Ben Shapiro Debates Atheist on Slavery in the Bible

Watch the full debate: • Ben Shapiro vs Alex O'...
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
John Early
Dmitry C.
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: [e-mail]
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------

[@theCommentDevil]

Getting Shapiro to admit that morality does not come from God is a big W and he's getting dragged for it elsewhere. Bravo cheerio here here

[@antoniopratt1893]

Morality does come from God.

[@ScoopMeisterGeneral]

​@@antoniopratt1893Excellent argument

[@TheVeganVicar]

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@antoniopratt1893, I don’t really care what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence. The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical governance (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral and your so-called “enlightened/awakened” state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.

[@alexlink4623]

@@antoniopratt1893 If morality comes from god, then its either intrinsic, or it it isn't. You cannot agree with the religious morality via non-godly premises, the fact someone ever agreed with it(necessarily true) is effectively proof that morality precedes god. Or at least doesn't need a god to be present in any individual. I.e: best case, you don't need to believe to have access to morality. The argument has never made any sense

[@justsignmeup911]

Alex: You believe that there are moral absolutes and they come from the bible. Ben: Yes. Alex: The bible allows moral wrongs like slavery. Ben: Well it wasn't immoral back then. What a debate master.

[@maksimbolonkin]

This one isn’t really contradictory. He didn't say everything in the Bible is a moral absolute.

[@sumatra_7174]

Right and wrong is not universal and does depend on time and place and culture. How can you expect people who lived 2000 years ago to have the same mindset like we have today

[@RogueAstro85]

​@@sumatra_7174the point is that morality is not determined by the bible

[@billjohnson9472]

@@maksimbolonkin if that is the case who chooses which things are absolute and which are not? it is not like the text defines two categories. So with that view nothing is absolute.

[@RogueAstro85]

​@@maksimbolonkinThen what's stopping homosexuality from being one of those cases? Ben's stance against homosexuality is based on the condemnation in the Bible, but how can he claim that's a moral absolute if not everything in the Bible is morally absolute?

[@eristic1281]

Alex, you can't on the one hand call slavery immoral and on the other hand own Ben like that

[@francobenevento7598]

Best comment.

[@pwright141]

Perfect comment!

[@ismailalizade8078]

oooof,nailed it

[@smith46695]

You should watch Sam shamoun explain slavery in the Bible you all have zero idea what you are talking about neither does Ben. Also are you all smarter than Einstein or Newton??

[@Jumpingonpaws]

lmao 😂

[@Whatzzzz999]

Alex - you're quick on your feet, calm, focussed and erudite. Hats off for your polite respectful interviewing technique, and for keeping a clear head under pressure.

[@kayamann321]

If God can tell this people not to eat shellfish, then he can tell people to not own slaves

[@davispatricks5453]

Exact-a-fucking-lutely. The Hebrew god didn't have to woo people out of eating shellfish. He just said don't do it. So why not just declare slavery a 'no, no? On the one hand this text (which is upheld as the guidebook for moral living) says the love of mammon is the root of all kinds of evil but also it's okay to treat human beings (created in the image and likeness of god) like property.

[@amymason156]

Different audiences. Telling someone not to eat shellfish hits poor people who live by the shore so hard it might kill them but it doesn't affect farmers or rich folk at all, they either don't have access to shellfish or they can eat whatever they want. Slavery, on the other hand, only rubs the rich and powerful wrong, most people couldn't afford slaves while the richest depended on them the most. It makes more sense when you recognize the people who made up and spread this stuff were mainly trying to get along with power brokers, they weren't revolutionaries.

[@13shadowwolf]

​@@amymason156it's supposed to be God, not some middle management punk. Your argument doesn't work, because God is supposed to have the ability to change whatever he wants. There's a whole lot of stuff in the Bible where God supposedly has magic powers and can choose to influence people, or transmute them, or blow up cities with fire and brimstone. Your argument doesn't work, given what's supposed to be the scope of God's power.

[@morenitomoreno1282]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@amymason156Do you think having idols, committing adultery, covetting, not keeping the Sabbath holy, "taking Gods name in vain" are more serious offenses than keeping people as slaves? Also, there was tons of other things people were doing back then that was unhealthy and unnecessarily putting their lives in danger, why did "God" not ban them as well?

[@steffanharris5599]

@@amymason156 you missed the point that an omnipotent, omniscient "creator" could have just made it so. no need to easy them off or adjust to the audience. if he can create a universe then creating world where slavery is forbidden should not be above his ability.

[@TheCloudFoot]

I'm not great at keeping score, but seems to me Alex got Ben to: 1. State that God is not always moral. 2. Agree we do not get our morality from scripture. 3. Concede there are things God cannot do. 4. Admit there are moral & logical contradictions throughout the Bible.

[@SevenPr1me]

Needs to be pinned or top comment

[@Knytz]

i gotta watch the video again more carefully

[@AverageCommentor]

All 4 of which are wrong with the necessary presumption that the Bible is true. Ben needs to work on his knowledge of morality clearly, as one should be ashamed to concede any of those points.

[@josephposenecker9741]

Yeah you suck at keeping score. Ben said people at that time did not “consider” those things immoral. Stated right after that they are objectively immoral for all times. God does not interfere with Human Freedom because that is the ultimate good.

[@nathijomac]

@@AverageCommentor But then you would be deemed immoral yourself by the standards of the 21st Century

[@September2004]

If I didn’t know who Shapiro was before this, I would never guess he had a reputation for ‘destroying’ people.

[@tikdoph]

"People"? I think you mean "college students".

[@September2004]

@@tikdoph Touché!! 😊

[@firewfire]

Thats because faith is not a "destroyable" debate on either side, its not expected to have proofs.. When he debates tangibles, he absolutely destroys everyone.. including college students

[@firewfire]

​​@@tikdoph im sure you can do better 😂 also, it doesn't matter WHO he is talking to, his points stand, you know that right? A fact is a fact no matter who says it.. you must be one of those "he just talks fast" people.🤡🤡 As if speed of speech changes it 🤡💩🗑️ Also, hes "destroyed" everyone on CNN and TYT as well so theres that.. hes debated many times Yes religion debates are different, anyone with half a brain knows this

[@tikdoph]

@@firewfire Wow... college students, huh? Those bastions of the intellectual world with decades of life experience from which to draw upon against a disingenuous clown that talks at 2.5 x speed and presupposes the most ridiculous things to support his flimsiest of arguments. Color me impressed.

[@SpongeBob-yk9oo]

First time I've seen Shapiro stumped, he actually dealt with it better than I expected, probably due to the reasonableness of Alex. Quite the convo sir, well done.

[@Stevewilldoit96]

He’s not stumped. Also slavery isn’t objectively wrong from an atheist perspective since its survival of the fittest organism. There is no objective morality just organism survival and reproduction. Of course you can have a personal preference that slavery is wrong, but it’s not more true than another man’s preference that slavery is good.

[@silvercloud1641]

At least hermaphroditism exists and is observable in nature. ANY proof for the faith based claims made by monotheists, after 2000+ years? Otherwise it's MYTHology. Facts don't care about anyone's faith. Why do I have to pretend anyone's imaginary friend is real? Monotheism is an outdated form of social engineering, that clearly isn't speaking against slavery. I don't support slavery, I support freedom.

[@silvercloud1641]

@@Stevewilldoit96 Treat others as you want to be treated is a universal law. Slavery is wrong because of causality. There's a way with nature, being more mindful, and respectful. And a way against it. ☯ If you disagree then you should have no problem with you or your family being slaves or treated second class with things like Jim Crow "laws." Rather than practicing "all are created equal" as the constitution states. We can act like territorial animals, or use our brains and cooperate rather than just compete.

[@TehIdiotOne]

@@Stevewilldoit96 There isn't an "atheist" perspective with regard to the slavery issue. Atheism at it's core is simply the rejection of religion. Nothing more, nothing less. And as others have said, the golden rule is pretty much universal in any culture regardless of religion. That kinda shows that morality doesen't have anything to do with religion. And there's plenty of good reasons for why it is that way. Yes, in the end we do this because it's benificial for our survival. Cooperation makes us more likely to survive than competition.

[@sampletext9455]

​@@TehIdiotOneBut why not just do what feels good physically? Why worry about survival of your tribe, if you won't live forever?

[@paulcleary8088]

Ben "I'm not God. I can't speak for God. I don't know why God does these things." Also Ben "Let me speak for God."

[@SimpleSlave]

To be religious and to believe in a god under religious circumstances, or to project human attributes to the idea of a god, is to live with Cognitive Dissonance. Which, in time, makes you a world class Mental Gymnast.

[@baonemogomotsi7138]

@@SimpleSlaveThe irony.

[@SimpleSlave]

@@baonemogomotsi7138 Yes. Your comment certainly is. Thank you for the show and tell. Good job.

[@moonshoes11]

@@varpyr713 Hello there! 👋🧔

[@GoldenRedder]

That is sort of like a Supreme Court Justice attempting to understand the constitution. A Supreme Court Justice doesn't know exactly what the founders intended, but they try to make an educated guess based on other information that they know.

[@TheMrgrafixable]

holy shit ben's not debating a student

[@ac1646]

I laughed. Then felt hollow. Oh the irony. Alex is an Oxford graduate, but clearly an intelligent one. And a working class grad.

[@_____case]

Also, Alex has a Theology degree.

[@ac1646]

@@_____case Yes 🙂

[@DJWESG1]

​@@_____case can't help but feel a sociology degree would have armed him better.

[@kennybachman35]

@@ac1646Ben has a law degree from Harvard, and he’s not a lawyer and never practiced law. 🤣

[@stephenholmgren405]

The virgins they were permitted to keep as slaves were often just children, little girls, absolutely indefensible. No amount of speed-talking apologetics can dig Ben out of this one.

