Ben Shapiro vs Alex O'Connor • Is religion good for society?

The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? the flagship apologetics and theology discussion show from Premierunbelievable.com In this bonus episode of The Big Conversation' formidable Daily Wire host and renowned political thinker Ben Shapiro goes head-to-head with Oxford graduate of philosophy and theology, now international public speaker and debater, Alex O’Connor. Hosted by Andy Kind, Shapiro and O'Connor debate Is religion good or bad for society? What is the concept of free will? Does it even exist? What about the idea of the self, and the foundations of morality in society, and do we all have to agree on them?
Ben Shapiro is a distinguished figure in the realm of political discussion, recognised for his bold opinions and remarkable debating skills. Ever-innovative in thought and influential in culture, Shapiro brings a fresh and compelling perspective to this philosophical conversation.
Atheist Alex O’Connor, the KZbinr formerly known as the Cosmic Sceptic, and host of the Within Reason podcast brings thoughtful philosophical rigour and insight to provoke deliberation on varying timeless faith-science-philosophy topics. Religion’s effects in the evolution of consciousness, Nihilism’s counter to the concept of free will and, ultimately, the basis of varying worldviews serve as crucial discussion points in this thought-provoking exchange.
• For bonus content, updates and more shows sign up at: www.thebigconversation.show
The Big Conversation is a video series from Premier Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the religious and non-religious community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human. The Big Conversation is produced by Premier Unbelievable? in partnership with John Templeton Foundation.
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/267142101
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...

[@PremierUnbelievable]

Today's Survey: who's persuaded you? Let us know in the comments below 👇

[@rachelbenshapiroflexingvid5693]

Ben Shapiro, and not just because he’s hot

[@dmon728]

The bot above me.

[@res_gestae]

Alex

[@1Iljo1]

Ben

[@braddo7270]

Absolutely brilliant video, but Ben said something that nobody picked up on properly... about individual morality being inherently "dangerous" because and we need to believe that there is a higher power that will essentially punish us to act morally towards people outside of ourselves, but the only thing relevant in this instance is a higher CONSEQUENCE, not a higher power. For example, if you know not to do something because it has been established that if enough people do said thing, then bad things will follow... that's as effective as having a higher being to stop you... both boil down to consequence.

[@matthewdrummond5904]

Goddamn is anyone talking about the actual content of the debate and not just how respectful it was???

[@shadowbanned3044]

There is not much to talk about it. Religion was a good instrument to keep a huge amount of uneducated people in line. You can't massacre everyone who is not following your orders (even tho it was tried) but you need something to control them. So why not doing this by creaing some immortal, almighty beeing, which is very conveneniently never showing up or inteferring. At some point Religion did more bad than good, even still to this day. So was it always bad? No. Is it bad nowadays? It can be, evidentlly.

[@wreck-creation]

I noticed this a well. Its annoying.

[@shadowbanned3044]

@@wreck-creation Because the comments get deleted...

[@catalinaa766]

People aren’t used to seeing two sane people talk to each other 😂

[@brandidonn7847]

I think debates are entertaining but pretending debates are even slightly about actually changing minds and evaluating pre-held beliefs and biases is to engage in wishful thinking and shows a failure on both sides to ask what would move me on my position. I have recently came across “street epistemology” and while its effect is more of a slow release, a kind of ear worm that continues to grow and expand I still can not recommend it enough to people more interested in the subject of discussion than just a discussion. Anthony magnibosco has done a lot of examples of this Socratic approach to examine peoples deeply held beliefs and the reasons they have become so convinced and whether these reasons are deserving of such confidence. I think you would very much enjoy not only the discourse but the “community”/comment section as well. Everyone has moved beyond this misnomer that people cant respectfully disagree and that it might even be possible to change positions through valid and sound arguments with the correct approach.

[@harshitgarg1432]

Alex telling Ben Shapiro "Who is the moral relativist here?" when Ben was defending God's immorality was so good. Great job Alex. I am in complete awe

[@Sui_Generis0]

Saw that bait from a mile away, and Ben walked right into it

[@schizophrenicenthusiast]

Except Ben wasn't really relativizing as he explained, and did clarify that he considered those acts as immoral. I don't hold a side in this debate but I fail to see how Alex won on that point.

[@AkshatSharma-qx9wh]

@@schizophrenicenthusiast Because then Ben has to concede that a blatant immorality was permitted by God.

[@schizophrenicenthusiast]

@@AkshatSharma-qx9wh That makes sense to me now. I hadn't made the connection that calling those acts immoral was the same as calling God immoral. Thanks.

