You mean the unaccompanied minors who were brought here by sex traffickers? Those kids? I think you just made an argument for a closed and secure border and for that I applaud you.

Thanks for commenting.

As far as what you said about the middle, I disagree. Polarization is tearing this country apart. United we stand is not just a saying.

@@starcrafter13terranI respect your disagreement. However, we have to know what we are stand for before we can unite. For the record Sam has also called for force v*x .

If you listen carefully to the video, you'll see that Sam Harris isn't willfully ignoring free speech. He even says at 7:15 he would (hypothetically) vote for Romney over Kamala because of the problems that have emerged on the left. But his animosity for Trump is strong enough that he would support any Democrat over Trump. While I don't agree with Sam, the crux of his argument seems to be that the polarization/radicalization of the country (on both sides) and bankruptcy of politics all center around Trump's presence over the last 8 years.

Oh Yeah! Harris is just a raging, incoherent nutjob here and there's every reason to view Donald Trump, the man who insists that any paper printing anything not suitably fawning and who sets out to destroy, any politician, priest or pop star opposed to him will prove to be a champion of free speech! Just look at how great both he and his new sycophant Elon Musk have been about allowing all points of view on their respective media platforms. Oh wait, I must be deranged.

Hate possesses the mind.

Ready to admit you’re wrong?

@@IndieThinker sure, if i were.

@@waterhorse-r6p thank you for watching.

@@lindsaypace5077 thank you for taking the time to watch. Don’t forget you can never become a member and gain access to exclusive content.

@@erwinthijs4468 thank you for this beautiful comment. You probably don’t even realize it, which is pretty typical, but it it shows everything that is wrong with atheism.

Thank you for sharing.

Thank you for watching.

Please, do tell how it’s misrepresented.

at 26:30 you were paraphrasing this quote: "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" you claimed this quote meant, and by extension what Nietzsche meant, was that someone "needed to take the place of god in order for us to make assessment about anything in this life" It's a statement about the foundations of morality. Nietzsche was remarking that though God has been the answer to the question of 'why is this good/the right thing to do?', this is no longer the case, and we (that is, each individual person) must be their own moral foundation It's a claim about morality, not a claim about theology You somehow claim this quote supports "there is no such thing as Atheism" as if you somehow think that Atheists are equating themselves to supernatural. This is not the case We can reason and come to the conclusion that murder is unjust and immoral (manmade subjective labels) because the person being murdered clearly does not consent to being murdered and we can do this by realizing that if ourself was in the similar situation, we would also likely prefer to not be murdered. We can come to this conclusion without needing to reference a god at all In order to actually have a just world, we ourselves, and also collectively need to "be better" Nietzsche mostly was referring to moral and ethical topics, although i feel the need to point out that the "holy festivals" part of this quote refers to the togetherness and sense of fellowship you may feel when you participate in a group religious activity will need to be replaced by some other form. We can have a Winter Solstice Party (like they did historically) and participate in all of the same activities without needing to do it simply because it's Jesus' suppossed birthday

@@hamfastgamwich​​⁠ I figured you didn’t understand what I was claiming and that you don’t actually understand religion. If religion is anything it is a moral foundation based upon a referent. When you create your own morality guess what you’re doing? The exact same thing with a different starting point. Thus, what I said is 100% correct.

​@@IndieThinker You don't know anything about my background, so I have no idea how you'd figure that without being guilty of eisegesis yourself. It is true that maybe I don't understand your claim. Maybe you could clarify? It seems largely incoherent at the moment, but maybe I don't actually understand religion I do not see how you can interpret this particular Nietzsche quote in the way that you did if you were any amount familiar with him. It's a pretty commonly discussed topic, and you'd struggle to find many people siding with your conclusion on it. But maybe you refused to actually look at it because the book was called "The Gay Science" You are also wrong on your claim about religions. they are not "if anything, a moral foundation". Religions can have a moral structure, but they are primarily a truth claim about the basis of that morality. It seems you are the one that does not understand religion(s). Other religions can, and have, come to the same, and also better, moral conclusions than Christianity (Slavery, Women). It's clear that you are the one that does not understand religion and it seems you have a step above tenuous grasp on Christianity As i have demonstrated in the examples in my above comment, we can reach a consensus on an ethical framework without invoking any gods and without a truth claim of there being a god or not. This does not mean that we have to view ourselves as a god, and it does not mean that there are no athiests So what exactly were you 100% correct about other than me not understanding your claim?

By all means go watch the full debate if you need to satisfy your deeply inquisitive mind.

That's not a bible quote. I've read it cover to cover many times. Hell is never mentioned directly or indirectly near as I can remember.

@ that’s from a church father who read the Bible carefully. Check out 2 Thessalonians 1:9 “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” Read all of Matthew 25 and if that doesn’t solidify things, Feel free to reach back out.

@IndieThinker interesting. Though the idea of a deity willingly subjecting anyone to infinite punishment for finite crimes, also being considered good in the same sentence, seems off. But i concede, it is indeed mentioned in the Bible.

@@stormkeeper1741 I address this in the video. The much more thoughtful way to view hell is as separation from God as the Bible clearly shows due to the fact that God must be just if He is God. A just God would not give Hitler the same outcome as Mother Teresa.

He’s a real hoot that guy.

Well separation from God can be a lot more horrible than just being lonely. If we look at God as the essential source of all Goodness, hell as a separation from God would imply suffering to the utmost sense. No goods from God? What you’re left with is immense pain and suffering. Not just loneliness or a lack of the amazing Goods of heaven, but a torturous existence.

@@Jrce11 Don't forget the fire and brimstone, the unquenchable fire, etc... Look at what Jesus said, not just our vision of what it must be. Watering down the concept of hell, sin and justice keep people from Christ.

@ you’re misunderstanding my claim. I’m not spreading some hippy dippy notion of hell is just a life without joy of God, I’m saying even the physical torture from things like flames in hell can accurately be encompassed by such a concept. Even atheists experience the goods of God, such as being able to experience happiness or sensory pleasure. An absence of God’s good even implies immense physical pain,

@@Jrce11 That's fine, but we have to pursue what we know is true based on scripture. The "absence of God = torture" is something we kind of made up in trying to explain it without the literal fire / brimstone / burning torture / etc... that Jesus himself described. We have to go back to the source and be as accurate as possible not to misinterpret or water it down. Hell is horrible, and it is hard to explain and it seems like overkill and hard to argue. So appologists tend to water it down to try to make their arguments stronger. God doesn't need to be defended by us. He can be trusted even when we don't understand.