[@beoskar9848]

My God hates sin. He hate it so much that the wages of sin is death. Anyone one who commits sin is a criminal and enemy of God. Since every man {all of humanity} has come short of God's law all of man is a criminal and enemy of God. God is prefect which also means he is a perfect judge. I find it very defensible in God letting the Israel keep the little virgins girls as slaves for God could have destroyed the little girls with the rest of their sinful kingdom. Yes my God can bring judgment down on entire nations just like he can on the entire world (God flooded the world). All this is in an instance of my God having mercy on the littles girls letting them die later instead of right then and there with the rest of their sinful people. Yes the little girls died later to whatever(God handed us a perfect world where there was no death, animals the like loin were herbivores, the earth gave up it's bounty without effort and humanity was immoral read Genesis). Because Adam and Eve ate off the tree God told them not to eat fruit from (which God said you will surly die to Adam and Eve if you eat of the tree) getting Adam and all of his seed's (me you and Humanity is Adam's seed) immorality stripped from us. Our losing of our immorality is a curse dooming us to die which comes along with a multitude of other curses (Wars, diseases, women having great pain during birth, etc. Read Genesis). With that being said my God is responsible for every last death for he has cursed it to be so for our sins. No man gets away. Every man will die and will have to face God's judgement. It does not matter if a prisoner escapes prison or if a criminal is never caught and evades humanity's pathetic excuse for justice a system because he will die eventually in with in 150 years putting him right in front of God for judgment. Even the people thought who thought they were sinless (which all of humanity has sinned) will have to give an account for the sins they have committed. Accpeting God Jesus Christ as lord and Savior and repenting of your sins is the only way to escape God's wrath on judgment day in which no one has escaped or ever will escape. Have a blessed day.

[@FailSpace2]

@@beoskar9848 good grief take it to a publisher😭

[@ismaelcerda5565]

@@beoskar9848 🌈😘

[@KirisutonoNeko]

Starting with the context of a vengeful war against the Midianite people for specific actions mentioned in Numbers 25 and 31, what do we think ought to have happened to these virgin women who were otherwise spared but were now without anyone else? Be left to fend for themselves and marry or sell themselves into other nations? Wouldn’t that be essentially the same thing but likely worse?

[@MetaNavigator]

The assertion that the Bible approves of slavery requires a nuanced understanding of its texts and contexts. While it is true that the Bible does not explicitly prohibit slavery, it introduces revolutionary concepts for its time about human dignity and worth, which are rooted in the creation of all people in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This foundational principle is critical in understanding the biblical trajectory towards justice and freedom. In the Old Testament, laws provided to mitigate the harsh realities of slavery reflect a significant advancement over the practices of surrounding nations. For instance, the Jubilee laws (Leviticus 25) offered a mechanism for the liberation and economic rehabilitation of slaves, which was revolutionary. Moving into the New Testament, the approach becomes more transformative. Paul's letter to Philemon, which advocates for the manumission of Onesimus not merely as a slave but as a "beloved brother," exemplifies the New Testament's deeper ethical engagement with the issue. Furthermore, passages like Galatians 3:28 emphasize spiritual equality, fundamentally challenging the ethical validity of slavery. The concept of progressive revelation helps us understand that the Bible’s teachings were provided within the human capacity to comprehend and enact divine will in specific cultural and historical contexts. This revelation reaches its climax in the New Testament, culminating in Jesus’s teachings, which proclaim liberation for the oppressed (Luke 4:18). While historical interpretations of these scriptures have varied, with some using them to justify slavery and others to fight against it, these divergent uses reflect human fallibility in interpretation rather than the message of the Bible itself. The abolitionist movement, heavily influenced by Christian principles, demonstrates how scripture has inspired significant social reforms toward greater justice. Therefore, it is essential to approach the biblical texts on slavery with a comprehensive hermeneutic that recognizes both their immediate and broader narrative arcs. The Bible, when interpreted in the context of its entire narrative and historical setting, promotes a powerful counter-cultural narrative advocating for the inherent worth and dignity of every human being, inspiring believers toward a more just and equitable world.

[@isaacflo2]

Love that this is an actual conversation, not a yelling match or making shit up. Good stuff!

[@churchofinfiniteknowledge1608]

It's so fun to watch Ben, who hates being wrong, forced to choose to be wrong by a belief system.

[@purplemonkeydishwasher9818]

I think you misunderstand his point then

[@altosack]

Ben doesn’t hate being wrong. He’s not stupid; he knows the vast majority of his political and religious positions are wrong, but it pays very well.

[@buzhidao5065]

@@altosackbelieves in nothing but dolla

[@DJWESG1]

No one forced beleif upon him. He simply picked one that best hid his mh problems.

[@jak6744]

@@altosackbingo ❤ someone gets it

[@MrThankeesai]

Slavery in the Bible is completely indefensible. People who will defend indefensible things have no right to be taken seriously

[@GoldenRedder]

Slavery existed back then. Wow

[@GoldenRedder]

OK but really, the old testament is not just a set of rules and regulations, it is also a historical document ment to record the history of Israel. Slavery happened historically, thus a book that chronicalled history would have Slavery in it.

[@gideondavid30]

THE problem you do not have a metric by which to judge the Bible by. The athiest has no critique to give because you have no coherent worldview. You are simply going by modern day sensibilities which can change at any given moment.

[@vansen-qod]

​@@gideondavid30can you enumerate some of these sensibilities that can change at any given moment?

[@MrThankeesai]

This is a standard talking point. No one has ever suggested everything depicted in the Bible be morally correct. The claim is that what God sanctions demands and promotes must be morally correct and slavery is clearly not. Nor is it morally correct when God decrees a raped woman be stoned to death if she was raped in the city walls and didn't scream. The bibles depiction of God is of a deeply malicious being@@GoldenRedder

[@tonygaytan9848]

Love your conviction on questions!

[@nyhyl]

I really enjoyed how civil and polite and yet intrigueing this excerpt of their discussion is. They did make their points but still managed to sprinkle in some humor and decency here and there. That is how discussions should be like. Getting your point across while still treating the conversation partner with respect.

[@Elilmu_Nur]

Yes treating the conversation partner with respect and audience as stupid 😁

[@leonardothefabulous3490]

Imagine that, debating without pulling and firing a gun at your "opponent." a particular group of humans need to watch and learn from these civil arguments

[@Facts-Over-Feelings]

DEBATING A BOOK REWRITTEN BY COLONIZING ANTI GOD CACAZOID CRIMINALS..

[@user-yl3cf3zb7v]

@@leonardothefabulous3490 I love it, honest and humble approach in good spirit which makes it pleasurable to listen apart from being engaged, and the maturity of talking and exchanging the arguments on serious topics with humor, without being unnecessarily to serious is great - "Angels can fly because they can take themselves lightly" don't remember who said that tho

[@leonardothefabulous3490]

Well said and I like the "Angels" quote.

[@danayaseen647]

I can’t get over how different Ben Shapiro is when he is not talking to an audience of kids. I wonder if Ben Shapiro would do another round with Alex, without the third guy. That would be pure gold.

[@Ixnatifual]

@@saviormoney.And you.

[@Abyzz_Knight]

​@@saviormoney.Well the people Ben typically argues with also aren’t stupid, just not typically well versed in debating and are usually unprepared. This means that Ben can easily make them look stupid

[@ignacioarroyo3385]

​@@saviormoney.Fasho fasho

[@jordan1982]

It's fascinating to watch him and the host try to dodge the topic with humour. Like guys! Isn't this topic what you're all there for?

[@thegrunbeld6876]

​@@saviormoney.Jesus loves capitalism. Jesus loves wealth. Jesus hates poverty and the homeless. Jesus's most favorite person is Elon Musk. Because wealth is virtue.

[@BeastmanWatchUrMouth]

Ben on the back foot, forced to say slavery is immoral, and also forced to defend it in the Bible. Yet cannot concede any of this is contradictory otherwise his worldview starts crumbling. Mental gymnastics to make Olympians sweat

[@antoniopratt1893]

Lets be fair, we cant compare slavery in america to the slavery that was mentioned in the bible.

[@sibyloftexas]

​@@antoniopratt1893that's funny because American enslavers used the bible to justify slavery with the Curse of Ham doctrine bullshit.

[@alelzarterl212]

​@@antoniopratt1893it's still slavery.

[@alil6547]

You’re forgetting that you understand nothing about the Bible and therefore are criticizing something you’re ignorant of.

[@Jidom_101]

@@antoniopratt1893blibical slavery, while not chattel slavery, was still slavery. Saying “this form of slavery isn’t as bad as the other” doesn’t mean anything if both of the options are slavery

[@AdamKlownzinger]

I’m glad we’re in unanimous agreement that Ben lost.

[@StupidAnon-gn8ih]

5:00 No no, it's not a liberalizing process, it's a manual for conquest. It's a survival guide. It's good Machiavellian advice for conducting an effective war after which you can be assured of nobody taking vengeance on you. What's the problem with that?

[@halfpine9952]

Getting Ben to admit he is a moral relativist is quite a feat

[@relvezz6997]

Acknowledging different cultures have different morals is not moral relativism.

[@aygiopod]

⁠@@relvezz6997no that’s quite literally what it is. It insinuates that morality isn’t universal lmao.

[@Arcadianx98]

Ben didn’t explain it well. There can be aspects of objective morality that are subjective. Look at killing. Killing is immorally wrong, unless done in self defense. There is a subjective aspect of it called an exception. The exception for biblical slavery is that the whole world was a dark place with rape and war pillaging. God called a small group of people apart and in a way that was realistically feasible for that time period. The Bible is a story of the human condition’s journey toward holiness. Change happens slowly not overnight.

[@jonathanfairchild]

I don’t see him admitting that he’s a moral relativist. Maybe it’s in the full discussion. However, I did hear him say that slavery was always wrong. God was moving towards making it abolished in the future but had to move in small increments to that goal. He was working with fallen people in a fallen time in a culture steeped in slavery and barbarism both internally and externally. He said slavery was always wrong. Jews were just commanded to have a more human version for now. Until they would understand the wrongness of slavery. This sounds like he’s a moral absolutist not relativist.

[@zkeletonz001]

Saying things in a youtube comment that didn't actually happen is no feat at all.