[@5m5tj5wg]

Ben did a pretty good job tho dismantling it. Such tactics were effective against boomer-christians 20 years ago but atheists need to come up with better arguments against theists who did their homework.

[@davidmontoya6672]

Our two split personalities debating

[@saltyark7564]

lol 100%

[@ericjacobs7795]

Yup. What a wonderful debate. I’d been listening to my Alex personality a lot and was very nice for my Ben personality to help balance it out!

[@eedobee]

Speak for yourself

[@saltyark7564]

@@eedobee Ummm.. that’s exactly what we’re doing… I’m sure like me the other people who commented are familiar with at least one or two of the following… Ian Watts, Manly P Hall, Ram Das, Laurence Krause, the late Christopher Hitchems, and Terrence McKenna. It’s like listening to a convo that encorporates all of those great minds into one convo assuming there is a creator. Even with the disposition in mind you can see some atheist type viewpoints creep up (hence why I mentioned a few atheist) Ben reminds me of Terrance in that he is focused on the here and now, where Alex makes me of Ram Das, The mind is nothing but the all is mind. Sort of philosophy. Both beliefs boil down to philosophies in which Alan Watts teach in that we use our beliefs to overcome the challenges in life. (Alan has a great lecture on fear I highly recommend)

[@ryansergas2776]

The ego and the awareness

[@calorus]

If Gallileo were an outspoken atheist, there'd be nothing left of him other than a footnote to him having been put to death for heresy. Doesn't mean he was an Atheist. Just means if he were, he wouldn't even be known in his own family.

[@Bayhuntr]

That’s the part Ben Shapiro is maybe pretending he doesn’t understand? Reminds me of the sales lady I worked with in Salt Lake City, 1990, that said she didn’t know any gay people… It wasn’t that long ago that atheist had to hide in the closet. In some Islamic nations they still do.

[@S.D.323]

precisely

[@drsquash2003]

Imagine what our country would look like if political debate were this honest and respectful

[@varunbhati1083]

I'm afraid the reason you cannot have such respectful and informative conversations in politics is because you have to be disrespectful to be a politician...

[@latinomarce9912]

What country are you referring to?

[@varunbhati1083]

@@latinomarce9912 I'm of course referring to my own country, which is India, but I think it can be true of any country... What country are you from BTW??

[@manualboyca]

I think the reasons are (1) politicians are usually debating with the goal of winning an election, so there’s too much on the line for them to be calm and rational, and (2) politicians are scum and (usually) idiots.

[@minnkhant7845]

They are calm because not much is tied behind the results of this conversation. Politics has the real weight of change/action for a lot of people's lives behind each sentence. So the people talking politics will inevitably have to be more invested and pushy. You have to be a sociopath to be discussing important politics with the opposite party and not get a little passionate about it when your life depends on it.

[@fernandomendezjr.1124]

This is a prime example of how to discuss with someone you disagree with. Lovely conversation!

[@williamfinucane]

Ben Shapiro seems to be very good at this. I can't stand his monologues or show, but he is great in conversation

[@MetatronLux-pk6jo]

Ben was leagues ahead

[@andrewballard2783]

​@@MetatronLux-pk6joWould you like to elaborate?

[@heinz57channel39]

@@MetatronLux-pk6jothat was a strange statement he’s above what ?

[@JNB0723]

@@MetatronLux-pk6jo was he? I will say Ben has good debate skills, but I feel like Alex did as well. As far as content, I side more with Alex...

[@jonathanjanssens4512]

I would binge watch more than 12 hours straight of Ben and Alex debating about religion.

[@harrylawson6293]

Seems there's too much to say for a 1 hour podcast

[@ST-gd4eq]

Ben Shapiro getting called out for his inconsistency for 12 hours straight? Inject it straight into my veins.

[@rduse4125]

It’s dizzying that the conversation can be so deep and simultaneously so fast paced.

[@ThePaganpat]

Go get versed on the subject and see how it slows down.

[@chadingram6390]

They do this shit for a living, they've had these discussions many times

[@darkflower1729]

The Destiny vs Shapiro was similarly dizzying, not really a fan of either but wow in debate you do see how intelligent they both are

[@ryansergas2776]

@@ThePaganpat do you hear yourself

[@user-uk4mu2rm5t]

lol try it at 1.25 speed

[@Pinkie-Red-Studios]

This is the calmest I’ve seen Ben in a debate.

[@colingundel8779]

Cause he's not debating kids who have no experience in debate and no prep work. While he's got every conservative talking zpoint ready to go.

