managed to live together doesn't prove religion is good for society. Those people were much more likely to continue living in peace if they didn't have those religious beliefs to eventually fight over.
i think it depends. there are plenty of people who have improved their lives because of the illusion that they are watched and judged by an all powerful God. i dont think those are good people tho. and it comes with dangers. and i totaly agree that everything good that can potentially come from religion. is very achievable without the religion part
On the free will thing: I like something that TMM once said. I don't remember the exact wording he used, but 'even in a completely deterministic universe, things like debates, conversations, and the justice system are important because having different inputs can change the output'.
We'll never know for sure, but I get the sense that our world would be more decent, empathetic, humane, and peaceful if organized religions were not a part of the human experience ...
@@mindlander Nah, remove groups like secularists or egalitarianism and the earth turns to a hell hole. If these groups weren't around to force religious faiths to play nice and take moderate positions just to look attractive they've just continued using swords and force to enforce themselves on everyone and continued holy wars would have kept society at a medieval age for another few thousand years. 💁♂️
Well, Shapiro was finally right about something. Conversations with him are worthless. But it's pretty funny that he just doesn't consider that the things we do (including talking about stuff like this) *_*are*_* part of the "environment" that influences our actions in a deterministic setting.
So conversations with anyone who disagrees with you are worthless. Never mind the value of an exchange of ideas and exploring ways of thinking, either you agree with how right I am or there's no value to the conversation. This is the epitome of anti-intellectualism.
@@Durzo1259 There's no value to be gained in "debating" with a con-man who isn't arguing in good faith. You can see it clearly he has no actual experience beyond "debating" unprepared college kids, as half his "arguments" are either simple strawmens, other falacies, or just straight up untrue.
@@Durzo1259 Shapiro is a worthless propagandist. Not merely "someone I disagree with." The less people engage with that clown's disingenuous garbage, the better.
@@salomaogomes7311 Are all his arguments fallacious, or does he just have enough fallacious arguments about things you care about to make him offend you as a person, so you won't acknowledge when he gets anything right? I don't remotely see a con man here, I see a theist arguing as well as a theist can from an untenable position by trying to rationalize how to make it work. This does not make you a liar or a disingenuous conman, it simply makes you wrong and have flawed reasoning.
@@Durzo1259 Yes, they are, because they're all coming from a predetermined position he has no intention of changing. He isn't "debating", he's just looking for clout and for some "gotcha" moment he can show his idiotic fanbase and continue his reich-wing grift.
The best argument I've been able to use to get religious people to be on your side _(such as wearing masks during the COVID-19 crisis, or climate change)_ is to say: _"I'm non-religious, but if I were, I'd say 'god gave you a brain, and he'd want you to use it.' Don't throw away his greatest gift."_ It normally gets them on board for accepting scientific evidence and planning ahead. Because they believe _(whether it's true or not)_ that god wants them to think logically and adhere to some amount of the scientific method. I also find telling religious people that I'm non-religious is far less _"offensive"_ or _"provocative"_ than saying I'm an atheist. They don't throw up that _"iron curtain"_ because you're not perceived as an enemy.
When a Christian abolitionist opposes a Christian anti-abolitionist, either outcome can be consider a victory built on Christian values. To borrow from Sam Harris, this is playing tennis without the net.
This was a really cool debate to watch. I am still undecided on if religion is good, bad or just neutral for society. There is such a broad range of beliefs that can cause many things. It can cause harm but can also benefit. I am from a place where over 80% of people believe in the same religion. I have met some amazing people and horrible people apart of this religion. I've seen religion cause death and save lives. The biggest issue for me is the tribalism of religion. It becomes group against group and because there is no proof for any religion having the answer. It comes from the fear of the unknown and cognitive dissonance. Many things follow this pattern as well. People do not want to question core beliefs and want to always have a reason for explaining the unknown. This it the big question for me right now. I don't think hoping or believing in a religion is bad but I do think mega churches and books that tell you how to live and who to hate is bad as humans really do suck when power is involved. I relate religions to companies a lot. There are some good ones but there are also some horrible ones. I think for me the question is Is it ok to believe in something that has no scientific proof? I don't know. It seems to help people and harm people. Is it worth the pros considering the cons or is better to have neither? This comes mostly from personal experience and watching a lot of these debates. I would love to hear what other people think and why Great Video, love your stuff :) Edit: I just watched a few spiritual deconstruction videos and have swayed. I believe in thr innate good of people. If the beilief of hod vanished people wouldn't go around and do whatever they wanted. Under our social contract and our evolutionary innate to do good and our empathy is where my beliefs come from. I think from this i can say that if religion did go away it would make the world better as we wouldn't be as split which causes the bad things to happen. No one knows if god does exist or doesn't. The beat answer we have is IDK and uncertainty. Thanks to all those who commented. Loved hear the different perspectives.
Well the religious people who do good would most likely do as much good without it. Which leaves you with those who do bad things because of religion, who most likely would not do evil without a god telling them to.
I do like your point and can agree with it, but I don't know how we would be able to test if this was true. If religion no longer existed would there be less bad people and more good? Idk. Also what kind of good would it be? It depends how you define the good and the bad. If you have any reads that can help explain it to me I would really appreciate it. @@cliveadams7629
If you're not sure if religion is bad, you need to stop clenching your eyes shut that hard, because the answer is freaking _painfully_ obvious. But if you really need it spelled out for you, name any metric you like that sounds like a healthy society. Better healthcare? Better education? Higher education standards? Lower teen pregnancy rates? Fewer violent crimes? Lower prison populations? Higher reported levels of happiness? *_Name it,_* right now, on your own, and look at the world. You'll find out that societies that are less religious have _better_ metrics in any given subject than societies that are more religious. Even in the USA; highly religious states are miserable places to live, less religious states do better on every conceivable subject. Hell, even just in Texas, the majority of the ultra-conservative ultra-religious state is a trash heap, while the more liberal, less religious Austin is, reportedly, a halfway decent place to live, especially by comparison. It's not even a question. There's nothing vague about this. Religion is poison. What few "positives" you think you might be able to see are only positive the way a pair of crutches are helpful to someone whose legs you smashed to flinders. You'd be better off just *_not_* smashing people's legs, and to hell with the Free Crutch cult.
@@cliveadams7629not sure about that. the amount of religious people who think they will be without morality without belueve in God. they actually think they will go around on a murderous rampage without their religion.
I think another thing or two about Humans that spawns religious belief is our properties as a social species. We spend much of our existence learning things, and seeking answers. And when something happens that we lack the power to change, we ask for help. These things have evolutionary benefit. To the point where there may even be a biological or genetic drive to explain things and to seek help that is unobtainable to us. I can see a species like that ask for help, even when no one is there. And think up an answers discovered and given by no one.
Based on the comments section I can just tell that you were definitely Faron unbiased in your assessment of this video where two people had a calm respectful conversation with each other, your comment section screams calm and respectful. But I can't be surprised with the direction this channel has gone in that the comment section is radicalized so much
This radicalization is due to the ignorance the other side shows. It's not that we don't understand their position. We KNOW IT BETTER THAN THEM. We get radical because religious morons keep fucking up real world decisions based on a magic book. Stop being dumb and we'll stop being radical.
@mtdfs5147 'because there are negative aspects of religion, religion is entirely bad or at least more bad than good and never had a place in Building Society'
@@RDeathmark bro just made up an argument I didn't make. I didn't claim it NEVER had a place in society. I'm saying it doesn't have a place NOW. And that's been proven more than once because of how anti science religion has become. What's better for explaining the world? Models based on data where you can reasonably make a prediction and get that prediction via testing. Or a book that says "killing bad!" Then god kills like a child for making fun of a bald guy. Like????
@@mindlander its been literally studied for centuries. We have Nazi and US military experiments proving this. We have taken children from groups of rural people with borderline no education or worldly experience. No possible way of ever knowing about the Christian or any god. And they ALWAYS tested the exact fucking same as religiously raised people.
@@mindlander Infact we have tested the morality of ferral children in the US more then a dozen times. Kids who don't know how to walk right or speak still have the same basic sense for morality as those raised aware of religions.
@@mindlander It actually is, faith is about epistemology (why do you believe) and morality is about behavior (what do you ougth to do). Those two things are unrelated.
This debate made me look at religion as a tool. A broken tool we used in the past to draw more authority than we would otherwise had by taking advantage of the way we think and the lack of of inherent knowledge we possess naturally.
Small thing: Hard wired. Hot wired means essentially to manipulate a live wire to cause something to function, usually in the sense of bypassing normal operations (I.E. Hotwiring a car in order to bypass normal starting mechanisms which tends to be used for stealing vehicles). This sounds more like a colloquial speech thing here, but I bring it up because when speaking on brain chemical reactions and such, this could be misconstrued as an unnatural subversion of what is supposed to happen instead of what is expected and scientifically proven to happen or correlate. The topic is important enough for the clarity so just making sure in case the phrase itself was unclear. Not trying to be a dick about this 😜
"Is Religion Good for Society?" short answer no. long answer Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
It's very frustrating listening to someone like Ben talk about free will when we all know he doesn't even believe in his own premise. For one, he doesn't understand what people mean when they say that free will doesn't exist is that we are influenced by our environment and our biology, that's it. I can't will myself to suddenly be a millionaire, stip having a disability, or grow wings. Secondly, is how he argues for free will in videos like this, but will appeal to biological determinism when arguing against gay, queer, and trans rights. This is a really old school way of thinking, by which one holds controdictory world views that benefit his specific ingroup. Reminds me of how people from the 18 hundreds who talked about free will and Liberty on the one hand, while using racial "science" to justify slavery and the continued oppression caused by colonialism when they knew it was ethically wrong.
It is evil for a god or for anyone else to force people or any other life form into the type of existence where they will suffer against their will and often times suffer horribly against their will because they might not want to suffer against their will at all and that's why it's evil to force them into existence.
16:04 I couldn't agree more, I think we need more then anything to start as a society moving towards making decisions based on what we know and understand instead using "the good book" as some kind of guide to life and politics.
Alex is my new hero. He's eloquent, educated on the subject and doesn't use unfair tactics in his debates. He will continue to be a force to be reckoned with. I applaud him. I will say that Ben is obviously a very intelligent person and without a doubt his eyebrows are magnificent. And I do not jest. Honestly. Now carry on.
It's nice to see one of the few comments here that can actually admit that people can be intelligent and wrong about an argument. It's so childish to think anyone who disagrees with them must be an idiot, and very often charged as an immoral person. Unfortunately many people, especially young people, think intelligence is simply a measure of how _right_ you are.
I dont consider Shapiro uniquely intelligent. He's a fast talker and likes to gish gallop, but like his "escape hatch" position, most of his arguments lack any substance
I've been thinking about it a lot, the more we advance AI the more it seems to mimic how we work. Are we just super complex, organic LLMs? Its starting to seem more and more true.