[@williamcrow9713]

You can tell Ben isn’t used to debating people with a strong academic knowledge of the Bible

[@grimmner]

I would love to see Ben trying to debate Dr Bart Ehrman on the bible and morality(:

[@talleneagle1974]

He doesn't have a strong understanding of the Bible he's cherry picking and doesn't understand what he's talking about or maybe his reading comprehension skills suck. Like for instance he said if the man says he loves his master he takes him and pierced his ear and owns him for life. All one has to do is open up the Bible and read it understanding that a verse has context. "Owning" a slave had laws you must abide and nobody can "own" a slave without their consent just look up slave laws and read them all. Do you own a house if so you're a slave to your bank for 30 years or whatever your contact is for. Before banks land owners were like modern day factories and people depended on land owners to survive if they were poor. I have a dictionary that's 120 years old and the definition of slave is broad and someone who does hard labor was called a slave. Someone who was an apprentice who learns a trade was called a slave and the teacher was called master like as in master carpenter or plumber etc. There is debt slavery as in getting a loan. There is slavery where the person is bound to the land where they are allowed to use a portion of the land for themselves in return they must work the masters land for him. People who committed murder were made slaves for life if they wasn't put to death. Piercing the ear was a blood oath that one would do with their own free will. The person would stand in the doorway and the master would drive a nail through his ear at the door post and it was a blood oath that he was bound to the house to work for his master and in return the slave was fed and protected from harm. You idiots like to cherry pick things from the Bible without even understanding what you've read and also only use the word slave as in the liberal definition of that word where you only believe it was meant for black people and was for life which it never was. Even here in America the lie that blacks were owned and were life long slaves is the biggest lie there is. If they were then their wouldn't have been free black men. Most people today are slaves of the banking system and everyone alive today that works is a slave to the government because of debt slavery so try and not pay your master and they will come with guns and lock you up if you don't pay him his share of your wages.

[@moshemilstein164]

Umm Ben isn't really strong in his knowledge of the Bible.

[@grimmner]

@@talleneagle1974 fair point there but believers Will cherry pick parts to support their arguments aswell and even come with this curve ball ”That parts symbolik and not litteral”. Sure slave may mean many things and should vi viewed on context of the writting and of its time. Now what sort of slaves do you think people are from a city you lay wast to? The isralitesvwhen they were in Egypt wasnt slaves then but simply there on a work visa, perhaps thats Why pharao didnt mind them leaving according to the book.(:

[@jsmall10671]

@@talleneagle1974Nothing you said refutes anything Alex said.

[@bt3750]

I enjoyed the respect given to each of the debaters. It always amazes me how religion must twist itself in every situation to explain some conflict in the scriptures. If an all knowing God wanted us to know a thing, why does it take centuries of study and debate and schools and institutions to try and figure out the real meaning?

[@georgestate9191]

Becouse of sin and becouse of Satan. It is not God's fault that people have sinfull hearts

[@justseffstuff3308]

Yes. I feel like even if some version of God was proven to exist, his intelligence would very much still be in question, lol. He seems to have chosen the least efficient possible route of communicating moral guidance to humanity. Did the Creator want to interfere in its creation, or did it not? It is very odd.

[@bt3750]

Where in the Bible does it say that you won't understand the Bible because you are sinner?@@georgestate9191

[@mrtrolly4184]

the same reason why people who lived In the Americas, Australia, Asia and pretty much every place outside the middle east didn't get a whiff of this "Judeo-Christian" god's existence. Because he doesn't exist and the bible (and it's offshoots) was written by men.

[@FDU863]

@@georgestate9191 And yet god created man. In his own image, to be more precise. If man has such a sinful (one l, by the way), then seems to me your imaginary omnipotent omniscient friend fucked up the recipe.

[@zachary1050]

Ben's inability to go beyond legalistic arguments and his fear of saying anything that could be interpreted as pro-slavery are what made him the loser of this argument.

[@justanothermortal1373]

I think he is afraid. Religious people are usually afraid of having their faith debunked by logic. It's kind of ironic that Shapiro's catchphrase is "facts don't care about feelings".

[@rhyswilliams4893]

The guy asking the questions is no mug.. he knows Ben can talk his way out of nearly everything. So ask a question that is very hard to answer correctly without being wrong on some front... Ben does a lot through Gish Gallop to "win" so add a subject that he has to think carefully of what he says so he can't ramble facts aimlessly without risk.

[@rhyswilliams4893]

​@aadd2935 Defending(more like not holding that against ) people doing slavery during the times where slavery was the norm worldwide is far from Pro slavery... Slavery was a horrendous blot on our history but as sad as it is that was how it was then. They where doing what was completely moral to them. I don't often agree with Shapiro but he's correct on this one. If we hold people's ancestors having slaves against people now the whole damn world would be considered terrible.

[@lormaeris]

Could you please expand more on why do you think Ben lost the argument? Nobody in the video was bold enough to say that. Both sides were quite good on the topic and I do not know who would I declare a victor.

[@jwainer4397]

it's as simple as people do not like Ben Shapiro. Mostly because he has dismantled so many woke crazies, be they pro or amateurs. I am a Ben fan. Based on the title, thought well this should be interesting to see Ben bested by someone. Like you, I didn't see that here.@@lormaeris

[@The8BitPianist]

Usually, Ben can hide the fact that he doesn't have an answer pretty well. But not this time

[@Swagtildawn]

Yeah, cause he can only debate college freshman.

[@aylapetty2051]

To be fair you don’t need to be in any level of education to debunk theistic talking points. And before anyone splices that slight hyperbole, there have been compelling arguments out of the mouths of pupils still in Key Stage 1.

[@joho1095]

@@aylapetty2051 You do however need very good debating skills to keep on track and deliver your arguments when debating someone like Ben

[@aylapetty2051]

@@joho1095 God, honestly I don't even know if that's true. Maybe to counter the gish gallop in a way that effectively conveys rhetorical supremacy in an auditorium of people. Hitchens would, for example, have pulled Ben up on that 'escape hatch' premise. He has it all to prove, and worse still, his insinuation that he hasn't got that burden was taken as read. By that logic Russell's cosmic teapot has its own little hatch. It's not exactly solid ground. I don't believe you should have to have even mediocre oratory skills to debate him on topics such as religion or the existence of trans people, for instance. I feel like I'm gaslit every time he questions people over the validity of being transgender and yet fully acknowledges he may be wrong about a yet-to-be-seen cosmic entity who has quite literally informed him of his views, and would probably acknowledge if said deity were not to exist, there would be no foundation for his pejorative views on LGBT people... Which despite what he's saying to Alex, is kind of an indicator that he himself was incapable of forming morality without religion.

[@BootBizarre]

@@joho1095 Weasely internet trolls like Ben do require some skill in debating because they will pull every trick in the book in order to avoid honestly addressing your arguments. I find a great way to debate people like this is to simply flip their own terrible arguments back against them and let them argue with themselves.

[@zpd8003]

I give Ben credit for agreeing to this discussion. It was really satisfying to see him fully exposed and squirming.

[@czerskip]

Just like the character of his favorite fantasy book - knowing he's going to end up completely obliterated, and yet, he went there voluntarily 😅

[@gideondavid30]

Nobody was exposed...

[@theintelligentmilkjug944]

Sounds like you're literally foaming at the mouth to see the person that you disagree with get their opinions challenged.

[@samcolserra2425]

Lmao, the cope is hard.

[@AmericanEnglishAcc]

@@gideondavid30 Dude, he embarrassed himself. His logic is utterly flawed. God laid the moral foundations in the Bible... According to Ben, no Bible = no morality. Ben admits slavery back then = OK. Then, he admits slavery is not morally justified today. This means progressive liberalism made slavery immoral (and for good reason), not the Bible. So... in his own words, quite literally, he admits that morality DOESN'T come from the Bible.

[@SaoLudovino]

Thank you for this interesting and respectful conversation. I’m not a religious person. I ran away from “catechism” (religion lessons) when I was only 8 and never came back again. But I’m very interested in religions since I was a child because they shaped societies and power along millenia. There are a few simple analytical concepts / ideas that I always use to analyze and evaluate the reasonableness and fairness (not the positivista logic) of any religion: 1 - Faith / belief is diferent from religion. Religions are human constructions made at the image of the men who created them in a certain time, in a certain context. To be a relious person (follow a religion) is a rational individual choice (ignoring here the forced conversion that rarely is completely spontaneous). People choose the values and patterns of behaviour they want to follow (ignoring here the propaganda and sheep effect). To believe / to have faith is an irrational inner impulse, even when we may find rational arguments to believe. In some cases faith and religion coincide and mix in a way that makes difficult to say where one begins and the other ends. 2 - Faith / belief is methaphysical, a manifestation of spirituality, transcendency in which I believe, not because I can argue and present irrefutable arguments to defendi t (because I can’t) but because I FEEL it. And that no argument can take away from me. 3 - A religion is “good” / beneficial if it makes a person individually and a society collectively better; a religion is “bad” / pernicious if it makes an indidual or society worse. 4 - More than half of the Bible (and of many other holy books of several religions) is constituted by symbolical narratives (stories of example, parables, myths) that can’t be interpreted literally. The historical part must be interpreted in the context to which refers, a specific time-place that cannot be generalized or replicated; only shows a partial picture of a particular people / community in a point in time. 5 - Ideals are also shaped by the Zeitgeist and the real people of a certain time and society. Thomas More in his Utopia (considered one of the first models of a perfect socialist society) admited the existence of slaves. He was a religious man, a visionary and wrote Utopia as a project for a better world… yet… From the three greater monotheist religions (Judaism, Christianism and Islam), only Islam used slavery systematically to subjugate the peoples of the territories they conquered. The choice was simple and evil: either you convert or become a slave of one or other kind. In the 20s (20th century) there were still market slaves in Cairo and other Islamic regions of Middle East. Until the present day, Islam still fullfils literally the words of the Koran (ex. ISIS). If the ancient Jews created the ideals of Judaism (at least 4000 years ago) and of Christianism (2000 years ago - never forget that Christ was a Jew), that doesn’t mean that either the ideals or the conduct guidelines are the same now, because they are not immutable, that’s obvious. That’s the great difference between Judaism and Christianism on the one hand, and Islam on the other. Islam seems monolithic and immutable, incapable of self-criticism and evolution. Islam was born as a warrior religion (not a religion of peace) and never really stopped implementing that aggressive modus operandi.

[@gabrielom7387]

What are you on kid grow up and just accept Jesus 😂

[@MrPhunguy]

Interesting to look at through a merely social/cultural lens rather than that the redemptive reality/principle being shown in the ownership/freeing of slaves.

[@Pooneil1984]

Alex is turning out to be one of the sharpest interviewers of the generation. He is prepared for his interlocular, his logic is quite good and he uses it to make pointed questions. He maintains an excellent demeanor throughout.