[@user-xi2xi7qd3s]

Have to stay calm when dealing with Alex. He’s absolutely brutal when his opponent overreaches.

[@sauce8277]

⁠@@jttj742That’s not what a going on at all. Stop. People are humbled to get to talk to others on the same level. Alex was very much on guard at the beginning to see what type of liar Ben was….and then Ben said something(something about understanding the mind of God)that completely disarmed him and made him realize he was talking to someone in his level and could have a actual conversation. Because generale thats all people really want. To be understand and have connection. And it’s a wonderful thing to find people that you can talk to on your level.

[@tubsy.]

​​​@@colingundel8779College students are not kids. They are adults, and their age is not an excuse for their terrible reasoning ability. They are the next generation, soon they'll be in offices, positions of power. They BETTER have someone to initiate discussion and critical thinking.

[@Goatnime]

When he isn't against a college student, he is cooked

[@eitanmagaliff9772]

"Who's the moral relativist now?" Great stuff Alex. Morality is objective until the book says something we don't like

[@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution]

There is nothing great about any stuff of Alex. 1 he is wrong about almost everything he says and 2 he does not believe he has a free will or choice, then it can not be Alex who is to be credited for any great stuff, but who or whatever it is which predetermined Alex to be a self-delusional self-contradicting atheist.

[@jasonantigua6825]

@@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolutionsays the bible basher! Haha

[@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution]

@@jasonantigua6825 I have not bashed any bibles, but you sure as hell is doing a great job trying to avoid all the points I was making because you are defensive about your druggie friend Alex pretending to be a intellectual while he is bashing what few brain cells he has haha

[@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution]

@@jasonantigua6825 You are delusional dude 🙄😂

[@akwaMartyna]

@@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution 1. No, you just BELIEVE he is wrong, 2. Your conclusion is illogical. He can still be credited with it. Let me explain. I assume you believe in god and most gods don't view animals on the same level as humans (they don't have a soul etc.) which is also to some point true biologically (human brains are indeed the most developed compared to other species). Do you believe your dog has free will in a same way as you? You probably wouldn't. But you still give your dog a name, you care for the dog (at least if you're a good person but i'm an atheist and I don't believe in objective morality so I accept that you may view it differently). let's say your dog's name is Ruby. you buy Ruby a toy and it is Ruby's toy. and look, Ruby brought you a stick that you'd thrown! well, Ruby may not have free will but you would still talk about Ruby's actions like it's this dog's actions... because 1) language. it makes sesne linguistically but 2) more importantly - they ARE the dog's actions, 'cause the dog exists (I believe the world is real while there are philosophers who don't but I feel like me and Alex are on the same boat when it comes to free will). Alex also exists. his views and what he said in this debate are a consequence of millions of connnected events, decisions and outside influences but that doesn't make what he is not him and what he says not his. just like me writing this comment right now is a result of millions of influences and choices that started from my birth and led me to this moment. why am I writing what I am writing? why did I choose the dog analogy? what in your comment made me wanna reply even? why am I even replying to you while it's unproductive and you're probably not even going to reply? why did I even watch this video in particular? I clicked it in suggested section. but why? it had a catchy thumbnail? or because I don't like Ben shapiro ? but why was this video even suggested? because the algorithm operates based on videos I watched, liked and commented on previously. why did I watch all those videos? oh, i am interEsted in philosophy. but why am I ? and you can go like that indefinetely. the lack of free will doesn't mean you as you don't exist. it's just accepting that who you are is not entirely up to you. and while you may change, the extent of said change is also not entirely up to you. also, the difference between dogs and humans is humans have a mental capacity to recognize all this altough ignorance truly is blissful sometimes. me? the ultimate lack of purpose of my life is actually freeing. there is nothing expected of me and I choose that meaning for myself... kind of ;) more like all those pulls and pushes that made me me are choosing but still... i'm on Earth to enjoy the ride and make other people enjoy their rides more if i can

[@dprestons0318]

I was deeply affected by this conversation, particularly where it ended. Both parties were excellent. Thank you

[@The_Holland]

I thought you said "when"

[@scrltmcw963]

​@@The_Hollandlol

[@mrchakragaming3428]

Awesome conversation. It's relieving to hear an intellectual conversation about such a divided topic, not derail into name calling and insults. The world needs more of this.