As a philosophy student who wants to go into metaphysics, a little figurative tear rolled down my cheek when you said philosophy has no place in discovering truth about the universe. I used to think the same, but I didn't really know what philosophy actually does back then. I mean, there's a whole branch of it doing just that. I'd even say, if you're joining a conversation about the existence of god, for example trying to debunk one definition of a god, you're automatically doing philosophy (ontology to be exact). Even if you use science to argue for your position. There's a lot to unpack about the relationship between science and philosophy but I'm not gonna do it.
@thechosenegg9340 Back in college I took an elementary philosophy class and from that point, it never ceased to amuse me that the religious can't get around the fact that their god, no matter its definition, cannot be anything but beholden to logic.
@@AlexS-pv4rnwhat is logic? Are you talking about the maximum logic that can be understood by human or are you talking about a logic that goes beyond human understanding of the world due to our limitation of our sensory experience? What is this logic you invoke?? Human logic or a full exhaustive logic that humans currently do not have access to??
@@sorenjensen3863 no I’m like Wittgenstein, I don’t hold a hard belief that humanity has any idea on why we’re here and we need more clarity before we can be confident of anything. But I believe many atheists to be hard determinist which is basically a presuppositionalist without a god. Nihilism and absolute religions are two sides of the same coin in my opinion. So in summary I believe we should seek out more clarity in our language and logic and understanding of this universe before we make any absolute claims about why we exist.
This debate is an example of why people like Shabibo here almost never engage in calm, moderated discussions like these. They tend not to have anything meaningful to say, and can't hide it with rapid-fire misrepresentations.
Slight nitpick, China's CCP is strictly atheist, true, but only makes up at most ~10% of the population. More than 1/2 of Chinese have superstitious, spiritual, or ritualistic-like beliefs and practices. The Western term "religion" has to be broadened to accurately encompass everything that would otherwise be considered religious in Western cultures that are also practiced in China. The big difference is that Chinese don't usually follow *organized* religions. Their practices are more decentralized than what is seen in the West. It's still religious none the less. Pew Research has an excellent breakdown of this topic.
It seems to me that the argument of free will tends to conflate self driven action and action divorced of process. Ask those who think we have indeterminate selves, how would that work when definitionally it does not work. When we do not have a defined process to decision making, be it a physical or a metaphysical one, how do we interact with the rest of existence? The physical word might be possible to escape, but how does that get around the process of thinking ? Religious people may wish it were so, but they can they show how that even would work? Sometimes I think some people have spent their lives examining the clock of the universe, only to be disappointed that it is full of cogs and springs.
Morality comes from a chaotic mishmosh of empathy and utilitarian logic, held back by tribalism and greed, with tradition serving as a vessel for both passing down lessons (from rules against common crimes to being a good host tending to make everyone better off) as well as maintenance of demographic-based power dynamics including leadership maintaining their positions. Divine authority was just a way to get people to listen to new traditions.
@@VariantAEC How do you get more primitive than base mirror neuron functions and herd dynamics with leadership competition, and then as we got more advanced some of the stuff we learned started getting passed down via learning instead of only being passed along if it got genetically ingrained?
@Avigorus You didn't discuss base neurochemical mechanisms, not much of which covers the depth of contemporary human interaction (what dopamine, oxytocin, melatonin, adrenaline and other endocrines do to us and how they drive emotions). Back in the early days, 8.7 or so million years ago, before humans had likely developed any real forms of shared languages, there was much less to go on than what you listed above and greed looked very different but was still very real. I'm not entirely in disagreement with your above points, I'm just saying what drives humans today and back then is largely exactly the same despite our advancements in organizing civilizations. It seems that as a whole, humans can't override the basics. Humans never learned what a criminal activity really is until they committed a crime and, more importantly, experienced ramifications for their actions. If both things did not occur, the human did not learn what a crime was. And we see this today... when a person steals a car and then wrecks it, seriously injuring several others, but survives themselves facing no penalties, they learned... 'That was fun, I'll try that again sometime later.' How could one even teach when language didn't exist and when human interactions were so sparse? More well-formed, close-knit communities might not have had many hostile interpersonal engagements, further complicating matters if there was little friction within the small group. The reality is that people are largely good to each other because what is ingrained in our DNA compels humans and other animals to distance themselves from lesser trash of the same species. The way Marxism is being sold to you today is compelling because your brain is wired to take the path of least resistance socially, and this happened over a period of 80,000 to 120,000 years, maybe even longer. That ingrained compulsion to take the "path of least resistance" also compels people to believe in nonsense like man-made climate change, which has its roots in ancient history dating back more than 3,000 to 8,000 years ago with evidence that there were human sacrifices made to the gods of fair weather over 30,000 years ago. Humanity's fear of angering the climate gods is still incredibly strong today. This religious fear is now being bolstered up by mismanagement within the field of science, bringing all of science down around it. That should be disgusting if you truly favor reason and logic, but most people have been equipped with ancient brains that can not see past obvious lies that have been told for literally thousands of years (which you also learned about in school and yet still refuse to believe). Now that humans see themselves as far more powerful beings and gaslight their young into believing that they can really control the climate of the whole planet with trace gasses. Somehow, that isn't registering as religious belief amongst most atheists, though. I just love how dense these warring factions are; there is still so much unites the majority of atheists and religious folks of the world.
The interesting thing about the idea of not being able to know the mind of God being a giant escape hatch is that it's maybe a little too big of an escape hatch. If you make that argument, the escape hatch opens and your entire viewpoint falls right through because anyone can take any of your ideas and throw them through the hatch, it's not a one way ability.
I wonderful how many people are in this comment section looking for thoughts provoking info, or just for confirmation bias trying to prove their personal points through a stranger's way of understanding this conversation.
Doing better in growing from the past of what's been pre-established, fighting hunnits of thousands of years of population genetics is noble scientific pursuit. What changed from religion to science is honesty was embraced more than narrative. Scales
I think religion is both good and bad for society. On one hand Religion can provide people with a set of rules to follow throughout their lives, and it can lead to traditions like Christmas that are still widely celebrated to this day. On the other hand Many pointless and deadly conflicts have all been started over "Well my book says this!11!!!1" "Nuh uh! my book says this!!11!!"
It's the extremists that ruin it, if people actually followed their religious books to a T(like give to less fortunate, love thy neighbor, etc.) life would be better but due to greed, desire to be right and other issues, gives ground to extremism, which isn't good for anyone.
@@100to210 The westburo(not sure if I spelled that right) baptist church follows the bible "to a T" and they're one of the most hateful churches on the planet. The bible endorses slavery, genocide, stoning, rape, murder, and more. Following it to a t is what alot of the extremists do and it's the reason there is so much science denial. That's why so many ppl believe the flood and adam&eve stories but don't believe evolution. Even the most liberal, charitable interpretation of the bible still requires indoctrination and heavily encourages childhood indoctrination, which is a form of mental abuse. Religion no longer has any real purpose, everything it does can be done better without it.
@@100to210 Maybe you should give examples of things like how to treat your slaves in the book and how to keep the virgins for yourself after invading ppl it explains it abit better?
I'm not sure I agree with either of them, but I think Shapiro deserves a cookie for sounding like he's actually thought about and considered his position. He's normally completely unhinged.
@@matthewgagnon9426 for being honest about it, yeah. It's not a _good_ position and it's not particularly self aware, but it's much more honest than most of his claims. It doesn't have to be a great cookie, maybe a stale chips ahoy.
The social cohesion angle raises an interesting question for me: is it generally the social cohesion that exists which allows for religion to take root, develop and flourish, or is it religion that enables social cohesion to occur and to be maintained? It's without any doubt that social cohesion predated religion as religion pretty much requires a society of sorts to even be established. Even if religion does give birth to a new form of society it usually does so by relying on the underpinnings and existing aspects of prexisting social cohesion. Social cohesion is also possible without any form of religion, as other factors contribute to societies forming. Religion also very poignantly lends itself, indeed directly causes, social divisions through differences in beliefs and ideology. The supposed utopia that religious people believe can come from their religion is one that can only be established by everyone subscribing to the same belief system. This isn't something that happens organically for the most part, in fact it often requires efforts external to mere persuasion to convince others who don't believe as they do, such as violence and coercion, examples of which are plenty throughout history. Bottom line is I don't think religion is equitable or comparable in any way to social cohesion. It's more an aspect of it, one that can both promote or hinder depending on the circumstances, rather than a definite cause or even contributor to it.
2:09 How can you manipulate people with the ability to detect such manipulations like myself? When I lay back into the MRI machine, I know where the fields strength collapses to a point inside my body as the computer toils away, driving the electromagnets to produce the fields needed to generate the final images. I didn't need an MRI to tell me I have anomalies in my brain, I needed them to inform the doctor. In 2001, I'd already created a precursor to the ALVS subsystems that I use to observe ambient electromagnetic fields far outside the visual spectrum passively. Before 2001, I used a system that allowed me to burn more energy than I needed, so I could emit more radiation, which itself interacts with the surroundings depending on whatever material the particles interacted with. I didn't know that ionizing radiation was considered dangerous to people until after 2001, which is when I started to switch passive forms of collection. I insist that I can not directly observe magnetic fields (because I can't), but when a magnetic field is created by an electrical force... I can see it, especially if the load on the conductor is over ~3.1V or if the current is sufficient to be detected, but it gets complicated, especially since I'm new to the collective human understanding of electricity trying to translate what I know from being able to see it. I don't know anyone who will admit that there is a difference between magnetic fields from magnets and electromagnetic fields, but there has to be some distinction between these two types of magnetic fields. The only way a human can be manipulated with a magnetic field is using an electromagnetic force, which I would more than likely know I was being subjected to and can correct for by augmenting bias if abnormal neurochemical stimulation is detected. Even passive slow changes over time can be detected and stopped. I was already well aware of the precalculated response stimuli before the age of 8. By 7, I had already mastered the prediction of lighting fall down to a fraction of a second. When I was a bit older, I scared kids by 'controlling lightning' in their view. Playing hide and seek was a no-go because the human body particularly the liver, brain, and small intestines to a lesser extent the kidneys (the lungs being basically invisible to me was a surprise considering the massive trading of air molecules occurring, I guess having my visual field clouded by O2's interactions with nearly everything would not be useful) emits radiation that I can see, too. The point is that manipulation with sich fields wouldn't be as effective on the rare people who exist that can interpret the interference. Would we have 'free will'? According to your understanding of what drives the brain vs. what I'm capable of... yes, to you, I'm basically a god given your feeble understanding of what drives us to make any decision, I just see myself as slightly more aware of myself and surroundings than other humans. All people have free will, while influence can be thwarted. Freedom takes work, and if humans can influence thought with focused magnetic fields, people who do not have electroreception should more closely understand what could drive their thoughts. That actually sounds difficult. I'm glad I don't have to worry about it even when particularly powerful cosmic and geomagnetic events take out ALVS for a couple of days, but my point stands.
Holy shit that is the most chunibyo thing I've seen in the wild. Do you not realize your own delusions, or are you willingly playing into them? Wakfak bro.
Ending at 9'58, Ben makes a brilliant question we need to pay attention. I am not arguing off course in favor of religion - not a fan - but in any case it sets a ground for describing why we need ethics.