[@enterpassword3313]

This wasnt a particularly difficult topic to challenge..

[@Pooneil1984]

@@enterpassword3313 Shapiro is a particularly good presenter of his ideas and a very fast thinker. So asking the correct questions to elucidate the problems with what he believes is quite difficult. ETA, I meant O'connor here.

[@Fs3i]

@@enterpassword3313I recommend watching an other segment, let Shapiro speak, and then, before Alex answers, pause and come up with your own. Try it, it’s interesting to hear how silly we sound sometimes. I don’t think Alex is a better human than me, but this topic actually is not an easy one, and you can really feel Alex’s theology degree.

[@Segel1230]

​@@Fs3iI actually did this during the whole debate! Haha, it was quite hard since English is my second language, but I managed to come up with some of the arguments that Alex mentioned (Although I know these arguments because I've been following Alex for a while). I love doing thesr types of exercises, they help develop critical thinking. I tend to play the devils advocate against Alex aswell, that's why Alex became one of my favorite channels in the past months.

[@enterpassword3313]

@@Pooneil1984 hes actually not though, he just talks fast and has a good memory. He is so predictable i knew all his arguments before he started talking, its not difficullt to prepare for that, the questions write themselves from the contradictions ben was inevitably going to make. If anything i think i had some better questions, so that must make me the greatest interviwer of this generation lol

[@Luizvideotube]

"god had to be practical to woe people away from slavery" The guy is all knowing and all powerful. He'd know exactly how to convince those people that slavery should be abolished

[@GoldenRedder]

Israel would then chose to not listen like they always do.

[@daanstrik4293]

@@GoldenRedder Wouldn't that mean israel is (at least in one aspect) more powerfull than god? because following this logic god would be unable to convince israel of following his advice. Which then means god can't exert his will on Israel.

[@GoldenRedder]

daanstrik4293 You can choose to not follow God. It's called free will.

[@emilia935]

The argument I've heard against this (which does sound silly to me) is that a sufficiently compelling argument is a violation of free will.

[@samcolserra2425]

umm, and that's what he did ultimately. Or do you mean to say that it was some atheistic and absolutely morally correct people that abolished people a couple senturies ago? Why are you so sure that every human is supposed to be convince-able of something? If god is all knowing, he would also know when it's pointless to try and convince.

[@Teawithlee]

This is soooooooo good! 👏👏👏

[@gavinrivington4918]

These debates where people can remain respectful while arguing their points is a breath of fresh air from all the extreme political divisiveness these days. Whatever side of the fence you’re on there is a lot that can be taken away from this debate.

[@czechmeoutbabe1997]

My God Alex, you've done what so many people haven't been able to do for decades - this may never, ever happen again. You got Ben to plainly wrestle with the notion that "the scripture is contradictory". I don't know if I can be an atheist anymore because you're a miracle worker.

[@liul]

In decades? You haven't seen the BBC interview

[@mrbryanbel]

The scriptures are not "contradictory" as you suggest. Only if the Old Testament is viewed as a monolithic entity could you provide such an assertion. This is an anachronistic statement to assume this as it has clearly originated with fundamentalists not Jews. What Shapiro does understand is that the Jews endlessly debate over numerous readings of scripture and do so because it is viewed as polyvalent and not monolithic.

[@1220THEMAN]

@@mrbryanbelbut the word of god should unify the scriptures so there are no contradictions. Is it just a recent belief that it’s the word of god and not just old writing of early fundamentalists

[@mrbryanbel]

@@1220THEMAN No. Your first sentence reflects the belief of the modern period among fundamentalist Christians. This is wrong. It includes the idea of "inspiration" which most assume that the writers were an automaton conduit which God speaks through. It is a thorny subject but the elimination of contradictions entails Christians merging with Cartesian modernity with foundationalism at its core. The Bible is not a book on certainty it is a book about faith. Interestingly enough, if someone from the ancient world could predict how moderns would view documents for their internal consistency then it simply could have been edited to make everything perfect and lacking in contradiction. However, they left it with its many views. I would view the corpus of the scriptures as a collection of different views about God which is why I referred to it as polyvalent. To engage with your first sentence again, this is a "philosophical" issue but not a textual issue. Jews of the ancient world were always in debate about the nature of God. As a matter of fact, the very core fo the debate among the major and minor prophets entails disagreement with the state religion in the form of the priesthood. When you reach the New Testament, Christ has some big problems with it.

[@twojointsjay7330]

@@mrbryanbel so you're admitting it is contradictory, hence the discussion. This idea that back then they could have simply decided to remove all contradictions? Absolutely laughable, shows you're not a serious person.

[@OrenBailey]

8:48 Ben Shapiro tries to disprove the fact that he is a moral relativist by explaining that morals change over time and across cultures. What a cogent point.

[@jacobstamm]

I'm stunned that this isn't being talked about more in the comments. Ben's argument here is ridiculous.

[@radaf4429]

So many people misunderstanding the common argument really goes to show that you are noobs at religious debate. He's saying that God is pragmatically inching a people's way toward the true morality using the people's own perception of morality as a baseline. This doesn't make him a moral relitavist because he never has to accept the people's illusion of morality as absolute. God's morality is. If Ben used a different word to refer to the Jews' interpretation of good and bad he would have looked a lot less silly, i admit, but Alex doesn't recognize this and instead it turned into a gotcha moment for people like him that don't understand the argument.

[@jacobstamm]

@@radaf4429 I and many others here understand the “inching a people’s way toward the true morality” point perfectly fine, radaf. The problem is, the apparent difference between moral relativism and Ben’s position, where immorality is hand-waved away with “it wasn’t *considered* immoral at the time” is effectively indistinct. Ben’s argument relies entirely upon God actually pushing humankind in a significant way toward The One True Morality. With how many examples we can find of that not happening - yes, even by the standards common at the time - that argument holds little weight.

[@therealskeptic1]

Atheists are masters of moral relativism, so what is your problem?

[@radaf4429]

@@jacobstamm Saying that it wasn't immoral for the time is not a handwave. It's similar to how we use targeted airstrikes rather than boots on the ground scorched earth. While not a one-to-on analogy as I'm sure you could point out, it's still bad, but it's a vehicle towards achieving a more just humanity. God's commandments were not a statement of good and evil to be interpreted as such for all time, Ben doesn't need to say that they are. If your worldview doesn't include a God, yes, your morality is unreal and relativistic. This isn't a breach in logic. And there are tons of example in the Bible of God, especially Jesus, instructing morality (which is not our place to agree or disagree with). And the only benchmark you'd even have to wonder what is or isn't right or wrong would be what God says anyway. I'm not a Jew, so I can't argue on Ben's behalf in a Jewish worldview, but as a Christian I find it funny you would make such a claim when God states humans are equal from their inception.

[@dunstanmaetoloa9135]

love the silent listener in the conversation😂

[@jok2042]

😂

[@vineflower]

I think Alex's point is that all these laws look suspiciously not like God was adjusting his laws for man. But rather that some man was pretending that these laws came from God.

[@consumercellc1109]

"God is the same in the past, now and in the future" OK Ben what about slavery? Um that was then, this is now

[@zedleed471]

It says in the 10 commandants to make someone a slave gets death penalty.

[@consumercellc1109]

@@zedleed471 lol no it doesn't. It actually gives instructions on how to properly beat your slaves. It also gives instructions on how to induce an abortion. If you think your wife might have cheated

[@urielmarles7036]

​@@zedleed471Do you even know the 10 commandments? xD

[@OkonkwoPlaysBass]

​@@zedleed471what 10 commandments did you read? Both sets of 10 commandments in the Bible do not mention slavery but make sure that you will be a sinner if you cheat on God with other gods.

[@juliagoodfellow7539]

God hasn't changed. We have.

[@onemanenclave]

Alex O'Connor DESTROYS Ben Shapiro with LOGIC and FACTS 🤣

[@champ8605]

No that shit has to stop, it's such a stupid idea for any title.

[@chgjake2230]

@@champ8605I believe that is the joke, but yes I agree

[@flutterboypr6481]

What is the logic and facts he said? All of it was human based info, which are imperfect and stupid.

[@chgjake2230]

@@flutterboypr6481 wtf does “human based info” mean

[@Ps-we3pp]

its not hard to destroy ben shapro. his biggest skill is talking fast, snake oil salesman that says untrue things but just talks really fast so lowly intelligent people can believe him.

[@markrutledge5855]

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” he layed out the fundamental principle of constitutional government. And he understood (and most of the other signers of the Declaration also understood) that were these words lived out to their fullest expression that it would mean the end of slavery in the United States. Yet the Framers who created the 1787 Constitution tolerated slavery on pragmatic grounds since attempting to outlaw the practice of slavery would have precluded the founding the United States. The seed of true equality was planted in words of the Declaration and it is still being worked out today almost 250 years later in the US. That is what Shapiro is talking about. The seeds of the ultimate moral law from God are layed out in the Bible even though on pragmatic grounds the practice of religious life concedes certain transitional features. In the Bible the equivalent declaration is found in the first chapter of Genesis (which is the first book of the Bible) where God says that all human being are made in his image. Every human being is endowed with the Imago Dei. It will take thousands of years to fully work out moral the implications of this basic assertion in scripture but it is being worked out. In the meantime, we all live with certain practical concessions to the full implication of this understanding.

[@supertrippyjohng]

The bald guy in the middle did not need to be there, other than that, I can say I'm a new fan of this Alex fellow.

[@hetvijoshi1745]

"the bible is talking for the people of a particular time" so what's the point of following what it says now

[@alil6547]

Because there are prescriptive parts of it. Silly.

[@k-3402]

​@@alil6547Yes, but those prescriptive parts are cherrypicked by believers.

[@billjohnson9472]

@@alil6547 prescriptive parts, like how to obtain and care for slaves. and prescriptions for killing people who carry wood on the sabbath, gotcha.

[@GoldenRedder]

Yes it was a perfectly reasonable answer. In a time that was not peaceful, where famines where not uncommon, where you where gambling to make enough food to feed you and your family, would it not be a shocker that slavery not only existed, but people sold themselves into it for a little security.