[@John-me1hz]

I massively appreciate the calm, intelligent, and respectful way that both Alex and Ben conducted this debate. After all of the polarisation we’ve seen in media recently, I’d almost forgotten how a civilised, intellectual debate actually looks like. Well done. I hope to see more of this in the future.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

I'm not very scholarly but I do agree with your observations. Respect is the best way for good communication, no matter what the subject is. Peace to you from Florida USA

[@shaneebahera8566]

The problem is, respectful intelligent discourse doesn't get as many views or attention as the inflammatory shouting and name calling. So the media will always prefer making and showing more of that content

[@I.Reckon]

@@shaneebahera8566 330,000 views in 2days disagrees with you.

[@bigoltits1880]

Remind me again, who made a career out of reducing debates to "roasting SJWs, thug life destroying feminists, drinking liberal's tears etc." ?? Oh yeah that was Ben shapiro. This person literally became famous FOR turning debates into mockeries. He literally sold branded merch mugs with "liberal tears" written on them. He helped deteriorate the state of internet debates. Reducing everything to "owning, destroying, wrecking" his college age opponents.

[@jimkim2712]

@@I.Reckon Some of Ben's commentary on "wokeness" and other political stance get millions of views in days. If it bleed, it leads. Compare to an hour long debate, algorithm much prefer a 5-10 minute video as there's a higher likelihood that people will click and play the video.

[@e23700]

The crossover no one knew was needed. It's such a High-quality debate. If only all debates were like this.

[@jasonmartin7711]

The problem with this debate is that it never mentions anything about the miracle birth of Jesus Christ or what Jesus teaches and it was Jesus who said all these things shall be fulfilled. So, they still are going on today.

[@bernardobila4336]

​@@jasonmartin7711Ben is a Jew. That's why they didn't talk about Jesus.

[@localman9063]

​@@jasonmartin7711Ben is a Jew and O Connor is an atheist. The discussion was never going to be about Jesus.

[@Shankar-Bhaskar]

​@@jeremiah6540 That's just Ben being Ben, he can't help himself. It's his spiel, his stock-in-trade method of engaging in debates. He does it all the time.

[@Tony-Injection]

​@@bernardobila4336was is not about religion?

[@anuman99ful]

This was refreshing to watch, a civilized debate with no intent to "own" one another? Kudos to this channel.

[@marcokonst4144]

Off the start Ben is speaking on behalf of atheists like he understands what it's like to truly hold that perspective. I in fact believe in the self

[@vol94]

Hold your horses, he questioned that all of them believe in it. At the end of the day you cannot prove the self. The closest the philosophers have come is with the statement, "I think, therefore I am." But that begs the question when the word, "I," is use, which pressuposes identity and the self. Furthermore the sentence presupposes meaning in language and laws of logic such as predicates etc. It also can't be proven thoughts are truly rational and don't just have the appearance of rationality.

[@CanwegetSubscriberswithn-cu2it]

​@@vol94belief requires no proof. That's kind of thepoint. Otherwise it wouldn't be belief.

[@battt1718]

Right, that's kind of Ben's point though, isn't it? That atheists take for granted things that do not logically follow a purely material reality. You believe in the self, but does materialism conclude that you are a self? Does not materialism only conclude that you are chemicals designed to take part in a reproductive cycle? But you do not live like that, right? You live like you have meaning, right? Do you feel meaningless? Your worldview certainly doesn't ascribe you any meaning. Isn't that along the lines of Ben's point?

[@mhmm4840]

​@battt1718 why do you need someone/something else to tell you your meaning. Go find your own purpose in life. If youve found it with religion, thats great, but other people find meaning in other things

[@TheCrimson7272]

​@@mhmm4840the very idea of "you" is false. That is Ben's point. "You" didnt decide to have purpose. The collection of material and electron impulses made the decision, "you" had no place in it. Its incredibly nihilistic to be atheist because by definition, purpose cant exist in an entirely deterministic world

[@ignazio6037]

Finally a good debate, where there is mutual respect and no one speaks above the other. They should always be like this.

[@bitcoinweasel9274]

In a perfect world, moderation would enforce this, but it's nice seeing people who don't even need it.

[@ignazio6037]

@@bitcoinweasel9274 In fact, I'm too much idealist.

[@Donetravlin]

Respect is a strong word, I would say, courteous or considerit. They did politely acknowledge to each other that they would consider the other delusional. Rightfully so... Ben is talking with an imaginary ancestors imaginary friend for guidance in his life. The only way to reach someone who is that lost in their delusional beliefs is through calm, rational conversation. Would not want a fight to the death with them, as Alex pointed out.