4:35 I love how Alex calmly drives the steamroller over Ben, like the scene from, *_Who Framed Roger Rabbit?_* 🐰 Ben's arguments are as hollow and as full of hot air as Judge Doom after getting flattened and puffing himself back up again. 😅
The impact of religion on society is an empirical question for the social sciences. Speculation is useful, but data are essential. In this context, free will is good for idle banter, not much else.
Religion was an unfortunate trap that may not have been avoidable with our developing brains, and it even may have been a shortcut to gain greater progress in the past, but it has long overstayed its welcome and is now an active detriment to humanity (the planet even) and is and has been a net-negative.
Philosophy doesn't compare to science .... You do know there is philosophy IN science lol. Science is inductive. Saying that philosophy doesn't lead to truth but science does does not make any logical sense
As social creatures we are hard-wired to feel empathy, and are inclined toward compassion and altruism. The foundations of morals and ethics is in our biology, nothing supernatural about it. Also, the doctrine of "Original Sin" and its permutations teaching children they are prone to evil, corrupt and flawed and broken is frankly, child abuse.
I believe some things we experience are warning shots. Michio Kaku once said, one way of measuring intelligence is the ability to predict outcomes. I recall feeling pain in dreams, and when you can experience a place some rules like a history of Earth and gravity go out the window, and that the soul is a localized experience of mind: (thought), will: (a direction I want to go), and emotion in a body. So my thoughts for what can and cannot occur are not so limited as some on planet Earth. It is said that evil people only seek rebellion, that a core recipe of every sin is uncaring selfishness either to God or to your fellow people. That those that enjoy it with much delight in their heart do not delight in being kind to others and the level of gratitude you're willing to show with what people and God can offer gives me tools to predict how you will behave. What level of faith you can produce will tell me whether will you can become wholly negative and embittered and if you're someone that can lose all of it, as it is an integral part of any functioning relationship. You know matter follows a certain set of rules the fundamental laws of physics, it always follows those rules. When it follows the rules you can play the game gravity, inertia, friction, etc. take away those rules and all you have is chaos. Anti-matter destroys matter completely, if you want to keep what matters you have to rid it of what doesn't, because what doesn't never follows any rules. Read the KJV and pray for wisdom, pray without ceasing: don't go a day without it. It is mightily presumptuous to assume that the eternal prison w/ eternal torment from an eternal arbiter does not exist. For if a type of extreme unpleasantness exists for a moment why assume not forever, and that the level of your moral decency you decided to choose in the season of Grace and Mercy bequeathed to you in Earth Realm. would not be the deciding factor to send you there. Is a 5 year getting cancer unfair or immoral? Could it be considered a spanking, to know that God is not afraid to hurt you. Know that all pain upon the earth is temporary.
I think free will can exist in a materialistic world. If thoughts are done through quantum synapses, then they could be in super positions that aren't known until the thought are decided at the time.
The question of whether religion is a force for good in the world as a debate topic almost always comes off as fundamentally flawed to me, because it almost never truly grapples with the most important metric for weighing the utility of a system; namely, in juxtaposition to other alternatives in appreciation of the particular parts of any religion's supposed merits and demerits. I could easily grant that religion is a force of good in the world and still conclude that we'd be better off without religion if there are alternative ways of attaining the same benefits without any of the baggage that comes along with religion. The question of whether religion is worth keeping around or not, is not one that can be answered by simply making a tally of its net positive versus net negative impacts. It's a question of whether it's worth keeping it around despite the possibility of better systems or ideas that don't include the problems also seemingly inherent to the religions in question. For example, going, "I've found the cure to cancer and we should all start using it" if the cure involves simultaneously giving people HIV instead, is farcical if there's an alternative cure that does not. There's no doubt in my mind that religion can and is a force for some desirable social and psychological outcomes, but insofar we live in a world in which there are plenty of healthy, happy and socially flourishing atheists, it seems trivially obvious that religion is not - in fact - inherently necessary for any of the purported goods of religion. Furthermore, when religion is also clearly not a good descriptive model of reality that also produces social ills as well, why oh why would one advocate for the continuation of faith practice in light of these observations put together? The "goods" of religion, on their own in isolation, are irrelevant. Utility and the appreciation thereof is a relativistic exercise of comparison - and, in comparing it to a healthy, pro-social secular pluralistic model of behavior which puts priority on practical concerns of truth, mental health and reflection first, it's fairly obvious why there's no reason to privilige religion in that equation. Finally, I think it's fairly telling that so many religious apologists seem to believe the human ape on average incapable of basic empathetic behavior and social cohesion without some sort of supernatural belief-system. They glibly accuse anti-supernaturalists of nihilism(which as a nihilist I soundly reject as a negative label in the first place, but I digress), when their view of humankind is several orders of magnitude more pessimistic. If you need a positive belief in a supernatural law-maker not to murder, steal or rape, I pity you, because it tells me that not only has our evolution apparently failed you in terms of developing a natural aversion against such behaviors, it also tells me that you don't have the mental rigor to think of all the ways in which indulging that behavior would be detrimental to the well-being of yourself and your community/society.
Religion is such a complicated thing to me, all at once it is somehow that means so much to so many people across different cultures and time and yet at the same time the origin of a large portion of the ignorance and cruelty we see around the world
Well there were many books that were burned during the Spanish Inquisition so yeah maybe single copies of books with certain information was destroyed that will never see the light of day
I like to call it the Free Will Paradox. example: You are driving down a road and the road dead ends into a Left or Right turn. With Free Will, you can choose left or right, the choice is up to you. HOWEVER If a God is all knowing, then if he knows you will turn right, that means you no longer have a choice as you can never turn left. Therefor Free Will is just a illusion and you never had it in the first place. Now if you CAN choose to go left that would mean God was wrong and thus he isn't all knowing.
While religion is used a justification for war, I don’t think we should imply eliminating religion would somehow say prevent the Israel/Palestine conflict from happening - geopolitics would cynically use something else to perpetuate war
O'Conner seems so relaxed and calm, taking his time to explain and understand. Shapiro seems rushed as if he needs to get his point across before people start thinking for themselves.
I tend to agree religion is a net negative on society. What i would love to see is a serious debate on whether the Internet is a good for society. A serious debate not trolls or idiots. I can see benefits and negatives, a large amount of both. Of course, there is no true answer but love to see some serious folks debate it.
Can we take the time to acknowledge that Prof Stick says that he personally believes all things are predetermined, then has the intellectual honesty to also say he has no evidence for that. And moved on.. that should be how religous people should act.. instead of insisting on there being some elusive convoluted evidence and try to control others with that shakey foundation.
I don't think methodological naturalism and other non-theistic philosophies necessarily claim that "a material universe is the cause of all." It's more that we know the material universe exists. That's a good place to start. There's no indication of there being anything else to suggest might be involved at this time.
If everything is not predictable then there would be no future? And I'm not saying specific paths of predictability like "he will go and buy a light bulb for that one stair light" more like probability theory where there's a high probability of the range of things to occur sort of like the two slit experiment demonstrates.
I think they could have gone deeper, into both the pros and cons of religion and what it does. Granted, they only had so much time to attempt to facilitate a somewhat equal playing field. To show what I am saying let’s try to look at what religion is. By most people’s definition, you might get something like an organization which believes in something divine or supernatural. While this is probably the most Pragmatic definition, it only really says the result. Religion is closer to a Corporation, Nation, Tribe, Community, Fan Club, and more where its primary historical purpose resulted in people of several cultures to find unity. In this way, all that I listed were the best ways people could do what the internet does for us in Modern days, before it existed. All of the things I listed have quite similar consequences as religion does, in creating “us versus them” and various forms of division. So if you are looking at religion, and it’s worth to society, you aren’t looking at how it can bring people together. But, if it’s worth it to encourage a wide amount of people to believe in something which has no physical or material presence. All of the most popular religions of today either believe in an Omni-god, have the afterlife as a central focus, bring attention to a more abstract/spiritual side of existence, or multiple of the above. This is because, quite frankly, thinking the Sun is being driven my a chariot has gone out of fashion. The Divine isn’t there to explain the physical phenomena anymore, or at least the most resilient and popular religions don’t seem to prioritize that. If we are just talking the social benefits of religion, then I would say those are unnecessary. We do not need religion anymore to help us understand people of different cities, villages, or provinces, not even different nations or continents. We have other ways to do it, and in some ways religion actually gets us stuck in the “same” instead. However, I think seeking understanding beyond the physical, and into the immaterial or abstract might still be important. Sure, we have philosophy and I myself enjoy looking at it, and doing my own research, but religion is more easily digestible and takes less energy to get into. It’s like how the first guns may have failed more often than a bow, but because they were easier to use they caught on more than just training someone with a bow. The common man will not be able to understand Ontology or Epistemology, but they can read the Bible or the Veda.
I would argue humans seek entertainment as an aversion to idleness/boredom. And it would make sense that the brian evolved this aversion in a period when humans had to struggle to survive, being idle meant not acting toward survival. And if all humans only seek wants as a means to escape this evolved idleness aversion, then our wills are not free.
I think it's worth mentioning that there are religions that don't believe in free will. I.e. Calvinism was formulated as a rejection of the idea of free will.
Before even watching most of this video, I just want to say... People have always found reason to war on each other. Religion is not unique in that role. None of the reasons used are bad in of themselves (none of the reasons that pop to mind immediately as I write this anyways), it's just that they are being used to justify something bad. Religion is like everything else. It's not about whether religion is good or bad, it's about how it's being used, and who is using it. I bet if those in power didn't have religion to oppress others, or as a justification for their misdeeds, they would just use something else.
Exactly- once the Wars of Religion were finished, the powers that be immediately turned first to nationalism, then political ideologies. No shortage of reasons to hare.
@@michaelnewsham1412 I have to correct you a bit there. Nationalism started to spread in the 19th century, on occasion (french revolution, american war of independence) in the 18th century. Before that you could just argue with simple "wanting to have more" since it was mostly pushed on by small groups or even one person (absolute monarchy).
The beauty of puttinf ben weasel shapiro against someone who actually knows what he is talking about is amazing Ben is just stuttering and fumbling his way through this... Its beautiful
Ben should have to wear a white yarmulke. I think christians wouldn't listen to him as much if it was more clear that he is Jewish. I hate him either way, and not for being Jewish, but it's like he is hiding his religion to be a christian nationalist.
Well, whether they are Jewish, Christian or even Muslim, they all follow a very similar set of beliefs that believe there is an objective morality and since you and I are not followers of that belief means we deserve divine punishment. That's the problem I have with these religions, our beliefs in a supernatural deity shouldn't determine our "judgement" by a god. Not believing it not worshipping a specific deity isn't justification to punish people.
@@LisaAnn777 I agree but a lot of far right Christians are Anti-Semites and Ben just feeds off of their hatred for anyone not in their "group" when he himself is not in that group.