[@oldpossum57]

You are cherry picking and obfuscating. In a naturalistic, materialist universe, entering indentureships makes sense. Slavery has been practiced by all cultures in history. The problem only arises when you have an Omni god recommending slavery, and people saying this document still applies today. Any religion that posits supernatural beings is dangerous. And crap.@@GoldenRedder

[@glen46823]

Ben switches between moral absolutist to moral relativism with the flip of switch anytime it comes to the evils God did in the Bible. He always states that God had to appeal to people of his time, but this God is supposed to be all power and all knowing so can literally do anything. So when God presents his message by making rules for how to keep your slaves, this makes this God evil, period. This God would have the ability to end all slavery by snapping his finger, but chose not to.

[@GoldenRedder]

God would also have the ability to make you a slave to his every wish. Making you little more than a robot.

[@MiBasse]

While I do agree that Ben flips between relatavism and absolutism depending on what he thinks will serve him best in the moment, the idea that God could simply snap his fingers is failing to engage with one of the core tenants of this very discussion - human free will, which Ben has said he believes in. Those two things would be at odds, and simply forcing slavery to end, would clash with the idea of human free will, surely?

[@lasseaukio626]

​@@MiBasse _"simply forcing slavery to end, would clash with the idea of human free will, surely?"_ No. Eliminating the institution of slavery via a snap of fingers is not necessarily a violation of free will. Eliminating it by giving a commandment prohibiting it, which was the critique that Alex presented, would certainly not violate free will any more than any other commandment does. Furthermore, I don't think God of the Bible has problems violating free will. See the Pharaoh in Exodus for the easy example.

[@Mugen503]

⁠@@MiBasseexcept on at least one occasion god violates his own rule when hardening ramesses heart so he wouldn’t let the hebrews go. All so god could show off. So does god really care about free will?

[@RogueAstro85]

@@MiBasse in the Bible, God has changed his mind and had regrets. If there is a god, what's stopping him from regretting giving humans free will?

[@markb7067]

Interesting discussion. I'm surprised the topic of indentured servitude didn't emerge as this was likely the most common form of "slavery" mentioned in the Bible, which is very different from the term slavery today. This servitude was typically entered into voluntarily to gain inheritance rights, marriage rights, etc. and protection was provided by law for these servants. The abuse of slavery is recorded in the Bible as well as history, but that doesn't create a biblical endorsement for that type of abuse.

[@trumpbellend6717]

Lol the bible gave two distinct sets of laws one akin to indentured servitude that applied to the favoured race ( the Israelites ) and another that was almost indistinguishable from Antebellum Chattel Slavery that applied to everyone else. The latter allowed people to acquire slaves by buying them, taking them by force, or simply breeding them. These people could be owned as a possession FOREVER and passed on as an inheritance, and beaten with a rod so long as they didn't die for a day or two. Shame on those that attempt to reconcile this filth as the profound moral wisdom of a perfect omnibenevolent omnipotent loving God 🤢🤮

[@Earoist]

Pretty sure that was only for jews. Probably why it didn't come up.

[@nathanlumsden8994]

I think the failure to acknowledge this exact point is a huge stumbling block for a lot of people.

[@LegDayLas]

Well it does when it gives you step by step instructions on how to abuse people and who can be abused. Is the Bible the word of god or not? If it's not then it's useless for deciphering morality, if it is than god is immoral.

[@theCommentDevil]

That was only the case for Hebrew people, generational forced slavery is also laid out as just and laws are given regulating it. The Bible very clearly states violent slavery, sexual slavery and as I said generational slavery are all justified

[@Tenorio74]

Is this a podcast or a blind date? That ambience damnnn

[@Idonthaveone-ug6wj]

I ship it /jk

[@thijmstickman8349]

Isn't it extremely curious that the values of god align perfectly with the values of the people at the time the book was written. Its almost like the book was written by people based on their own values, not the values passed down by god.

[@drsatan9617]

Awfully convenient, I'd say Too convenient

[@georgestate9191]

The answer to your question is founded in the Bible: ‭‭Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. God saith, many things i have to Say to You but You can not Carry it. So that was allowed becouse of the hardening of the people not the Express of the perfect will of God

[@James-iu2km]

@@georgestate9191I just love how in the *2,000 YEARS* since his last "Update", he hasn't cared to interact *EVER AGAIN* to help further things along some more... there was only what a couple hundred years between the old testament and the new? But then again I suppose he did wait *90 THOUSAND YEARS* after modern humans existed before giving us *ANY* instructions *AT ALL.* Or are you one of those young earth people who think the planet's only been here for 6,000 years and that it's flat?

[@GruppeSechs]

@@James-iu2km As soon as humans invented ways to keep factual records and video evidence, the big man just stopped coming around.

[@KirisutonoNeko]

Wasn’t the point of this video that those values don’t actually align? And isn’t the lack of alignment evident from all the terrible missteps the nation of Israel took that resulted in their punishment as recorded in said book?

[@mohamaddelkhah]

Ben's argument basically: "Cmon you're expecting too much from God, who do you think he is, a god or something? He's trying the best he could given the constraints, so just give him an A for effort."

[@mohamaddelkhah]

@@saviormoney. Sorry you don't realize that's what "he's trying to woo people so he HAS to refrain from being too radical compared to the horrible immoral standards of humans at the time" basically means.

[@TheBerylknight]

@@saviormoney. That's what I got from what he said too. Honestly it was a nice sum up of what Shapiro was basically saying.

[@david672orford]

Yes, that is what he is saying. To Ben God is real and so has to work within the constraints of the real world. This may include choosing the least bad option. If the choice is to forbid slavery and be ignored or regulate it, he may choose the latter. In contrast western atheists tend to see God as a magical being who can do literally anything including the logically impossible.

[@mohamaddelkhah]

@@david672orford Exactly. And then he has to answer how did the "real world" come to be this way, in other words, where do these "options" and "constraints" and "characteristics" and "logic" of the real world come from? Were they in effect to begin with along with God, or did someone create them? If God created them this way, then he doesn't get to hide behind them. If he didn't create them, yet he has to submit to them, then these "options" and "constraints" and "logic" and "real world" should be greater than the god he describes. In other worlds, a being that has to choose between given options and can do nothing about it, lacks a lot of potency to be called omnipotent. One would be better of worshiping the options themselves or the one who created them, then the one who chooses and submits to them.

[@Redddragon]

@@david672orford Is it logically impossible for people to be convinced not to have slaves?

[@MrTuneslol]

It sort of seems like Ben is in way over his head with this one. He basically had to admit to moral relativism in order to prevent his argument from falling apart. I genuinely think you can see the exact moment in his eyes when he realizes just how bad this will look to his followers or other religious people. Those were not concessions he wanted to make. You can also tell he loses his ability to meaningfully debate when he defaults to "I don't want to get into all of that" or "you can go become a rabbi to find that out" He genuinely knows he can't make a meaningful or cohesive rebuttal and his demeanor just falls apart in a frantic way. He just puts forth a sort of hand-wavy "well lots of people have talked about this before, so if you want to know why you're wrong then you're going to have to go and read all of that". Not to mention Alex is likely already "somewhat" versed on the topic. Kudos to everyone for keeping their decency during these talks though. It's extraordinarily refreshing to see.

[@georgestate9191]

The answer to your question is founded in the Bible: ‭‭Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. God saith, many things i have to Say to You but You can not Carry it. So that was allowed becouse of the hardening of the people not the Express of the perfect will of God

[@ch4z_bucks]

​@@georgestate9191right but god in the new testament still endorses slavery so it's not like his opinion that changed between the era of moses and the time of the new testament.

[@hawkmne]

Ben's saying that God couldn't outright denounce slavery because it was very common at the time, but why was it then able to outright forbid adultery ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") which was probably equally common? Funnily enough, modern societies abolished slavery but not adultery despite Ben saying that present day morals are rooted in religion by which logic adultery should be illegal.

[@keithhawkins8262]

I absolutely love these types of debates. It's okay to disagree with someone and still be respectful to each other. Great debate and very interesting.

[@Ryooken]

I don't love them because they always come about under a false premise, and then both sides that know nothing prove their ignorance by arguing both sides of the falsehoods.

[@joannware6228]

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. I Corinthians 10:12 (KJV)

[@HighDins]

​@@Ryookenso where do you think morality comes from dawg? It's just floats around in the ether? One dude thinks it comes from the Bible and one person thinks it doesn't. What the actual fuck is the middle ground of those two views from your opinion? I'm actually curious.

[@Ryooken]

@@HighDins That's not what I am talking about. I am not talking about the origin of morality because truth be told neither one is true. My point was that they were discussing slavery in the bible and whether or not the bible condones it as a measure of moral turpitude. The problem is they don't know that the bible doesn't condone chattel slavery and in fact, it doesn't condone slavery at all, but since neither of these two men understand the bible or know it, they are arguing what they don't know.

[@HighDins]

@@Ryooken peter 2:18 Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse. As I have actually read the Bible and can quote scriptures you sir are talking out your ass. If the Bible doesn't condone slavery why would the gospel of Peter be like hey slaves listen to your master even if they suck if the Bible is neutral on slavery? I'm sorry but you are a moron with absolutely no point.

[@tomeggleston367]

Alex playing the role of Socrates to perfection! Ask the right question at the right time and let them talk themselves into confusion.

[@adamjohns350]

Trickery, instead of just reading the book and trying to understand.... Not a great way to approach life!!

[@tomeggleston367]

@@adamjohns350 so your view is that we should simply read the bible and flatly accept whatever it says??? Not a great way to approach life…

[@SkittlesMccoy]

@@adamjohns350 trickery letting people think for themselves and what not! Let them be told what to think and ask them zero questions to get to the basis of their beliefs! Trickery!

[@eoghanclark165]

@@adamjohns350 There is zero trickery involved. Asking specifically designed questions to draw out the opinions and thought processes of a person is precisely what any great interviewer is there to do. You want trickery? Try watching speedrun Shapiro spouting long words and selective references at college students to mask how poor his arguments really are. That's 'smoke & mirrors' at its finest.

[@thomdotexe]

the socratic dialogue format is one of the worst ways to engage in productive philosophical discussion lol, but yeah ig there's merit in it for entertainment. art of debate is dead now and just surmounts to a mind-fight where you just try to 'own' your opponent and make them look confused and lacking common sense. (if we want to make parallels to the ancient world I'd analogise this to a Sophist roundtable, something which is done on the basis of building brand and wealth, not to add to the academic world in any way) but yeah don't get me wrong, Alex definitely 'owned' him... sigh..