[@stephenl9463]

⁠​⁠@@Donetravlincourteous and considerate describe respect. So they were respectful of one another. Calling each other delusional was qualified by each, in describing the ways one can be delusional. therefore to be delusional just means that they don’t agree on what is there. They believe the other is under a delusion. How can it be otherwise between someone of faith and the other of limited fact.

[@Donetravlin]

@stephenl9463 being respectful and respecting or having respect for a position is two different things, especially in a situation where you do not respect their position, yet you will be respectful while you converse with them Ben doesn't have any grounds to consider Alex delusional & that is why Alex was phenomenal at being respectful which will increase the chances of getting through the self absorbed brainwashing & cult indoctrination Ben has puts himself through.

[@coffeetalk924]

Alex is truly one of the great atheist thinkers of our generation. Not only is he brilliant and well studied, but he's so emotionally collected. Just an absolute pleasure to watch.

[@xpsm249]

But unfortunately, he has an incorrect and Catholic view of Scripture.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

I'm a Christian believer and I agree with your observations about Alex. Peace to you from Florida USA

[@coffeetalk924]

@xpsm249 subjective. Christianity is overloaded with tens of thousands of denominations, sects, splinter groups, you name it. And they all disagree with one another on at least one doctrine or another. So you calling him "incorrect" doesn't mean much.

[@piage84]

​@@xpsm249according to 99% of other Christian, your view of Christianity is probably wrong as well.

[@MrGgabber]

He is better than most, I'll agree. Still falls victim to the same issues of atheism, namely appeal to nhilism, and the failings of moral realitivism

[@johnsprague4914]

The internet needs more of this quality of discourse

[@casualkave537]

say something of value dammit "ooohhh its soo rare to see people have a civilized discussion these days"

[@johnsprague4914]

@@casualkave537 Did you think your comment fell in the "valuable" category? I don't. So you've achieved both pointless and uncivilized. A twofer!

[@andomaker]

@@casualkave537 Proceeds to say nothing of value. Incredible work, bud.

[@EnglishEvolution]

This is why KZbin is amazing. I would put up with all the ads in the world to listen to this conversation.

[@nickbrasing8786]

Boy, it's amazing to hear Ben pretty much completely walk back his justification of Biblical slavery since his discussion of it with Jordan Peterson. How his two positions on the subject are even remotely reconcilable is beyond me. And that is the beauty of having to sit across from someone who's not already on your side. We need more of this and not less.

[@JustinSwell]

What was his position before?

[@Volmire1]

Right, someone like Frank Turek or Paul Copan has better positions on Biblical slavery, concerning the OLD law, in the OLD testament, which is no longer a thing for Hebrews, and never was a thing for Christians.

[@youtubespag]

​@@Volmire1maybe you missed the part where Jesus said to keep the old law. It's in the sermon on the mount.

[@Volmire1]

@@youtubespag He actually didn't say to keep the old law forever. I'm pretty sure you're referring to "17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill (Gr. Plerosai). 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled" Quite right, the fulfillment of something means its completion. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, covering all sin, and fulfilling the law. "Romans 8:3-4: 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Romans 10:4 for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." The law was fulfilled and we are not under it, nor were we, as Christians ever under the law.

[@jonathanpena5972]

​@@youtubespagUnfortunately, they also missed the most recent events of slavery in history where slave owners would read certain parts of the bible to their slaves in order to keep them as... well.. slaves.

[@guardianbuilds9660]

Two guys who care about making each other's arguments better. This is so rare.

[@nuggetoftruth-ericking7489]

I really enjoyed this. Thanks.

[@Ego_death19]

it's so refreshing to listen to this after watching the Alex "vs" Dinesh "debate"... """""

[@randomdude2540]

This should be used as an example of how contestants in a debate should behave. Their clear mutual respect along with their well-defined positions makes this one of the most informative debates I've seen. Well done!

[@b.w.1386]

MAGA don't listen to anything but slogans. How do we fix the problem if we can't even get 1 sentence deep? But yes, good debate.

[@anheuser-busch]

MAGA and BLM/Woke listen to reason equally, which is to say not at all. Both of them should be gone from political discussions, because it is just all feelings based.

[@paulray5647]

@anheuser-busch MAGA and BLM are not the same in societal destructiveness. MAGA wants to save America as founded, while BLM wants its destruction. Comparing the two is indicative of a lack of understanding and shallow analysis of each.

[@jpw5029]

Fruit loops deserve nothing. Otherwise it legitimises absolute nutcases.

[@Runthemjewels]

@@anheuser-buschbro did you just equate a global protest movement - one of the biggest in human history, to random MAGA conspiracy theorists? And then equate that to “woke”? Do you have a definition of woke that isnt just “things i dont like”? This is mental illness.