I don’t accept the idea of no free will and I really don’t like the way that concept is being used to excuse all kinds of behaviour. I’m convinced it’s possible to train yourself into going against your basic instincts and decide for yourself how you want to react to the impulses you get. I’m a natural born killing machine, that’s in my blood, yet I’ve never killed somebody in anger. I trained myself to control my anger. Now purely considering free will as some kind of consciousness over matter, that’s just a ridiculous idea as our consciousness comes from our body and brain with all its chemistry driving it. But anyway, no need for some outside entity. All you need to do is accept your impulses for what they are and use, ignore or redirect them as you see fit. This conversation here isn’t actually a debate (a debate being an open and honest conversation discussing facts) but a fight over semantics. US schools don’t teach people how to discuss topics towards a solution, they teach how to win the fight on technical points. Debating isn’t and shouldn’t be a boxing match but a tool to better yourself and the world around you.
Religion isn't a disease on society, it's more like a vestigial organ. Religion at one point had an important function in the development of societies and now it has lost most or all of its importance and can indeed be very harmful.
Religion is a double edged sword. On the one hand evil people are able to change once they believe. Good people can become extremists because of their faith. I suppose it’s a matter of seeing if that balance is worth it.
There’s never been moral absolutes and there never will be. No law system, religious or secular doesn’t deal with absolutes. All laws are created to make society a functioning entity. Laws are basically put in place to prevent humans from “humaning”.
O'Conner: "Religions assert ownership of things that those religions were previously against"
Shapiro: "I'd buy that, except [*asserts religious ownership of things those religions were previously against*]"
It's rare to see someone so clearly reinforce their opponent's position.
Accidentally steelmanning Alex's points. 😅
Conor is wrong. Religious people were diverse.
@@razoredge6130 Only if you put religion above the people in that example...which is a mistake.
It's like religion is dragged forwards kicking and screaming - and then once in awhile it looks back and says "Look how far I've brought you..." 😆
@@LadyDoomsinger When you claim anything including magic...well your set for anything...sadly they bring their own bias and needs into the religion instead of just saying god>all. End of story.
Ugh. Ben is just irritating to watch. I also hate his whole "I don't claim to understand it all so I don't have a burden of proof for everything I assert....but you have the burden for anything you assert" and "I have a big escape hatch" routine. It's such a weasel move.
"I don't understand, but I still claim to be correct and will push my ideology onto other people, whether they want it or not"..
His outright statement of "I have an escape hatch" is just him tacitly admitting he's absolutely full of shit and daring people to call him out on it.
He's literally paid to be an irritant, so I suppose Shapiro is -whoring himself out- doing his job properly.
he dances around the problems with excuses. thats mostly what i have heard come out of his face
It's not whether or not Ben understands what he asserts, it's whether or not he asserts anything.
If people don't have a burden of proof in things they don't understand but assert regardless, then science deniers clearly don't have a burden of proof because they lack an understanding in science.
And that just makes things worse.
It's really telling that Ben is used to "debating" unprepared college kids. He's clearly outmatched.
What I despise is that's how these major conservative people get popularity.
They'll debate a college kid, who hasn't had any experience in debate...
Then the thumbnail says "BEN SHAPIRO OWNS CRYING LIBERAL ON TRANSGENDERISM"
Or some shit like that
When Ben dodged the question and tried to pivot away from the point by saying, "which is more likely, that a guy coming to kill you is doing so for selfish reasons or because he has religious conviction that he should kill you?"
Well, Ben, that's an attempt to change the subject, but the answer is, "if I were an out homosexual almost anywhere in the world, probability would favor the motive being religious"
That move was pure Ben BS..
Not to mention that a guy who is coming to kill you for religious reasons *_is doing it for selfish reasons._* Oh hmm gee the two options are 'cake' and 'chocolate cake' it's such a dilemma of two mutually-exclusive answers oh gee oh dear.
It isn't like religious people ever think "Man God is asking me to do stuff again he's such a jerk making me do shit I don't like". God is a figment of their imagination, they're doing what they want and justifying it by thinking their imaginary friend is dangling a reward at them for good behaviour. Inherently, openly selfish.
@@EdwardHowtonso you don't think religion makes otherwise good people do bad things. You really believe people would be suicide bombers regardless?
@@mindlander Are they really good for doing such a horrible act, no matter how "real" their devotion is to them? Can they be otherwise good and then out of the blue do a suicide bombing? If god has to ask a person to do things like that, is that god good? Why should you listen to that? Where does their personal responsibility and free will end? Or start? Nothing about religion is good. All churches are just one fanatic away from turning into terrorists..
@@mindlander
He wasn't saying that. He was saying religion is inherently selfish so Ben's arguing was a false dichotomy and completely shìt. 💁♂️
First time I've ever agreed with Shapiro. Any conversation with him is worthless.
I got to admit, Ben was able to rein in all but the last dregs of his usual proclivity to spew lies and fallacy. Something about Alex seems to make him want to be as honest as he can be.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394his calmness. Shapiro's whole shtick is wait for his interlocutors to rile themselves up while putting on an air of calm on his end, which is normally easy since the topic is always something that doesn't him personally and affects his opponents immensely. If I were to hold your dog at gunpoint, I guarantee I would be a lot calmer than you. That just doesn't work with Alex, who's calm past the point of sainthood. So Shapiro's best move is to have a pleasant, open conversation and make it seem like their opinions are equal.
@@sigmascrub Makes sense. He's part of that crowd who use every means available to "win" an argument, just so long as it doesn't involve actually being right.
Even a broken watch is right twice a day.
Shapiro might have some opinions I agree with from time to time, but as a whole I'm not really a fan
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 Lies and fallacies. You are the one lying.
A debate between someone with a fully-functioning brain and a (regrettably) living, breathing example of how religion harms society?
I see two fully functional intellects and one of them being wrong, in my opinion Ben. I wish people would abandon this childish notion that whoever's on the side they think is wrong must necessarily be an idiot. They're both highly intelligent and Ben didn't get a Harvard law degree by only having a semi-functional brain.
@@Durzo1259 Remember when Ben said people should just sell thier homes and move if climate change floods low elevation cities. This guy is an idiot or a grifter delibretly acting like an idiot to make money.
@@Durzo1259 Don't confuse intelligence with ability to pass exams.
I know people with PhDs who are thick as a brick and not someone you would go to for advice or answers.
Listening to Shapiro over the years, he sounds intelligent but has an inability to seriously reflect over his viewpoints and simply pushes them as correct even when they are quite obviously not.
@@tomstamford6837I completely agree. Even the smartest person will be considered dumb if they deny facts based on their opinions. I try not to fall into this pit of "I'm never wrong" even on things I'm experienced with for fear of getting into this denial mentality.
@@IiiiIiiIllIl As long as you're aware of this then you will be fine.
It's when you don't and have even the most innocent of sense of infallibility is when you come to grief.
Shapiro’s dodge of Alex’s argument by the challenge “which is more probable, that someone would be coming to kill you for selfish reasons but is stopped by his religion (the idea that their god is against murder), or that someone would be coming to kill you for religious reasons?”, is a challenge I am welcome to take on.
Look at all the bloodbaths through history… humans often tend to be very warmongering. Yet most humans through history were religious. It never stopped them. In fact, we have many examples of wars started on religious motives, and very few of wars avoided because of religious motives.
And even in modern times: the least religious places on earth are statistically overwhelmingly atheistic. The prison population is overwhelmingly religious. And the most recent example of an atrocity is happening in Israel, pretty clearly perpetrated by religious people.
Yeah, it was an incredibly stupid thing for him to say. And I'm pretty sure that literally the only reason he felt comfortable saying it is because of the old _"WWII was the fault of atheism!!!"_ propaganda that apologists and preachers love so much. Because without that lie, they have absolutely nothing to back up the claim that irreligious societies would somehow be worse than religious ones.
In the 20th century alone more people were murdered by atheist regimes than in all crusades and jihads combined. And that's after less than a hundred years or so of becoming a "mainstream" worldview.
The prison population isn’t overly religion because of religion though. What do you think the main factor is that causes people to be in jail in America?? You think it’s they’re religious?? That’s a horrible false equivalency, at least be competent and coherent when you make a point. Maybe understand socioeconomic conditions and also systemic racism because you assert a position that has no basis to the underlying reason. I’m not religious, I’m an atheist but this doesn’t do anything to convince people of anything. Your argument is just ad absurdum.
@@henrytep8884
Even if the prison population didn't commit crime "because" of religion, the data clearly doesn't suggest that people would commit more crime if they were less religious (which is half of the challenge... Religion doesn't stop people from committing crimes... clearly).
As for the other half of the challenge, we know very well that at least some crime very often IS religiously motivated (terrorism, child mutilation, war crimes... to just name a few.)
@@TsunamiNR you talking about circumcision or some other form of child mutilation? I don’t think circumcision is a legal crime, let’s be honest, and secular terrorism also exist especially done in the name of white nationalism. Yes the Middle East have some insane relationship with religion but that’s because of the Muslim religion more than it is because of the Jews in Israel. Even then, Muslim on Muslim religious wars are way more common and deadly versus the Jews fighting Muslims, this is straight facts. I’m not advocating for religion, I’m secular, but this doesn’t mean we get to make weak arguments like every argument you’ve literally made. Why not just be more intellectual rigorous with your argument and maybe you don’t have to make such emotionally charged statements that aren’t based off anything concrete. You’re not going to win anyone by being disingenuous with your rhetoric, it comes off blind and ignorant.
Thanks, professor, I haven't seen an Alex O'Conner video in a long time.
Debates of this Atheist vs Theist type were what got me started on TH-cam. Those long multi-person affairs in front of large audiences where some of the greats like Dawson, Hitchens, Fry, Dennet, were usually running roughshod over their opponents.
I have to admit I hold Shapiro in the same contempt I hold the new rolling, odometer, style of views, likes and time counters TH-cam has adopted. I watched this likes counter on this video go from something like 89 to 00 and then 08 and then 12 and then 122. Right now it's saying 1, 4 or 5, 0.
The views, likes and comments are a server thing. TH-cam got lots of servers and you will be using the one that is the best for you but comes at a cost of the counts being inaccurate as it tries to update.
Yeah, as the guy before me said, any new video with a high engagement will have crazy and random looking view numbers on the individual client side until the views get post s certain point where the difference between individual servers is insignificant. Each one will keep it's own count and only update the real total every now and then. There's probably some other weirdness in there too knowing TH-cam
Religion is the cornerstone to the eventual collapse of any society..... A society embracing science, to me, is one that will embrace more openness, care more for human life and love what's around them, all while trying to push mankind to the stars.....
I consider Ben Shapiro's intellectual level to be slightly above of Kent Hovind, that's why I didn't even watch the debate.
This concise overview is so nice to have. Thank you. 👍
DOCTOR Kent Hovind thank you very much... 🤣
Alex is right.
Society progresses despite religion not b/c religion.
People have always had strange belief systems. Before 'proper religions' existed, do you think people didn't believe in some arbiter of their demise?
Let me ask this another way... Do you believe human CO2 emissions are causing the Earth's climate to warm?
@@VariantAEC any part of the co2 emissions over what is possibly needed that end up in the atmosphere blocking heat in do cause climate to warm yes? At least for around 1000years when it possibly may have fallen down again?