[@ehudsdagger5619]

I'd really like to see this debated between Alex and Doug Wilson.

[@brucewillis2]

I've watched you from years ago. You are getting really good at debating! I could see the fear in Ben's eyes when you started to dictate bible verses. I could see Ben thinking "Oh shit this guys knows his stuff". You are the new 4th man, and I hope you know what that means.

[@EngineerBC]

4th horseman? 😊

[@bismundgrayy9578]

Alex has gone so far, I can't help but feel proud for him

[@vaadwilsla858]

Same man, he was so strong in this debate. The legacy of Hitchens continues.

[@createmos369]

I've been watching him since he was cosmicskeptic and before 10k views. This kid is like a reputable source now, he's gone crazy far. I was just searching around to find something to watch and this popped up, never knew Alex went toe to toe with Ben Shappiro. Proud for sure, and held his own.

[@thomdotexe]

he's definitely collecting the bag and I'm happy for him in that regard but I hope he goes back to real academics again and stops wasting time on these cartoon people lmaoo

[@thomdotexe]

@@createmos369 are we really at a point of talking about philosophical debates like they're boxing matches good lord... but i suppose this was about as academically fruitful as a boxing match. just as much as a hyper driven spectacle, we should really just be renting out stadiums and putting Zizek in a ring and letting him talk his opponents to death, now that's a gen z 'debate' for the ages😎

[@createmos369]

@@thomdotexe this is a philosophical boxing match, so yes I guess we have hit that point.

[@zoomingby]

Which is more likely: that a perfectly moral being not only didn't denounce slavery but actually offered protocols, or that men, who clearly saw the value in owning slaves, left that out of their book of myths?

[@GoldenRedder]

zoomingby If I were to take your assumptions at base value. I would say the later. However we are attempting to argue In a grander context than "slavery bad cause slavery bad"

[@zoomingby]

@@GoldenRedder Who's arguing that slavery bad because slavery bad? Are you making the case that owning another human being against their will, often for the entirety of their life, is not immoral?

[@Checkmate777]

Not a good argument because you mistake the Bible as a book of rainbows and sunshine. The Bible recorded sins and the sins of people and humanity for a reason. It didn’t hide it. The Bible is also a progressive revelation because of the hardness of people’s hearts. It was a journey to the full revelation of God. Which is why as the Bible goes on the harder it gets to follow morally.

[@zoomingby]

@@Checkmate777 Quote the part where I suggested the bible is rainbows and sunshine. You have no idea what you're talking about. The bible is supposedly divinely inspired. Why does it include the protocols for owning slaves if it's a book on how to live a moral life?

[@Insultedyeti712]

@@Checkmate777The Bible tells us some people will simply never believe...no reason to have a slow and progressive revelation. The books own internal logic and rules fall apart.

[@matttiel619]

Love the show of respect here!!❤❤

[@SamuelButcher]

“One of the things I enjoy doing in terms of how I study the Bible for example is I like to look at contemporaneous religious texts of the time. So I like to study the Bible alongside for example Hammurabi’s Code” I am genuinely baffled by this statement. I have never heard the Code of Hammurabi described as a “religious text” - nor do I see how it could be characterized as such. Moreover, the CoH was authored around 1765 BCE (give or take 25 years) while most scholars place the writing of the Pentateuch sometime between the 10th and 6th centuries BCE. How is that “contemporaneous”?

[@PBMS123]

Did Ben just say "It was considered moral back then....... but thats not moral relativism." lol that is pure complete moral relativism.

[@bellgrand]

Considering something wrong in an absolute sense does not preclude acknowledging that people were accepting of it in the past. The entire thrust of Ben's argument is that God considered slavery to be wrong and regulated it while gradually pushing Jews and Christians toward the true morality. (Keep in mind that Jewish slavery was also much more benign than the chattel slavery of surrounding nations.)

[@saitama2471]

Benign slavery......... now that is an unique oxymoron 😂

[@bellgrand]

@@saitama2471 It was much more benign. Among other things, Jewish slave owners couldn't kill their slaves without it being considered murder. They could not beat them until they could not stand, maim them, or impair their value either. For the women, they could not deprive them or turn them out. They had to free a slave after seven years. You might think that should be a given, but it's not. The practice of slavery was much more horrific and dehumanizing in other nations.

[@leperlord7078]

@@bellgrand "Considering something wrong in an absolute sense does not preclude acknowledging that people were accepting of it in the past.." Almost can't believe you had the senses to figure out where the send button was after making such a mentally genius gymnastics comment lol That had to be exhaustive God does not follow time and cultures around and try to figure out how to tailor fix coax them into his commands/message lol The Xian God is eternal, has always been, and shall always be. He is, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Unless you are saying that its all just made up by men as well, your position makes no sense Hint: It is all just made up lol Unless we get that update where YWH reveals that "Slavery is NOT OK ",all we have are the scriptures where he is A-OK with it,and sets out some rules for physically bashing your human property So y all real committed Xians,why u stop owning slaves? God never said stop

[@bellgrand]

@@leperlord7078 I think you misunderstood what I was trying to saying. It can say that slavery was always wrong, but I can also see how Christian and Jewish tradition on the topic developed over time. God also definitely does make concessions in light of the fact that humans are imperfect and timebound. There are actually examples of this in the Bible. Now, there is no explicit example of this with slavery as the topic, but there is one with divorce as the topic. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees ask Jesus if no-fault divorce is lawful. Jesus says divorce is wrong and has been since the beginning. The Pharisees rebut by saying: Then why does God allow us to divorce? Jesus replied that it was because God knows human beings can have hard hearts. In light of this, divorce is allowed, but not for any reason. Deuteronomy 24 says divorce is justified when a man "finds something indecent" about a woman. Jesus clarifies that this means sexual immorality. And really, the entire Bible is basically a massive concession in the same vein. God could just damn all of us and be done with it. Sidebar: the funny thing about Matthew 19 is that afterward, the Disciples then remark that if divorce disadvantages men so much, then women are more trouble than it's worth. Jesus points out that most men cannot handle being alone. Which is an interesting response to the all the redpill stuff going around these days.

[@PrestonGranger]

God taking "pragmatic" considerations is just blatantly silly to me.

[@GoldenRedder]

How is it silly?

[@sentientflower7891]

​@@GoldenRedderwhere was God before Moses?

[@Imperium3945]

@@GoldenRedder God doesn't need to be pragmatic, he kind of is omnipotent.

[@loveableheathen7441]

​@@GoldenRedderwhy would you worship a being that isn't all-powerful? What if you anger the true God, the one who DOESN'T need to be pragmatic?

[@samcolserra2425]

@@Imperium3945 Saying that god does not need to be pragmatic is equally as silly as saying he HAS To be pragmatic

[@Kul-tegin]

3:33 Ben's face is like "lol you think witchcraft is imaginary"

[@ch4z_bucks]

I can't think of a single time in history where it has been proven or demonstrated to be anything other than superstition and make believe

[@cdroche]

There's a nice pair of articles on Medium examining this video, one by a former Christian now an atheist looking at Shapiro's comments and another by a former atheist now a Christian examining O'Connor's. I don't think our AI masters will allow us to post the direct links.

[@ShaoliSharon]

HLY GUCK BEN SHAPIRO GETS OWNED WITH FACTS AND LOGIC

[@MorbiusBlueBalls]

it's a shame that an omnipotent omnibenevalent god can't even convince his own followers to not do evil things.

[@GoldenRedder]

Yes, it's almost as if people had the ability to make choices.

[@julienpilla9869]

thats an illusion @@GoldenRedder

[@mranthonymills]

Not only that, can't convince his own followers to not do evil things purportedly right after his own followers had to endure those same evil things! All while having the death penalty for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.

[@MorbiusBlueBalls]

​@@GoldenRedderI'm not saying he should have come to stop them from doing so, just tell it in your official book that it's bad and let them chose for themselves. he literally gives commands for everything else right? why not give just one sentence command about this as well? just say "slavery is bad". let them choose if they want to go against his command. he wasn't this forgiving about not believers..

[@urmomma2688]

​@@GoldenRedderin the christian framework, people have infinitely less freedom than in north korea

[@Quancept]

Jesus Christ! Ben was violated at around 9:30. His own statements came back like a missile and hit him. This Alex guy is just awesome. A new subscriber from India here.

[@ramptonarsecandle]

People always say to me that their bible doesn't promote slavery, rape, murder, etc. I always reply with show me the verse that clearly states that slavery is wrong and not to do it. Instead we get instructions on where to buy them and how to beat them. Quite disgusting.

[@ezstudios352]

This is what happens when Ben attempts debating someone other than college kids who have no idea how the real world works

[@sabotagefate69]

He makes them look like a retard and himself a moron? Doesn't really make your nonsense make any more sense than it didn't before

[@dvc214]

I love healthy and respectful debate where disagreement isn't seen as 'hate' or 'aggressive'. More please!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

shapiro doesn't deserve it. another two faced apologist.

[@dvc214]

@@HarryNicNicholas Everyone 'deserves' to have their own views and opinions and have the opportunity to express them. Are you against free speech?

[@Isaacsbased]

@@HarryNicNicholasspoken like the communist rat you are.

[@Horny_Fruit_Flies]

@@dvc214 How is not wanting to speak to someone "against freeze peach"?

[@justaway6901]

8:13 Lmao fck no. You can clearly hear Ben gish gallop the moment he got cornered

[@winstonsmith7686]

That was a thing of beauty Alex.

[@chellyberry4434]

Exactly if God is never changing then why would things “change with time” it doesn’t equate. Also the story of the flood and asking for forgiveness that he will never do something like that again makes no sense. If he is god he should have known the outcome and didnt have to do it?

[@basicsimp8798]

Their argument is God doesn't know how to say, "HEY! DON'T DO THAT!" to slavery and have to basically tippy toes all over it is just hilarious. Like, how on earth can you even justify that. I guess this is just proof that if you need to justify immortality, you need religion.