[@datrout744]

The way alex is always calm and sincere seems to be infectious. It seems most of his debates encourages his opponent to take an equal calm and sincere stance. With an exception to Peter H in his interview lol

[@LuciferArc1]

Yeah. That was a shit show. I felt sorry for Alex. He really seemed to want a good conversation with him

[@karion99]

lol yeah, I also thought about that... I think the truth is that Hitchens is a way weaker debater with a much bigger ego, that's why he got so angry.

[@ksan1648]

​@@karion99My take on that interview is that Hitchens felt "caught-out" ("if I knew you were going to talk about the Portuguese drug paradise, I would have..." and then had to default to the position that Alex had "brought [him] on false pretenses and behaved badly." Am glad Alex posted it, at any rate.

[@angusmcculloch6653]

Still, Alex lost the first point fairly decisively, and he knew it. Alex got too caught up in making the point on free will's existence, while Ben stayed focused on the actual topic, which is "Is religion good or bad for society" and was able to make the point "You can't build a functioning society off telling everyone they have no choices". Alex understood this, I think, which is why he interrupted the host at the end to ask "If what Ben says is true, who's believing the delusion." The issue is, Alex just walked straight into sociology spanning from Socrates to Luckmann. I wish Ben had known more about the sociology of societal formation, because it would have been good to test Alex's claim against Socrates's noble law and modern-day constructivism.

[@datrout744]

@@angusmcculloch6653 the free will discussion is essential for whether religion is good for society. Its a shame the host made them move on before they could get into details. But ultimately alex still made his points while pointing out the flaws in bens argument. Im not sure ben really touched the topic of if religion is good for society, but his arguments in this discussion didnt seem as thought out as alexs.

[@ashmunnery5621]

When brilliant minds come together. Very civilised and gentlemanly, it was a pleasure to watch.

[@benyaeger4388]

I have to agree that both points of view were nicely put.

[@brendanbaker1459]

One of the greatest debates I’ve ever seen. The respect, the intelligence, the actually responding to what the other person said…. Beautiful

[@MetatronLux-pk6jo]

Ben goat

[@TomisaLami]

Yeah just kind of proves the point that Ben just enjoys watching people suffer me know because like 99% of the time he's just misrepresenting concepts and other peoples arguments as a means to push the idea of hierarchies in unjustifiable decisions that ultimately lead to more problems in the world but here he demonstrates that he actually does have the ability to learn. And I guarantee tomorrow Ben's gonna be right back to the same old stuff and probably buy some wood to prove he's a man and burn some Barbie dolls or something.

[@markharrison6498]

Ben really isn’t very intelligent tbh. He’s a dishonest hack

[@gibbolsc]

These religious debates just bore me now. To summarize ‘I believe in god but know I can’t prove he exists but you can’t prove he doesn’t so he must exist’. Knowing that it’s impossible to prove a negative. I ask you this if I said there’s a fairy living in my room, and you said I don’t believe you, who would the burden of proof lie with?

[@caballeroGarvey]

Read the title conversation again. The existence of god was not the main topic of conversation.@@gibbolsc

[@mihaitha]

Nice to see Alex leveling up from not losing his cool while talking to Piers Morgan to not losing his cool while talking to Ben Shapiro.

[@Jay-pe4gx]

Not really.. piers morgan is definitely more of a pain in the ass I dont find ben shapiro a pain at all.. hes very controlled and polite

[@mihaitha]

@@Jay-pe4gx that may be so, but I for one hate with a passion the way he gish-gallops. I would not be able to keep cool when discussing with him, I'd constantly be like "yo yo, hold up, let's discuss this before you change the subject".

[@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution]

Yeah the alien robots who predetermined his cool, did a great job in determining that he should level up his mannerism, while still sounding like a total idiot 😆

[@SeisoYabai]

​@@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolutionwhat

[@Makikiku]

@@mihaitha I noticed that too it cringes me tf out ! like hey isn’t this an intellectual debate ? Not to mention he kept interrupting Alex here 😒

[@KageKitsune64]

Commenting 4 months late, but just found this. Very entertaining, thank you all very much for this. : )

[@vital.elements]

Both gentlemen have persuaded me to think more thoroughly about these subjects. I'll need to watch again to take in half of the compelling points presented by these two tremendously bright minds. It was a pleasure to listen to a proper respectful debate between these gracious men. Thank you 🙏

[@kylebization]

I did not expect ben to basically admit that free will might not exist but rather that its better to live as if it does. This was shocking to watch. Definitely a testament to just how good Alex is. Also a demonstration that ben is at least honest enough to acknowledge the truth of good arguments. Most pundits can’t manage that.