@@skagenpige88
"any part of the CO2 emissions over what is possibly needed to that end up in the atmosphere blocking heat in do cause the climate to warm yes?
No, but thanks for confirming that you believe that an increase of CO2 less than one in thirty-eight-thousanth of our atmosphere will warm the climate.
Venus is hot because its atmosphere is really dense while Mars is practically an ice ball despite having an atmosphere with 2% less CO2 by volume than Venus' atmosphere, but there is still 2,400 times more CO2 by volume in Mars' atmosphere than in Earth's atmosphere.
I know, when you actually know these things the CO2 excuse looks pretty wrong when you factor in at the small changes in solar irradiance provided by proximity between all three planets in this solar system and the sun. How could a 150PPMv increase cause more than a 2°C rise in temperatures? It can't.
Even if we are just talking about CO2 gas in isolation subjected to specific bamds of IR light or simulated sunlight, the result won't be an infinity warming loop.
This idea of CO2 warming the entire planet so much is an absolutely preposterous one.
It’s been a minute since I’ve seen Professor Stick pop up. The introduction of a mic (presumably to drop on occasion) is a great touch lol.
I haven’t believed in free will for thirty years, and it hasn’t changed the way I live my life. I rarely ever think about it because in the end it really doesn’t matter.
Guess it doesn't matter... but since you don't believe in free will you must believe something drives you to do the things you do.
What in the world pushes you to do anything that might not benefit you? Is it social pressure? Biological urges? A mix of the above or something else?
@@VariantAECCognition. The ability to be alive is a pressure that ensures we take action to survive. Some people don't have that and they unalive themselves. Overall our subjective and collective memories shape how we perceive the world around us. And how it guides human behavior over generations.
Or there could be other arbitrary reasons 🤷
Humans are complex and weird socially. Every individual is a superposition of possibility. Some take control of it, others coast.
Just live your life and have fun 😊
@@VariantAECAlso I think the ability to learn is another massive driving factor. You know that feeling where something that was difficult to understand just "clicks"?
Early on in child development this happens a lot. You could draw a comparison to AI and reinforcement learning; new information is stimulating!
Ben Shaboopi should visit a few poor neighborhoods and ask those folks how much control over their lives they feel they have.
Are you referencing a particular part of the video?
If its about the free will bit... when has lack of wealth stopped people from doing whatever they want regardless?
@@VariantAEC I guessed it depends on how deep you want to take free will. Does a poor person skip teeth brushing because they want to or because they can't afford a new brush? Can the same person just quit their job and go on vacation? The point is that there are many factors beyond our own individual will that affects whether or not we can do whatever we might want. It's hard to enact free will when you have prior engagements that are required to do things like eat and have a home. No free will to follow your dreams in that.
@@sandeman1776
Lol, no, there isn't. You can use pine or oak bark from anywhere or these days you can just steal a toothbrush if you are so inclined in a hypothetical scenario you just created for me. What stops a poor person from doing any of that? Literally nothing.
There is no excuse. It's not like we're talking about doing something that requires some real expertise there. When it comes to convincing others to let you do something they might not otherwise do so that you can also participate, then we are talking about stuff that extends beyond your free will to others and then you aren't talking about free will in its only real context.
A living being's free will is exclusive to that one organism. Nothing stops anyone from stealing a toothbrush in this hypothetical scenario if that person really needed it and were too poorly educated or have too much pride to reduce themselves to using natural remedies or trying to brush your teeth with a plastic comb or something else that could get the job done... at the same time, theft may be stopped by another person's own free will.
All that might be perceived by you as the illusion of no freedom of choice, but the reality is that your perspective is clearly incorrect and you have demonstrated that you are looking beyond your own actions when free will doesn't include other living entities feelings. You have all the freedom you could ever want and more... It's just limited to your own actions, and those actions can carry hefty consequences or none at all.
Things get much more complicated when we add the effects of learned interactions between organisms over time, but that again extends beyond your free will, and you can not always know what any given stranger will think of any action you make.
What surprises me is how polite Ben is in this debate, I'm so used to seeing him being an ass online!
He knows his debate points are weak, so he tries to score pity points with behaviour?
He tries to be deceptive in the prasing of his assertions and examples instead. Still doesn't work though 😂
He knows he's outmatched so he doesn't want to irritate Alex
I think that's due to the setting. Alex O'Connor isn't there to win, but to understand and come to conclussions. His entire life seems to depend on the pursuit of truth, and I'm under the impression that Ben realized that. Alex isn't a man who seeks the desctruction of others. He remains respectful and honest, taking all points seriously even though some may seem ridiculous. People can feel when they are being heard, and I believe that's why Ben seems to be so different here in comparision to other debates
I can't stand the idea of watching this because I absolutely hate Ben Shapiro and am sad Alex wasted his time.
I can't stand Shapiro, he gets on my nerves so bad..
@@einienj3281 A splinter in human form.
@@robsquared2 A big splinter!
I ditest the king of the jews as much as you, but this debate was well rounded and informative. It's always best to stock up on beneficial knowledge to defend our positions.
No. It absolutely isn't good for society. We've seen it over and over again.
You have to speak for yourself because there are just as many good examples of peace being brought upon by religious synergy. For 800 years there was a time that Jews, Christian’s, and Muslims lived in peace. So it’s not fair to say it’s not good just like how it’s not fair to say it’s necessary. Like anything that spins our societies round and round there’s pros and cons, good and bad to everything. Religions brings peace and stability to people, but it can be abused to manipulate the masses. That’s why responsible and accountable people must be the ones qualified to give religion a good name. It’s not necessary to have a religion, as long as you have a belief. If that belief is science, and you’re intellectually convinced science is the truth then more power to you.
@@ZunamiRevert"Religion brings peace" to whom? Lying to yourself about death and people killing each other over which one is correct, women being oppressed.. yeah, if that's peace, then I'm not buying..
@@ZunamiRevertsaying religious people managed to live together doesn't prove religion is good for society. Those people were much more likely to continue living in peace if they didn't have those religious beliefs to eventually fight over.
@@robadams1645 Exactly. And how many were pressured or forced to "believe" or get stoned etc to death for not believing?
i think it depends. there are plenty of people who have improved their lives because of the illusion that they are watched and judged by an all powerful God. i dont think those are good people tho. and it comes with dangers. and i totaly agree that everything good that can potentially come from religion. is very achievable without the religion part
On the free will thing: I like something that TMM once said. I don't remember the exact wording he used, but 'even in a completely deterministic universe, things like debates, conversations, and the justice system are important because having different inputs can change the output'.
We'll never know for sure, but I get the sense that our world would be more decent, empathetic, humane, and peaceful if organized religions were not a part of the human experience ...
That's probably true for any group of people.
@@mindlander
Nah, remove groups like secularists or egalitarianism and the earth turns to a hell hole. If these groups weren't around to force religious faiths to play nice and take moderate positions just to look attractive they've just continued using swords and force to enforce themselves on everyone and continued holy wars would have kept society at a medieval age for another few thousand years. 💁♂️
REAL SHIT 🥶🥶🥶
@@mindlandercharities?
However you could still argue that religion can make things better because it organized people. Regardless fairytales are fairytales
Well, Shapiro was finally right about something. Conversations with him are worthless.
But it's pretty funny that he just doesn't consider that the things we do (including talking about stuff like this) *_*are*_* part of the "environment" that influences our actions in a deterministic setting.
So conversations with anyone who disagrees with you are worthless. Never mind the value of an exchange of ideas and exploring ways of thinking, either you agree with how right I am or there's no value to the conversation.
This is the epitome of anti-intellectualism.
@@Durzo1259 There's no value to be gained in "debating" with a con-man who isn't arguing in good faith. You can see it clearly he has no actual experience beyond "debating" unprepared college kids, as half his "arguments" are either simple strawmens, other falacies, or just straight up untrue.
@@Durzo1259
Shapiro is a worthless propagandist. Not merely "someone I disagree with." The less people engage with that clown's disingenuous garbage, the better.
@@salomaogomes7311 Are all his arguments fallacious, or does he just have enough fallacious arguments about things you care about to make him offend you as a person, so you won't acknowledge when he gets anything right?
I don't remotely see a con man here, I see a theist arguing as well as a theist can from an untenable position by trying to rationalize how to make it work. This does not make you a liar or a disingenuous conman, it simply makes you wrong and have flawed reasoning.
@@Durzo1259 Yes, they are, because they're all coming from a predetermined position he has no intention of changing. He isn't "debating", he's just looking for clout and for some "gotcha" moment he can show his idiotic fanbase and continue his reich-wing grift.
The best argument I've been able to use to get religious people to be on your side _(such as wearing masks during the COVID-19 crisis, or climate change)_ is to say:
_"I'm non-religious, but if I were, I'd say 'god gave you a brain, and he'd want you to use it.' Don't throw away his greatest gift."_
It normally gets them on board for accepting scientific evidence and planning ahead. Because they believe _(whether it's true or not)_ that god wants them to think logically and adhere to some amount of the scientific method.
I also find telling religious people that I'm non-religious is far less _"offensive"_ or _"provocative"_ than saying I'm an atheist. They don't throw up that _"iron curtain"_ because you're not perceived as an enemy.
When a Christian abolitionist opposes a Christian anti-abolitionist, either outcome can be consider a victory built on Christian values.
To borrow from Sam Harris, this is playing tennis without the net.
This was a really cool debate to watch. I am still undecided on if religion is good, bad or just neutral for society. There is such a broad range of beliefs that can cause many things. It can cause harm but can also benefit. I am from a place where over 80% of people believe in the same religion. I have met some amazing people and horrible people apart of this religion. I've seen religion cause death and save lives. The biggest issue for me is the tribalism of religion. It becomes group against group and because there is no proof for any religion having the answer. It comes from the fear of the unknown and cognitive dissonance. Many things follow this pattern as well. People do not want to question core beliefs and want to always have a reason for explaining the unknown. This it the big question for me right now. I don't think hoping or believing in a religion is bad but I do think mega churches and books that tell you how to live and who to hate is bad as humans really do suck when power is involved. I relate religions to companies a lot. There are some good ones but there are also some horrible ones.
I think for me the question is Is it ok to believe in something that has no scientific proof?
I don't know. It seems to help people and harm people. Is it worth the pros considering the cons or is better to have neither?
This comes mostly from personal experience and watching a lot of these debates.
I would love to hear what other people think and why
Great Video, love your stuff :)
Edit:
I just watched a few spiritual deconstruction videos and have swayed. I believe in thr innate good of people. If the beilief of hod vanished people wouldn't go around and do whatever they wanted. Under our social contract and our evolutionary innate to do good and our empathy is where my beliefs come from. I think from this i can say that if religion did go away it would make the world better as we wouldn't be as split which causes the bad things to happen. No one knows if god does exist or doesn't. The beat answer we have is IDK and uncertainty. Thanks to all those who commented. Loved hear the different perspectives.
Well the religious people who do good would most likely do as much good without it. Which leaves you with those who do bad things because of religion, who most likely would not do evil without a god telling them to.