[@rizzorizzo2311]

But god apparently saw two men boinking being so morally reprehensible that it had to be directly prohibited whilst beating your fucking human slaves wasn’t worthy of the same injunction. It’s offensively ridiculous. It’s even more offensive watching otherwise intelligent people try to justify it.

[@billmauer8117]

Yes, God can have all these other rules but saying no to slavery was just too far to go--he didn't want to upset his creation too much. It's absolutely laughable.

[@mantistoboggan5171]

I'd love to justify my immortality

[@rizzorizzo2311]

@@billmauer8117 “Make sure to tell them not to wear mixed fabrics. Oh and toss in some shit about cooking a goat in its mother’s milk, that’s bad. And make sure they know never to touch a woman on her period.” “What about slavery? Should we tell them slavery is bad because it will be viewed as a great atrocity starting in the 20th century give or take?” “Nah, just give them some rules on how to treat their slaves and some tricks for scamming them into permanent servitude. We don’t want to seem overbearing and authoritarian.”

[@filipedias7284]

A truant finds home And a wish to hold on But there's a trapdoor in the sun Immortality

[@Synechiae]

"Who's the moral relativist now?" Bravo.

[@yougood809]

But ben answered that pretty soundly. To say something is wrong is very different from saying that thing should be abolished, for abolition thereof could result in more harm than good depending on the society's reaction. Ben never said slavery wasn't wrong at that time. He said it might not have been wise to abolish it at that time.

[@Synechiae]

@@yougood809 "Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period)" I'm not going to go back and listen to what Ben said but the omniscient/omnipotent Old Testament god tells the ancient Israeli people to take/make new slaves (and forcibly marry women) because... they wouldn't have listened him if he told them otherwise? When would it have been wise to abolish slavery according to the Abrahamic religions? Where do these religions give any hint that slavery is immoral or should be abolished? Give me a reference. I'll look it up. Seems like any notion of the abolition of slavery is extrabiblical. In other parts of the OT god the Israelis to commit genocide. Per your argument maybe it just wasn't wise to abolish genocide at that time too...

[@jlinus7251]

If you look at the origins of Yahweh, he was one of many gods in a Caananite pantheon, specifically the God of Thunder and War. For a while pre Jewish religion was actually polythiestic, but in the sense that theyd broken out of the pantheon, still believing the other gods existed, but claimed that their one was the best of the lot. Slowly that changed into monotheism. So a lot of the early texts are influenced by the old Caananite version of Yahweh that basically focused on pestilence, war, and punishment. So thats why theres such a huge disconnect between Jesus and the God of the Old Testament/Torah. Hope this helps contextualise why the bible isnt anti-slavery.

[@ismailalizade8078]

that is a win for the sensible part of humanity. Religious people are all moral relativists, it says it all

[@shalenightingale9815]

Wow I can't believe he actually debated a person who isn't an ill prepared, emotional college student. Alex I love you man and love your content. Keep being the beacon of intellectual debate we know you are!!!!

[@MrRhurbarb]

Wow, you are so original in saying 'this is the first time Ben Shapiro has debated someone who is not an emotional college student'. You and the other thousand people on this thread all make the same original point! The fact that the point is complete bullshit as he has debated plenty of people who are not college students should not detract for the originality of you and the thousand other people who have made it.

[@moderndayheretic]

Such a stupid point that keeps being promoted by idiots. Shapiro does speeches (which is perfectly normal) and holds a q&a where dissenting opinion is preferred (also perfectly normal and admirable) this does not mean he is holding formal debates wi the college students! He has done plenty of formal debates with prominent leftist.

[@StarryxNight5]

Wow man. I can't believe you would actually comment on the video in the comment section. Who would do such a thing. Seriously, using the comment section to share comments on content? What a travesty man. Be better

[@jcw3032]

Are you really that ignorant of the myriad of debates and interviews Shapiro has done with high-profile left-wing / atheist media figures?

[@StarryxNight5]

@@jcw3032 Like that one time he was in an interview and stormed out due to their left-wing bias? Oh wait no, that BBC guy was a famously right wing journalist. That was definitely entertaining

[@BeyerEfendi]

This is the most infuriating aspect of debating morality with Christians. In one breath, they claim that, if Christianity and religion have any value, it's in providing humans with an unrelativistic moral framework. Yet when you call them out on the wildly immoral stuff in the Bible, suddenly it's "Well, the context of history" and so on. The mental gymnastics on display here are obscene. EDIT: Yes, I know Shapiro isn't a Christian - the point stands for all believers of Abrahamic religions (and many other religions as well).

[@darkma1ice]

You don’t believe in subjective morality, you have no basis on which to base your own morality except by your opinion based on thousands of years of living in society based on biblical principal

[@bingjayjemi2819]

Its true.. If u don't understand d context behind d act. U start to assume its accepted.... Slavery in d bible was used to help pay people's debts or remove people from d streets. And it had a seven years limit... And a slave is allowed to escape and be protected. God layed down laws to protect them from abusive masters..... So what r u saying...... Don't compare biblical slavery to the recent one.... Ben shapiro is not even a biblical scholar.

[@thebelmont1995]

​@@darkma1iceits not based on biblical principles. At all. The constitution supports freedom of religion. The Bible does not. It says in the 1st and 2nd commandments that you can't worship any other god. The constitution supports freedom of speech the Bible does not. Blasphemy and heresy laws are against free speech. The Bible supports slavery. We do not anymore. What you are saying is objectively false.

[@rrrr6863]

🙄​@@darkma1ice

[@thomasjones8805]

​@darkma1ice do you mean objective morality.

[@yamascott]

Ezekiel 27:13 Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, they were thy merchants: they traded the persons of men and vessels of brass in thy market.

[@drvee7599]

I have never seen Ben so rattled. I have just come across this channel. What a great conversation with Alex. Instant sub!

[@BroncoOldSchool]

Because he is usually debating college kids and not adults.

[@TataySol]

I appreciated how both of you handled yourselves during this short conversation clip.

[@TenzinBeifongIII]

Gotta love fence riders who stand for nothing.

[@International-indic.]

What have to be handled by them, their loose motion?

[@vanillabatcave5677]

@@TenzinBeifongIII "I liked how civic this was" "OH MY GOD FENCE RIDER, PICK A SIDEEE"

[@justomunoz7168]

This is exactly why Ben debates college students mote than anyone

[@jasonschuele115]

ironically, alex IS a college student, ben just doesn't like debating people who have been taught how to identify bad faith argumentation.

[@forgetaboutit1069]

Learn how to spell

[@k98killer]

Petition to have Alex and Ben collaborate on an April 1st joke debate. Feed the transcript and some humorous ideas to ChatGPT and ask it to write a short debate script that ends with both getting up and walking away backwards, then just read whatever it hallucinates or use it as the basis for something wonky.

[@danielwilkins7509]

Only when one truly is in the mindset of the SPIRIT of freedom, such as a believe in their heart, of a higher power, does the matter of SLAVERY, truly matter.

[@FaustVaz]

God: can't get rid of slavery because it's too radical. Also God: gonna have everyone speak different languages so they can't understand each other and also magically spread them all over the world.

[@icekills1]

The way ben shapiro said it is that it will create "incohesion" in society. To that, i wish alex would say, by what "metric would social incohension occur." By death count, by suffering?

[@Petticca]

@icekills I feel you, when Alex' interlocutor walks themselves into a big pile of, I would love him to do the obvious and make them faceplant into it, knowing they're so intellectually dishonest that they'll be tying themselves into knots to explain how they're actually face down in a bed of roses... but alas, Alex is a better man than I. In all seriousness though, I think it's an intentional choice not to make them eat the sht pile they create. It does mean he gets to explore quite a lot of the absurdity of someone like Ben's position, and he is still able to demonstrate the untenable positions. But it's Shapiro, and I would very much enjoy the meltdown, he's such a dishonest POS, spewing toxic propaganda online for a living, claiming atheists and the left are emotional dipshits, the cause of all that's wrong in the world.

[@blindmown]

Oh, and build a giant fucking boat cause I'm about to make it RAIIIN.

[@CunningPoet]

The slavery rules are a part of the Commandments laid out in Exodus. Exodus. Ya know, the time period where the Jews had just escaped slavery in Egypt. Seems like the perfect time to convince newly freed slaves that keeping slaves is not great.

[@phoenixwhiler943]

@@user-gw2xu7ey8uOld Testament: God supports genocide New Testament: though shall not hit neighbor with rock

[@yunglukiebabe]

Imagine thinking you could humanize slavery

[@TheLegendOfRandy]

Well, the God Creator of the entire Universe couldn't just tell primitive apes not to own each other as property. It would have been too hard for them to understand!!! But don't eat shellfish or wear any mixed fabrics. Absolutely not.

[@basicsimp8798]

Crazy how religion literally rots people's brain.

[@adamjohns350]

The premise of the Bible is humanity will know good and evil. That includes knowing hardship. Nowhere does it say "humanity will live perfect lives."

[@adamjohns350]

​@sammur1977 Spot on. Hebrews treated each other well. They were required to. They had strict rules for bond slavery. But yeah, slavery back then was like employment with room and board. There was no torturing and starving etc. It was humane. It also needs to be said, G-d freed the Hebrews from harsh slavery in Egypt. G-d doesn't agree with harsh servitude, not even for animals. It's all clearly stated in the book.

[@TheLegendOfRandy]

@@sammur1977 "Slavery" is owning another human being as property, which the Bible explicitly _endorses._ Is it ever moral to take another person from the nations around you, keep them as your property for _life,_ pass them down to your children as inherited property that you can _beat_ with impunity, so long as they don't die within a day or two? _No._ Not surprisingly, it seems as though you've never even read the Bible.