[@kalu8652]

Ben and Alex shared the opinion that operating under the impression that free will exists benefits humans, regardless of whether its true or not. Ben furthered his point by stating that free will can only exist under theism, and Alex stated that free will developed as a delusion in the human mind, because it's beneficial for us to operate as if it exists.

[@kylebization]

It’s of course possible I misunderstand what he’s saying, but at 21:16 Ben says a couple times some version of Its possible/plausible that free will doesn’t exist, but that society is better as a result of people believing free will exists. I’ve watched several of bens debates on free will, for example against sam Harris who has a similar view to Alex, but I’m pretty sure I’ve never heard ben concede this point. Maybe I missed it.

[@fredrikfjeld1575]

SHapiro mostly does not acknowledge others arguments if they go against his own views though. There is a reason why there are videoes of him teaching conservatives how to win arguments and tells them to not use facts and attack the person doing the arguments instead.

[@dakotacarpenter7702]

I don't think he would be so honest on another platform. It is refreshing to see him, I never realized he was actually smart.

[@Spektor211]

​@dakotacarpenter7702 he got escorted into moral relativism and he didn't even realize it until he did. You can see it on his face. Sure the guy is not an idiot but he ain't smert like Alex is smert.

[@w0ody16]

Alex definitely caught Ben in a twist over the slavery issue. Good format and conduct and I would love to see them do this again soon.

[@sirg_k]

Indeed, I also give props to Ben getting Alex to admit there is no free will is nihilism and I think is the strongest pivot point for the argument

[@AsixA6]

So what if there is no free will?

[@RevieCliche]

​@@sirg_kconsidering that Alex was arguing that there is no free will that's not much of an accomplishment for Ben.

[@Matt-dl2iy]

Ben: GOD CREATED THE EARTH IN 7 DAYS AND IS AN ALL POWERFUL BEING! Also Ben: GoD DiDnT WaNt To CaUsE SoCiAL DiScoHeSiOn By StoPpInG SlaVeRy

[@marcus3173]

There you have it folks. Ben Shapiro considers God to be immoral.

[@code_solutions]

Such an incredible debate, not only because the debaters were so knowledgeable but also because they were so respectful and so genuinely interested in understanding the other person's arguments.

[@SamRenee22]

Amazing moderation! I didn't think that was possible!

[@Nathanaelelliott]

This should've been 4 or 5 hours long. Really great content. Please have another round with these two. I'd pay money. Or like...compliments.

[@DelBoy573]

Watch it on 0.25x speed. You’re welcome.

[@SoilKilonova]

​@@DelBoy573lol

[@matthewglenguir7204]

​@@DelBoy573 Ben starts to sound normal

[@ryanw5569]

@@DelBoy573ha, well played

[@Ondolite]

Yoo simp!!

[@SS-sg1vn]

This is ridiculous that this debate was so calm. This is in no way how a debate should be ran. They should be yelling at each other, calling each other names, mocking and not letting each other speak. Ridiculous!!!

[@Kooczsi]

I can’t believe this conversition was meaningful! Downright despicable 😠

[@obbie1osias467]

That would be a Trump non-debate you want to watch!🤣🤣🤣

[@jacobhamilton2473]

I think you need a snickers

[@nahomefiseha2416]

U will have it with Mohammed hijab

[@nahomefiseha2416]

It is not necessary, seemed that u watch it for not learning

[@maxwellsimon4538]

What an incredible interview. Not only are alex and ben very well mannered and respectful toward eachother, but their arguments are both very convincing and well thought out. It’s hard to say who comes out on top here, which i believe speaks well to the nature of the universe as the ultimate mystery.

[@chiefredhutt]

Good conversation. I wish it was longer though.

[@amaninathan8033]

Props to Andy, he was mostly silent but he was always on hand to provide a laugh or two. Loved the guy

[@jasonthomas9319]

But by his worldview he doesn't deserve any props, because he is only there because its biologically predetermined to be there. So he deserves no credit, afterall he is a machine born of evolution in his worldview. Do you not realize that if what he is saying is correct then he shouldn't be praised because everything he says is predetermined.

[@testingsomething5280]

​@@jasonthomas9319shut up

[@DarthNafarious]

@@jasonthomas9319 you could say praise be to god for making him the way he did so that he would want to make this show. Guess theists have no free will because god made them the way he did and knows everything, so he knew what they would do and when. You can only choose to do what god knew you would do. Think about that.