I do like your point and can agree with it, but I don't know how we would be able to test if this was true. If religion no longer existed would there be less bad people and more good? Idk. Also what kind of good would it be? It depends how you define the good and the bad. If you have any reads that can help explain it to me I would really appreciate it.
@@cliveadams7629
If you're not sure if religion is bad, you need to stop clenching your eyes shut that hard, because the answer is freaking _painfully_ obvious.
But if you really need it spelled out for you, name any metric you like that sounds like a healthy society. Better healthcare? Better education? Higher education standards? Lower teen pregnancy rates? Fewer violent crimes? Lower prison populations? Higher reported levels of happiness? *_Name it,_* right now, on your own, and look at the world. You'll find out that societies that are less religious have _better_ metrics in any given subject than societies that are more religious. Even in the USA; highly religious states are miserable places to live, less religious states do better on every conceivable subject. Hell, even just in Texas, the majority of the ultra-conservative ultra-religious state is a trash heap, while the more liberal, less religious Austin is, reportedly, a halfway decent place to live, especially by comparison.
It's not even a question. There's nothing vague about this. Religion is poison. What few "positives" you think you might be able to see are only positive the way a pair of crutches are helpful to someone whose legs you smashed to flinders. You'd be better off just *_not_* smashing people's legs, and to hell with the Free Crutch cult.
You could ask this about any group of people. Would it be better if there were no Chinese people? American people?
@@cliveadams7629not sure about that. the amount of religious people who think they will be without morality without belueve in God. they actually think they will go around on a murderous rampage without their religion.
I think another thing or two about Humans that spawns religious belief is our properties as a social species. We spend much of our existence learning things, and seeking answers. And when something happens that we lack the power to change, we ask for help. These things have evolutionary benefit. To the point where there may even be a biological or genetic drive to explain things and to seek help that is unobtainable to us. I can see a species like that ask for help, even when no one is there. And think up an answers discovered and given by no one.
Hey Prof, there's a spelling error in your description. Alex's name is completely wrong. It should be "Alex O'Connor" not "Aelx O'Conner." ^^
... and a week later, that still wasn't corrected. :-|
No mention of Ben is complete without reference to "...fucking Aquaman?".
Based on the comments section I can just tell that you were definitely Faron unbiased in your assessment of this video where two people had a calm respectful conversation with each other, your comment section screams calm and respectful. But I can't be surprised with the direction this channel has gone in that the comment section is radicalized so much
This radicalization is due to the ignorance the other side shows. It's not that we don't understand their position. We KNOW IT BETTER THAN THEM.
We get radical because religious morons keep fucking up real world decisions based on a magic book.
Stop being dumb and we'll stop being radical.
You want to justify religion? Justify any part of the Israel Palestine conflict while not taking sides (because killing is bad right?).
@mtdfs5147 'because there are negative aspects of religion, religion is entirely bad or at least more bad than good and never had a place in Building Society'
@@RDeathmark bro just made up an argument I didn't make. I didn't claim it NEVER had a place in society. I'm saying it doesn't have a place NOW.
And that's been proven more than once because of how anti science religion has become.
What's better for explaining the world? Models based on data where you can reasonably make a prediction and get that prediction via testing. Or a book that says "killing bad!" Then god kills like a child for making fun of a bald guy.
Like????
We know without a doubt faith and morality are not related.
Because of that fact I argue faith has zero benefits that outweigh it's harm. .
That's not a fact. Just fyi.
@@mindlander its been literally studied for centuries. We have Nazi and US military experiments proving this.
We have taken children from groups of rural people with borderline no education or worldly experience. No possible way of ever knowing about the Christian or any god.
And they ALWAYS tested the exact fucking same as religiously raised people.
@@mindlander Infact we have tested the morality of ferral children in the US more then a dozen times. Kids who don't know how to walk right or speak still have the same basic sense for morality as those raised aware of religions.
@@mindlander It actually is, faith is about epistemology (why do you believe) and morality is about behavior (what do you ougth to do). Those two things are unrelated.
@@Julian0101 you don't know what related means. Seriously, look it up.
my definition of free will is simply the ability to defy instinct... that's it.
"Moral absolutes"
Where is he getting this? Is there a presupposition in *every* defense of religion?
This debate made me look at religion as a tool. A broken tool we used in the past to draw more authority than we would otherwise had by taking advantage of the way we think and the lack of of inherent knowledge we possess naturally.
Small thing: Hard wired.
Hot wired means essentially to manipulate a live wire to cause something to function, usually in the sense of bypassing normal operations (I.E. Hotwiring a car in order to bypass normal starting mechanisms which tends to be used for stealing vehicles).
This sounds more like a colloquial speech thing here, but I bring it up because when speaking on brain chemical reactions and such, this could be misconstrued as an unnatural subversion of what is supposed to happen instead of what is expected and scientifically proven to happen or correlate. The topic is important enough for the clarity so just making sure in case the phrase itself was unclear.
Not trying to be a dick about this 😜
6:42
Stopped at "china is an atheistic country and operates perfectly fine" @17:40 +
I didn't stop there but that statement definitely jarred with me. Chinese people under the CCP are certainly not "fine".
@@darren_anscombe I confess to watching it all.
"Is Religion Good for Society?" short answer no. long answer Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Buddhism is good though.
It's very frustrating listening to someone like Ben talk about free will when we all know he doesn't even believe in his own premise.
For one, he doesn't understand what people mean when they say that free will doesn't exist is that we are influenced by our environment and our biology, that's it. I can't will myself to suddenly be a millionaire, stip having a disability, or grow wings.
Secondly, is how he argues for free will in videos like this, but will appeal to biological determinism when arguing against gay, queer, and trans rights.
This is a really old school way of thinking, by which one holds controdictory world views that benefit his specific ingroup. Reminds me of how people from the 18 hundreds who talked about free will and Liberty on the one hand, while using racial "science" to justify slavery and the continued oppression caused by colonialism when they knew it was ethically wrong.
It is evil for a god or for anyone else to force people or any other life form into the type of existence where they will suffer against their will and often times suffer horribly against their will because they might not want to suffer against their will at all and that's why it's evil to force them into existence.
16:04 I couldn't agree more, I think we need more then anything to start as a society moving towards making decisions based on what we know and understand instead using "the good book" as some kind of guide to life and politics.
Alex is my new hero. He's eloquent, educated on the subject and doesn't use unfair tactics in his debates. He will continue to be a force to be reckoned with. I applaud him. I will say that Ben is obviously a very intelligent person and without a doubt his eyebrows are magnificent. And I do not jest. Honestly. Now carry on.
It's nice to see one of the few comments here that can actually admit that people can be intelligent and wrong about an argument. It's so childish to think anyone who disagrees with them must be an idiot, and very often charged as an immoral person. Unfortunately many people, especially young people, think intelligence is simply a measure of how _right_ you are.
I dont consider Shapiro uniquely intelligent. He's a fast talker and likes to gish gallop, but like his "escape hatch" position, most of his arguments lack any substance
I've been thinking about it a lot, the more we advance AI the more it seems to mimic how we work. Are we just super complex, organic LLMs? Its starting to seem more and more true.
Determinism says yes.
AI is simple. The human mistake is believing you are truly complex.
Israel Palestine is about racism and tribalism. Religion is just a cloak these people use to validate their bigotry.
As a philosophy student who wants to go into metaphysics, a little figurative tear rolled down my cheek when you said philosophy has no place in discovering truth about the universe. I used to think the same, but I didn't really know what philosophy actually does back then. I mean, there's a whole branch of it doing just that.
I'd even say, if you're joining a conversation about the existence of god, for example trying to debunk one definition of a god, you're automatically doing philosophy (ontology to be exact). Even if you use science to argue for your position.
There's a lot to unpack about the relationship between science and philosophy but I'm not gonna do it.
@thechosenegg9340 Back in college I took an elementary philosophy class and from that point, it never ceased to amuse me that the religious can't get around the fact that their god, no matter its definition, cannot be anything but beholden to logic.
@@AlexS-pv4rnwhat is logic? Are you talking about the maximum logic that can be understood by human or are you talking about a logic that goes beyond human understanding of the world due to our limitation of our sensory experience? What is this logic you invoke?? Human logic or a full exhaustive logic that humans currently do not have access to??
@@henrytep8884are you a presuppositionalist?
@@sorenjensen3863 no I’m like Wittgenstein, I don’t hold a hard belief that humanity has any idea on why we’re here and we need more clarity before we can be confident of anything. But I believe many atheists to be hard determinist which is basically a presuppositionalist without a god. Nihilism and absolute religions are two sides of the same coin in my opinion.
So in summary I believe we should seek out more clarity in our language and logic and understanding of this universe before we make any absolute claims about why we exist.
@henrytep8884 ok. Then any god concept is beholden to logic, even at our current understanding of said logic. You question doesn't make much sense
I’m paused 3 seconds in and the answer is no.
Thank you all for coming to my TedTalk! Goodnight!
I'm surprised the Gish Galloping baby man didn't rage quit like he did on Andrew Neil.
He seems to want Alex's respect.
Calm , respectful and full of substance . this is how debates of this nature should be handled .
I disagree. Ben is a paid grifter. He knows he is lying. Sometimes, the not calm rhetorical strategy is the better one.
This debate is an example of why people like Shabibo here almost never engage in calm, moderated discussions like these. They tend not to have anything meaningful to say, and can't hide it with rapid-fire misrepresentations.
Alex is making a hell of a case for a new reformation.
It's surprising to see Ben actually try to engage with the debate. Usually he's like a pigeon playing chess.
Slight nitpick, China's CCP is strictly atheist, true, but only makes up at most ~10% of the population. More than 1/2 of Chinese have superstitious, spiritual, or ritualistic-like beliefs and practices. The Western term "religion" has to be broadened to accurately encompass everything that would otherwise be considered religious in Western cultures that are also practiced in China. The big difference is that Chinese don't usually follow *organized* religions. Their practices are more decentralized than what is seen in the West. It's still religious none the less. Pew Research has an excellent breakdown of this topic.
all those practices are compatible with atheism. the inly thing that doesnt make someone an atheist, is the believe in a God.
I watched this conversation and the culmination of his entire aregument is basically "i have no strong opinions bit youre still wrong
It seems to me that the argument of free will tends to conflate self driven action and action divorced of process. Ask those who think we have indeterminate selves, how would that work when definitionally it does not work. When we do not have a defined process to decision making, be it a physical or a metaphysical one, how do we interact with the rest of existence? The physical word might be possible to escape, but how does that get around the process of thinking ? Religious people may wish it were so, but they can they show how that even would work?
Sometimes I think some people have spent their lives examining the clock of the universe, only to be disappointed that it is full of cogs and springs.
Morality comes from a chaotic mishmosh of empathy and utilitarian logic, held back by tribalism and greed, with tradition serving as a vessel for both passing down lessons (from rules against common crimes to being a good host tending to make everyone better off) as well as maintenance of demographic-based power dynamics including leadership maintaining their positions. Divine authority was just a way to get people to listen to new traditions.
I'm certain morality is far more primitive than any of that nonsense.