[@rbrainsop1]

There's a lot to address here, but I'll just start with the Exodus 21 passage Alex brings up at 9:20. When you look at the original Hebrew, there is nothing in the passage that indicates the master owns the wife and children, or that they are his property. It simply says she will stay with him. The question is, why? Because of the wording in the English translations, most people automatically jump to the conclusion that it's because he owns her. But consider the context: 1) This passage is talking about indentured servitude, and 2) The husband in question is an Israelite. Multiple other places in the law make it clear that they are not to intermarry with non-Israelites. In reality they did it all the time, but that scenario wouldn't be enshrined in the law like this. So the woman in question was almost certainly also meant to be a Hebrew, and therefore we should assume she's working a similar indentured servant contract. So considering these two things, what are the differences between the two scenarios? #1 He enters servitude with a wife, which means their contracts were made at the same time. #2 They each entered servitude individually before they married, so the odds are her contract has a different start and end date. If they get married, he's free to go when his contract is up, but she is still obligated to stay for the length of hers. Again, there is nothing in the original Hebrew that implies ownership of these people at all. There is a word for owner in Hebrew (baal), but it is not used for the master here- rather they use a generic term for someone in a position of authority over you (adon), which could include a parent, employer, government official, king, or God. Interestingly, the word "baal" does appear in the passage, but it's talking about the husband, not the 'master.' Which, if anything, would imply that his claim to his wife was greater than that of the 'master.' Despite the English translation, verse 4 doesn't say she will "belong" to her master. It simply says she will stay with him ("tihyeh"- she will continue to be- "ladoneiha"- to her adon). And note, I said "she"- because the other thing you'll notice if you look at the original Hebrew is that the relevant verbs and pronouns are all in the feminine singular. They don't apply to the children at all. It seems that it was expected that if the mother and father were separated, the children would stay with the mother. But nothing in this law says that it has to be so. The stipulation was only for the woman- the one who would have made her own independent service contract with the master. Regardless of how you choose to read the passage, these three facts remain: 1) the passage is clearly discussing indentured servitude rather than slavery, 2) there is no language in the original Hebrew that implies that the 'master' owns these people, and 3) the verse in question only applies to the woman, not the children. There's a lot more to say on the topic, but I just wanted to mention this, because it's a common misunderstanding of this passage.

[@avrahamedery]

Thank you for sharing this. Very interesting.

[@Manant.]

I’m baffled at the fact that it took 12 minutes for a grown adult to half admit that a human keeping the wife and children of a slave is immoral

[@thomascromwell6840]

Loved this. You did a great job! Hope for more beautiful discussions.

[@quietwulf]

Thanks for continuing to have the hard conversations Alex. These ideas need to be challenged and debated transparently more than ever.

[@user-pw4by1gh5o]

Indicatives (storytelling) and imperatives (commandments) are crucial devices in understanding much of what is difficult in the Bible. In regards to slavery, treating the symptom would be to do away with the slaveholder. Treating the cause would be to convince the slaveholder that his slaves are created in the image of God and that there is neither Greek nor Jew, male or female but all are one in Christ. That is the core idea that was the beginning of the end for slavery in what we now view as the "Western World"

[@tacomiester]

i love this its my favorite kind of debate

[@devirproductions]

debates where each person is respectful and doesnt talk over the other, although they may disagree, is so satisfying to watch. id go as far to say, enjoyable. great topic, fair questions and has sparked me to dive a little deeper on the topic. im a Christian, and this is a great subject to learn more about. thanks for the vid Alex!

[@fahimp3]

Careful, that "learn more about" might just become the defensive crutch for you when it comes to slavery... 😂"God works in mysterious ways" which is basically how Ben ended it...

[@eyeTHC]

@@fahimp3 you atheists sure are pompous

[@gordon3186]

@@fahimp3 --- The same was said of Ba'al, he works in mysterious ways.

[@SaraK_69]

Yes, praised be! Maga!

[@markrutledge5855]

@@fahimp3 I don't see a problem with "God works in mysterious ways." If God exists his intellect and perspective far exceeds anything that a human being can conceive.

[@luchochemmesvilches6163]

I love how different both minds work, obviously Alex is the most logical human being in my list, that is the whole thing why people watch him in the first place. Ive been following since the first time I heard him, such a priviledged mind. Seeing Alexs audience grow restores my faith in posterity. Thank you smart dude

[@MarcusCicero1]

Watching Ben's mind twisting itself into pretzels trying to defend the bible is mind-blowing stupidity

[@loveableheathen7441]

I still have faith in humanity, that the majority of people can recognize the difference between intellectual integrity and intellectual dishonesty.

[@davenchop]

@@MarcusCicero1 thats a great description.. it baffles me how people like shapiro can say the garbage they say and actually believe it themselves.. he seems like a smart individual but when defending the bible its just completely nonsensical mishmash

[@danyjr]

the most logical human being? have you read any philosophy?

[@22fingers]

what good is logic when talking about morals or how we feel about things as single people or society's do you use logic to determine you should love your dog but swat a fly how about to pick your friends or partner ... logic is a great tool but it has its time and place

[@sne299]

Where's the full vid ?

[@damienschwass9354]

Link in the description.

[@kwith]

I think the word "debate" is used rather loosely in the title here. I view a debate as two people having a discussion contributing points equally on both sides. This is just Ben making pitiful attempts to keep up with Alex. When you punch WAY above your intellectual weight class you just come off looking foolish, Ben does this daily.

[@brettbcomedy]

I love the answer “well I’m not god, so I don’t know,” it’s such a pathetic handwaving technique apologists do that allows them to not have to confront very basic truths that we know about human well-being and suffering.

[@zoomingby]

I mean, it's basically shorthand for, "I acknowledge that this doesn't make sense or it's completely inconsistent with the attributes we regularly ascribe to god." At the end of the day, these debates are kind of pointless. There are things that no apologist is ever going to acknowledge or admit, because it's better to give a bullshit answer and move on to the next topic than it is to acknowledge even for a moment that the bible or some religious tenet doesn't make sense (contributing to the case that the bible was not inspired by a perfect being).

[@samcolserra2425]

I'd agree if it was all Ben said. However, this was a remark to show he does not consider himself to speak on behalf of god (that would be ridiculous). He then provides a possible explanation to the question, based on what he knows about human society

[@zoomingby]

@@samcolserra2425 But then in the very same interview, he gives several answers and explanations wherein he ostensibly IS aware of why god does what he does. This goes to the person's point: the religious are much more likely to say they can't speak on behalf of god when the topic doesn't make sense or is inconsistent with his supposed attributes. Do you think that's a coincidence, or is this type of response the last refuge of people unwilling to say "you're right, thing A and thing B are contradictions"

[@josephtagalog5916]

@@zoomingby this is a pretty profound take, Alex also says this in the first round, where he discusses free will, where even if Alex convinces his opponent he states that their way of living never changes, acknowledging how these debates arent really here to convince the participants in the debates but to give the audience 2 perspectives to reflect on to make an educated opinion on something

[@blairmcian]

The "God works in mysterious ways" dodge.

[@vegai]

Props to Ben for not just storming out like another person did.

[@exaucemayunga22]

😂😂😂

[@seanjones2456]

I am one of the many people that would like to see Ben storm out and never return. He is a dingleberry.

[@Ftanftangfnarrr]

Not this time. But he did storm out when interviewed by Andrew Neil.

[@jonw3462]

He stormed out on BBC over nothing though and said "well I sleep on a bed of money" 🤓 Maybe learnt his lesson

[@JV-mw7gv]

Ooo, I’m not familiar with who stormed out of this sort of interview. Who did?

[@rmrazor]

This exchange between Alex and Ben is very enlightening. As a former believer, raised in the Catholic tradition, I do not remember the religion classes teaching us that God was alright with human enslavement, and the killing/murdering of the defenseless and young after a battle. Alex and others like him are doing a great service to all- - in revealing the utter horrors and insane contradictions that are in the Bible. Those passages of Gods servants dutifully committing mass murder on his behalf seem to be conveniently left out of most- maybe close to all- Sunday sermons!!

[@tensecondbuickgn]

It's fascinating to me the amount of gymnastics involved in this discussion. It seems to be painfully obvious to me that dogs would have been better at being messengers of god than people. Dogs teach us that love comes through action and not words

[@NELLYB]

“My god is no better than some of the lamest political candidates in human history” is not the argument I expected out of ben

[@xinchaodefeng08]

😅🤣🎉

[@UlRaiyan]

What ben was like in this debate His reaction Attitude This should be shown to all his blind followers

[@TheAsianRepublican]

God is a spectator, in his ant farm of warring ants, he can't mind control the ants, but he can manipulate the farm to gradually have the ants at peace

[@halloweenjean]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@TheAsianRepublicanpretty sure he could mind control the ants... but disregarding that, using this argument to defend the supposed god approved continuation of something immoral is stupid. god seems more than happy to explicitly ban other things seen as okay in such a time. and it then begs the question of what else in the bible did god deem moral/ immoral solely based on the people and culture he gave his message to in hopes that they would ‘gradually change’ (all whilst banging on about his righteousness and absolute truth) there’s a far simpler answer, the bible is just the mythical & cultural ramblings of men from millennia ago who’s practices and views we’ve since moved past. yet instead of admitting that the laws/morality set in this book are quite often terrible we lean into our cognitive dissonance and console ourselves with some of the best damn mental gymnastics i’ve ever seen.

[@clown134]

​@@TheAsianRepublicanwhat an impotent and weak God. is that really your best defense?

[@hj-ct2qi]

I can't imagine giving my entire heart and soul and mind to a religious text that I don't even at times agree with or understand. "If you want to understand that then you can become a religious scholar and spend your whole life on it." Really? If the text can't readily be understood and interpreted and consistent, what good is it as a blueprint for how we should live our lives???

[@PolyQuasi]

Well we are talking about Ben I-never-met-a logical-fallacy-i-didn't-like Shapiro

[@sabotagefate69]

Maybe it's because life and everything there in is incredibly difficult. Occams razor is retard level and that's what you believe in

[@sabotagefate69]

And again we have the classic retard who doesn't understand what an allegory is.

[@tommoore2012]

Whoever said that morality needs to be simple?

[@hj-ct2qi]

@@tommoore2012 definitely not me

[@bombyxmori8992]

I am an atheist and I like the way you express your genuine feelings Alex

[@JeanLucSchieferstein]

The convention by which I understand the moral-impetus of the Judaic-Christian tradition was that the permissiveness of the Judaic-laws was to curb the human condition of a propensity to oppress and exploit. The schism of traditional Jewish-thought versus Christian-though is the progression of how God will-ought to deal with the human condition. The point being made here that Ben Shapiro struggles on the spot to explain is there are moral absolutisms that are not tolerated (think the 10 Commandments) and moral grays where there is a utilitarian ethic-moving the goalposts against the headwinds of the cultures of the time-toward the absolute moral good.