@@VariantAEC How do you get more primitive than base mirror neuron functions and herd dynamics with leadership competition, and then as we got more advanced some of the stuff we learned started getting passed down via learning instead of only being passed along if it got genetically ingrained?
@Avigorus
You didn't discuss base neurochemical mechanisms, not much of which covers the depth of contemporary human interaction (what dopamine, oxytocin, melatonin, adrenaline and other endocrines do to us and how they drive emotions).
Back in the early days, 8.7 or so million years ago, before humans had likely developed any real forms of shared languages, there was much less to go on than what you listed above and greed looked very different but was still very real. I'm not entirely in disagreement with your above points, I'm just saying what drives humans today and back then is largely exactly the same despite our advancements in organizing civilizations. It seems that as a whole, humans can't override the basics.
Humans never learned what a criminal activity really is until they committed a crime and, more importantly, experienced ramifications for their actions. If both things did not occur, the human did not learn what a crime was. And we see this today... when a person steals a car and then wrecks it, seriously injuring several others, but survives themselves facing no penalties, they learned... 'That was fun, I'll try that again sometime later.'
How could one even teach when language didn't exist and when human interactions were so sparse? More well-formed, close-knit communities might not have had many hostile interpersonal engagements, further complicating matters if there was little friction within the small group. The reality is that people are largely good to each other because what is ingrained in our DNA compels humans and other animals to distance themselves from lesser trash of the same species. The way Marxism is being sold to you today is compelling because your brain is wired to take the path of least resistance socially, and this happened over a period of 80,000 to 120,000 years, maybe even longer.
That ingrained compulsion to take the "path of least resistance" also compels people to believe in nonsense like man-made climate change, which has its roots in ancient history dating back more than 3,000 to 8,000 years ago with evidence that there were human sacrifices made to the gods of fair weather over 30,000 years ago.
Humanity's fear of angering the climate gods is still incredibly strong today. This religious fear is now being bolstered up by mismanagement within the field of science, bringing all of science down around it.
That should be disgusting if you truly favor reason and logic, but most people have been equipped with ancient brains that can not see past obvious lies that have been told for literally thousands of years (which you also learned about in school and yet still refuse to believe).
Now that humans see themselves as far more powerful beings and gaslight their young into believing that they can really control the climate of the whole planet with trace gasses.
Somehow, that isn't registering as religious belief amongst most atheists, though.
I just love how dense these warring factions are; there is still so much unites the majority of atheists and religious folks of the world.
All we have to do is look at history and how many people have been enslaved and murdered in the name of some deity... Religion is a blight.
glad your back
The interesting thing about the idea of not being able to know the mind of God being a giant escape hatch is that it's maybe a little too big of an escape hatch. If you make that argument, the escape hatch opens and your entire viewpoint falls right through because anyone can take any of your ideas and throw them through the hatch, it's not a one way ability.
You’re right when it comes to listen to others... it’s fair but some don’t feel that way and are only satisfied when you changed your mind.....
I wonderful how many people are in this comment section looking for thoughts provoking info, or just for confirmation bias trying to prove their personal points through a stranger's way of understanding this conversation.
Doing better in growing from the past of what's been pre-established, fighting hunnits of thousands of years of population genetics is noble scientific pursuit. What changed from religion to science is honesty was embraced more than narrative. Scales
I think religion is both good and bad for society.
On one hand
Religion can provide people with a set of rules to follow throughout their lives, and it can lead to traditions like Christmas that are still widely celebrated to this day.
On the other hand
Many pointless and deadly conflicts have all been started over
"Well my book says this!11!!!1"
"Nuh uh! my book says this!!11!!"
It's the extremists that ruin it, if people actually followed their religious books to a T(like give to less fortunate, love thy neighbor, etc.) life would be better but due to greed, desire to be right and other issues, gives ground to extremism, which isn't good for anyone.
Every example of good things you gave can be done just as easily, and sometimes better, without religion.
@@100to210 The westburo(not sure if I spelled that right) baptist church follows the bible "to a T" and they're one of the most hateful churches on the planet.
The bible endorses slavery, genocide, stoning, rape, murder, and more.
Following it to a t is what alot of the extremists do and it's the reason there is so much science denial.
That's why so many ppl believe the flood and adam&eve stories but don't believe evolution.
Even the most liberal, charitable interpretation of the bible still requires indoctrination and heavily encourages childhood indoctrination, which is a form of mental abuse.
Religion no longer has any real purpose, everything it does can be done better without it.
@@100to210 Maybe you should give examples of things like how to treat your slaves in the book and how to keep the virgins for yourself after invading ppl it explains it abit better?
I'm not sure I agree with either of them, but I think Shapiro deserves a cookie for sounding like he's actually thought about and considered his position. He's normally completely unhinged.
He deserves a cookie for saying he has no way of confirming his beliefs and he's hiding behind an unknowable claim on purpose?
@@matthewgagnon9426 for being honest about it, yeah. It's not a _good_ position and it's not particularly self aware, but it's much more honest than most of his claims.
It doesn't have to be a great cookie, maybe a stale chips ahoy.
No cookies for Ben. He owes me cookies. Honesty is the bare minimum people expect.
stumbled upon this debate? bro this debate is everywhere😂
I just got an ad for the censored version on the January 6 coup attempt from The Epoch Times.
The social cohesion angle raises an interesting question for me: is it generally the social cohesion that exists which allows for religion to take root, develop and flourish, or is it religion that enables social cohesion to occur and to be maintained?
It's without any doubt that social cohesion predated religion as religion pretty much requires a society of sorts to even be established. Even if religion does give birth to a new form of society it usually does so by relying on the underpinnings and existing aspects of prexisting social cohesion.
Social cohesion is also possible without any form of religion, as other factors contribute to societies forming. Religion also very poignantly lends itself, indeed directly causes, social divisions through differences in beliefs and ideology. The supposed utopia that religious people believe can come from their religion is one that can only be established by everyone subscribing to the same belief system. This isn't something that happens organically for the most part, in fact it often requires efforts external to mere persuasion to convince others who don't believe as they do, such as violence and coercion, examples of which are plenty throughout history.
Bottom line is I don't think religion is equitable or comparable in any way to social cohesion. It's more an aspect of it, one that can both promote or hinder depending on the circumstances, rather than a definite cause or even contributor to it.
I went to my Notary and asked is there free will and she said no it will cost you $300 .
2:09
How can you manipulate people with the ability to detect such manipulations like myself? When I lay back into the MRI machine, I know where the fields strength collapses to a point inside my body as the computer toils away, driving the electromagnets to produce the fields needed to generate the final images. I didn't need an MRI to tell me I have anomalies in my brain, I needed them to inform the doctor.
In 2001, I'd already created a precursor to the ALVS subsystems that I use to observe ambient electromagnetic fields far outside the visual spectrum passively. Before 2001, I used a system that allowed me to burn more energy than I needed, so I could emit more radiation, which itself interacts with the surroundings depending on whatever material the particles interacted with. I didn't know that ionizing radiation was considered dangerous to people until after 2001, which is when I started to switch passive forms of collection.
I insist that I can not directly observe magnetic fields (because I can't), but when a magnetic field is created by an electrical force... I can see it, especially if the load on the conductor is over ~3.1V or if the current is sufficient to be detected, but it gets complicated, especially since I'm new to the collective human understanding of electricity trying to translate what I know from being able to see it. I don't know anyone who will admit that there is a difference between magnetic fields from magnets and electromagnetic fields, but there has to be some distinction between these two types of magnetic fields.
The only way a human can be manipulated with a magnetic field is using an electromagnetic force, which I would more than likely know I was being subjected to and can correct for by augmenting bias if abnormal neurochemical stimulation is detected. Even passive slow changes over time can be detected and stopped.
I was already well aware of the precalculated response stimuli before the age of 8. By 7, I had already mastered the prediction of lighting fall down to a fraction of a second. When I was a bit older, I scared kids by 'controlling lightning' in their view. Playing hide and seek was a no-go because the human body particularly the liver, brain, and small intestines to a lesser extent the kidneys (the lungs being basically invisible to me was a surprise considering the massive trading of air molecules occurring, I guess having my visual field clouded by O2's interactions with nearly everything would not be useful) emits radiation that I can see, too.
The point is that manipulation with sich fields wouldn't be as effective on the rare people who exist that can interpret the interference. Would we have 'free will'?
According to your understanding of what drives the brain vs. what I'm capable of... yes, to you, I'm basically a god given your feeble understanding of what drives us to make any decision, I just see myself as slightly more aware of myself and surroundings than other humans.
All people have free will, while influence can be thwarted. Freedom takes work, and if humans can influence thought with focused magnetic fields, people who do not have electroreception should more closely understand what could drive their thoughts. That actually sounds difficult. I'm glad I don't have to worry about it even when particularly powerful cosmic and geomagnetic events take out ALVS for a couple of days, but my point stands.
Holy shit that is the most chunibyo thing I've seen in the wild. Do you not realize your own delusions, or are you willingly playing into them?
Wakfak bro.
Ending at 9'58, Ben makes a brilliant question we need to pay attention. I am not arguing off course in favor of religion - not a fan - but in any case it sets a ground for describing why we need ethics.
4:35 I love how Alex calmly drives the steamroller over Ben, like the scene from, *_Who Framed Roger Rabbit?_* 🐰
Ben's arguments are as hollow and as full of hot air as Judge Doom after getting flattened and puffing himself back up again. 😅
The impact of religion on society is an empirical question for the social sciences. Speculation is useful, but data are essential. In this context, free will is good for idle banter, not much else.
Religion was an unfortunate trap that may not have been avoidable with our developing brains, and it even may have been a shortcut to gain greater progress in the past, but it has long overstayed its welcome and is now an active detriment to humanity (the planet even) and is and has been a net-negative.
"But don't you know..." rant was pretty good
Philosophy doesn't compare to science ....
You do know there is philosophy IN science lol. Science is inductive. Saying that philosophy doesn't lead to truth but science does does not make any logical sense
When people say religion has a monopoly on morals, that's when I say I didn't know they were vegan.
As social creatures we are hard-wired to feel empathy, and are inclined toward compassion and altruism. The foundations of morals and ethics is in our biology, nothing supernatural about it. Also, the doctrine of "Original Sin" and its permutations teaching children they are prone to evil, corrupt and flawed and broken is frankly, child abuse.
I believe some things we experience are warning shots. Michio Kaku once said, one way of measuring intelligence is the ability to predict outcomes.
I recall feeling pain in dreams, and when you can experience a place some rules like a history of Earth and gravity go out the window, and that the soul is a localized experience of mind: (thought), will: (a direction I want to go), and emotion in a body. So my thoughts for what can and cannot occur are not so limited as some on planet Earth.
It is said that evil people only seek rebellion, that a core recipe of every sin is uncaring selfishness either to God or to your fellow people.
That those that enjoy it with much delight in their heart do not delight in being kind to others and the level of gratitude you're willing to show with what people and God can offer gives me tools to predict how you will behave.
What level of faith you can produce will tell me whether will you can become wholly negative and embittered and if you're someone that can lose all of it, as it is an integral part of any functioning relationship.
You know matter follows a certain set of rules the fundamental laws of physics, it always follows those rules. When it follows the rules you can play the game gravity, inertia, friction, etc. take away those rules and all you have is chaos.
Anti-matter destroys matter completely, if you want to keep what matters you have to rid it of what doesn't, because what doesn't never follows any rules.
Read the KJV and pray for wisdom, pray without ceasing: don't go a day without it.
It is mightily presumptuous to assume that the eternal prison w/ eternal torment from an eternal arbiter does not exist. For if a type of extreme unpleasantness exists for a moment why assume not forever, and that the level of your moral decency you decided to choose in the season of Grace and Mercy bequeathed to you in Earth Realm. would not be the deciding factor to send you there.
Is a 5 year getting cancer unfair or immoral?
Could it be considered a spanking, to know that God is not afraid to hurt you. Know that all pain upon the earth is temporary.
I think free will can exist in a materialistic world. If thoughts are done through quantum synapses, then they could be in super positions that aren't known until the thought are decided at the time.
The question of whether religion is a force for good in the world as a debate topic almost always comes off as fundamentally flawed to me, because it almost never truly grapples with the most important metric for weighing the utility of a system; namely, in juxtaposition to other alternatives in appreciation of the particular parts of any religion's supposed merits and demerits.
I could easily grant that religion is a force of good in the world and still conclude that we'd be better off without religion if there are alternative ways of attaining the same benefits without any of the baggage that comes along with religion.
The question of whether religion is worth keeping around or not, is not one that can be answered by simply making a tally of its net positive versus net negative impacts. It's a question of whether it's worth keeping it around despite the possibility of better systems or ideas that don't include the problems also seemingly inherent to the religions in question.
For example, going, "I've found the cure to cancer and we should all start using it" if the cure involves simultaneously giving people HIV instead, is farcical if there's an alternative cure that does not.
There's no doubt in my mind that religion can and is a force for some desirable social and psychological outcomes, but insofar we live in a world in which there are plenty of healthy, happy and socially flourishing atheists, it seems trivially obvious that religion is not - in fact - inherently necessary for any of the purported goods of religion. Furthermore, when religion is also clearly not a good descriptive model of reality that also produces social ills as well, why oh why would one advocate for the continuation of faith practice in light of these observations put together?
The "goods" of religion, on their own in isolation, are irrelevant. Utility and the appreciation thereof is a relativistic exercise of comparison - and, in comparing it to a healthy, pro-social secular pluralistic model of behavior which puts priority on practical concerns of truth, mental health and reflection first, it's fairly obvious why there's no reason to privilige religion in that equation.
Finally, I think it's fairly telling that so many religious apologists seem to believe the human ape on average incapable of basic empathetic behavior and social cohesion without some sort of supernatural belief-system.
They glibly accuse anti-supernaturalists of nihilism(which as a nihilist I soundly reject as a negative label in the first place, but I digress), when their view of humankind is several orders of magnitude more pessimistic.
If you need a positive belief in a supernatural law-maker not to murder, steal or rape, I pity you, because it tells me that not only has our evolution apparently failed you in terms of developing a natural aversion against such behaviors, it also tells me that you don't have the mental rigor to think of all the ways in which indulging that behavior would be detrimental to the well-being of yourself and your community/society.
Religion is such a complicated thing to me, all at once it is somehow that means so much to so many people across different cultures and time and yet at the same time the origin of a large portion of the ignorance and cruelty we see around the world
Well there were many books that were burned during the Spanish Inquisition so yeah maybe single copies of books with certain information was destroyed that will never see the light of day
I like to call it the Free Will Paradox.
example:
You are driving down a road and the road dead ends into a Left or Right turn.
With Free Will, you can choose left or right, the choice is up to you.
HOWEVER
If a God is all knowing, then if he knows you will turn right, that means you no longer have a choice as you can never turn left.
Therefor Free Will is just a illusion and you never had it in the first place.
Now if you CAN choose to go left that would mean God was wrong and thus he isn't all knowing.
Interesting video
While religion is used a justification for war, I don’t think we should imply eliminating religion would somehow say prevent the Israel/Palestine conflict from happening - geopolitics would cynically use something else to perpetuate war
China is not operating fine. The belief in free will has nothing to do with religion, however.
O'Conner seems so relaxed and calm, taking his time to explain and understand. Shapiro seems rushed as if he needs to get his point across before people start thinking for themselves.
Because O'Connor is a pro lol seriously I love the way he debates.
I tend to agree religion is a net negative on society. What i would love to see is a serious debate on whether the Internet is a good for society. A serious debate not trolls or idiots. I can see benefits and negatives, a large amount of both. Of course, there is no true answer but love to see some serious folks debate it.
Can we take the time to acknowledge that Prof Stick says that he personally believes all things are predetermined, then has the intellectual honesty to also say he has no evidence for that. And moved on.. that should be how religous people should act.. instead of insisting on there being some elusive convoluted evidence and try to control others with that shakey foundation.
I don't think methodological naturalism and other non-theistic philosophies necessarily claim that "a material universe is the cause of all." It's more that we know the material universe exists. That's a good place to start. There's no indication of there being anything else to suggest might be involved at this time.
Even theists can be methodological naturalists.
If everything is not predictable then there would be no future? And I'm not saying specific paths of predictability like "he will go and buy a light bulb for that one stair light"
more like probability theory where there's a high probability of the range of things to occur sort of like the two slit experiment demonstrates.
I think they could have gone deeper, into both the pros and cons of religion and what it does. Granted, they only had so much time to attempt to facilitate a somewhat equal playing field. To show what I am saying let’s try to look at what religion is. By most people’s definition, you might get something like an organization which believes in something divine or supernatural. While this is probably the most Pragmatic definition, it only really says the result. Religion is closer to a Corporation, Nation, Tribe, Community, Fan Club, and more where its primary historical purpose resulted in people of several cultures to find unity. In this way, all that I listed were the best ways people could do what the internet does for us in Modern days, before it existed. All of the things I listed have quite similar consequences as religion does, in creating “us versus them” and various forms of division. So if you are looking at religion, and it’s worth to society, you aren’t looking at how it can bring people together. But, if it’s worth it to encourage a wide amount of people to believe in something which has no physical or material presence. All of the most popular religions of today either believe in an Omni-god, have the afterlife as a central focus, bring attention to a more abstract/spiritual side of existence, or multiple of the above. This is because, quite frankly, thinking the Sun is being driven my a chariot has gone out of fashion. The Divine isn’t there to explain the physical phenomena anymore, or at least the most resilient and popular religions don’t seem to prioritize that. If we are just talking the social benefits of religion, then I would say those are unnecessary. We do not need religion anymore to help us understand people of different cities, villages, or provinces, not even different nations or continents. We have other ways to do it, and in some ways religion actually gets us stuck in the “same” instead. However, I think seeking understanding beyond the physical, and into the immaterial or abstract might still be important. Sure, we have philosophy and I myself enjoy looking at it, and doing my own research, but religion is more easily digestible and takes less energy to get into. It’s like how the first guns may have failed more often than a bow, but because they were easier to use they caught on more than just training someone with a bow. The common man will not be able to understand Ontology or Epistemology, but they can read the Bible or the Veda.
I think when you say “hot wired” that you mean “hard wired”. Two very different meanings.
"uncaused decision making" is linguistic imprecision on both sides
I would argue humans seek entertainment as an aversion to idleness/boredom. And it would make sense that the brian evolved this aversion in a period when humans had to struggle to survive, being idle meant not acting toward survival. And if all humans only seek wants as a means to escape this evolved idleness aversion, then our wills are not free.
I feel like our wills only exist within the perimeter of the social and environmental context in which we were born and raised in
I think it's worth mentioning that there are religions that don't believe in free will. I.e. Calvinism was formulated as a rejection of the idea of free will.
@9:55 so does that mean the Crusades, Jihads, or any other killings that happened in the name of a God did not happen in Ben's mind?
Before even watching most of this video, I just want to say... People have always found reason to war on each other. Religion is not unique in that role. None of the reasons used are bad in of themselves (none of the reasons that pop to mind immediately as I write this anyways), it's just that they are being used to justify something bad. Religion is like everything else. It's not about whether religion is good or bad, it's about how it's being used, and who is using it. I bet if those in power didn't have religion to oppress others, or as a justification for their misdeeds, they would just use something else.
Exactly- once the Wars of Religion were finished, the powers that be immediately turned first to nationalism, then political ideologies. No shortage of reasons to hare.
@@michaelnewsham1412 I have to correct you a bit there. Nationalism started to spread in the 19th century, on occasion (french revolution, american war of independence) in the 18th century. Before that you could just argue with simple "wanting to have more" since it was mostly pushed on by small groups or even one person (absolute monarchy).
The beauty of puttinf ben weasel shapiro against someone who actually knows what he is talking about is amazing
Ben is just stuttering and fumbling his way through this... Its beautiful
Ben should have to wear a white yarmulke. I think christians wouldn't listen to him as much if it was more clear that he is Jewish. I hate him either way, and not for being Jewish, but it's like he is hiding his religion to be a christian nationalist.
Well, whether they are Jewish, Christian or even Muslim, they all follow a very similar set of beliefs that believe there is an objective morality and since you and I are not followers of that belief means we deserve divine punishment. That's the problem I have with these religions, our beliefs in a supernatural deity shouldn't determine our "judgement" by a god.
Not believing it not worshipping a specific deity isn't justification to punish people.
@@LisaAnn777 I agree but a lot of far right Christians are Anti-Semites and Ben just feeds off of their hatred for anyone not in their "group" when he himself is not in that group.
I don’t accept the idea of no free will and I really don’t like the way that concept is being used to excuse all kinds of behaviour. I’m convinced it’s possible to train yourself into going against your basic instincts and decide for yourself how you want to react to the impulses you get. I’m a natural born killing machine, that’s in my blood, yet I’ve never killed somebody in anger. I trained myself to control my anger. Now purely considering free will as some kind of consciousness over matter, that’s just a ridiculous idea as our consciousness comes from our body and brain with all its chemistry driving it.
But anyway, no need for some outside entity. All you need to do is accept your impulses for what they are and use, ignore or redirect them as you see fit.
This conversation here isn’t actually a debate (a debate being an open and honest conversation discussing facts) but a fight over semantics. US schools don’t teach people how to discuss topics towards a solution, they teach how to win the fight on technical points. Debating isn’t and shouldn’t be a boxing match but a tool to better yourself and the world around you.
Religion isn't a disease on society, it's more like a vestigial organ. Religion at one point had an important function in the development of societies and now it has lost most or all of its importance and can indeed be very harmful.
Religion is a double edged sword. On the one hand evil people are able to change once they believe. Good people can become extremists because of their faith. I suppose it’s a matter of seeing if that balance is worth it.
There’s never been moral absolutes and there never will be. No law system, religious or secular doesn’t deal with absolutes. All laws are created to make society a functioning entity. Laws are basically put in place to prevent humans from “humaning”.
Is this the first time you have shown the microphone?
7:18 I don't know if I'd say Chinese society operates "perfectly fine"...