[@FreethinkingMinistries]

Andy was fantastic!

[@codeyakexpeditionaires6854]

in the opening he gave so much prattling and caveating as to be worrying, especially given how little time was allotted for this debate. Glad it did not continue.

[@Ricehigh85]

This is so amazing. Only problem with it is that it wasn't long enough, none of the topics were given the time they really deserve

[@Asymmetrization]

Agree

[@user-be6xk3cj7y]

I’m so happy we have people in the world that are way smarter than me. I have hope for the future.

[@prioritea.merchant]

Subbed-- well done Andy Kind! Excellent interviewer!

[@Think_4_Yourself]

26 minutes in, and I thoroughly enjoy this discussion. They seem to not be taking past each other but actually interfacing with eachother's commentary. Refreshing to witness.

[@misimiki]

This is what the world used to be like until recent years.

[@deanought3695]

​@@misimiki i dont know if thats true. My assumption would be that its always been this way in a similar capacity. Only now we have a much larger amount of access to those more ugly interactions

[@jmd489]

@@deanought3695​​⁠overall, social media (and much of the internet in general) perpetuates echo chambers of people’s existing opinions and world view and promotes intolerance to accept or collaborate with opposing ideas imo. Definitely more prevalent nowadays in my observations. Would be an interesting debate topic on it’s own though

[@deanought3695]

@@jmd489 yeah, I'd like to see that debate. I imagine that one side might make an argument for historical communities that act like echo chambers due to little information getting in. I'm speculating of course. It may be the case that echo chambers are more prevalent now. It's so hard for us to tell exactly how it used to be in the past. I personally get tired of 'the good ole day's sentiment'. I never buy it outright. People usually refer to their childhood, or a generation ago thinking that this or that used to be better. I find most claims too hard to quantify

[@alinac5512]

I actually didn't hate Shapiro as much as I though I would. He didnt convince me on anything but he gave food for thought and actually made some interesting points. I went into this debate thinking "Go Alex" but thank you to both participants for once again teaching me to value reason and logic for the beauty of logics sake over tribalism and cheerleading.

[@alansmithee419]

Ben and as another example Peterson are both intelligent, there's no question. They just each have a few very questionable beliefs and their otherwise eloquent logic makes it easy for people to fall prey to these more extreme arguments.

[@jeffwatson7345]

i dislike Ben almost as much as another human can dislike another human, BUT i agree with you. i came into this with the foreknowledge that was going to hate everything Ben said, and was completely taken aback by some of his statements and his congeniality in this debate. was happy to be wrong. that said, i still do NOT like this man!

[@alinac5512]

@@jeffwatson7345 completely agree. I'm just happy this debate again broadened my horizons and gave me plenty of food for thought. And while Ben presented himself surprisingly admirable here unless he actually gets his mind changed by Alex on a couple of very key points of his philosophy... I don't see myself liking him anytime soon.

[@Jaaammmbbbooo]

You didn't hate him as much as you thought you would? What does this even mean? From what I take from it is that you have a preconceived view of Ben from your peers. Open your own eyes.

[@NoFeckingNamesLeft]

Ben is incredibly intelligent and full of interesting ideas outside his low-hanging-fruit political day job, nice to see others capable of recognising this and not just shutting his words out because he's said things you disagree with.

[@georgekendall2053]

This was phenomenally refreshing and so damn interesting to watch, kudos for the respect the direct handling and strongmanning of each others points and the great moderation! We need more of this. I’ve just come from watching the UK election debates and it’s like toddlers in comparison it’s pretty damning

[@CYBRLFT]

Fantastic exchange. I enjoy these sort of discussions and love having them myself. I think we’ll continue to socially evolve to favor science and logical pursuance and spiritual practices will come along for the ride.

[@ThePaganpat]

Science eventually gets rid of baggage.

[@CYBRLFT]

@@ThePaganpat one of its great services to humanity.

[@adamoconnor8958]

I wonder how many times Alex practiced saying, " Facts don't care about your feelings." In the mirror while preparing for this discussion.

[@77jaykb]

at least it was used perfectly in response to ben being ironic

[@adamoconnor8958]

@@77jaykb The practice paid off.

[@49perfectss]

Enough to nail it when the time came 😂

[@Baes_Theorem]

😂😂😂

[@sankalp2520]

using a hypocrite's quote against himself.👌

[@bryandelcid4065]

Great to see two people who essentially “agree to disagree” debate. It’s nice to see these friendly, non-aggressive and respectful debates.

[@GinoNL]

Yes! It’s such a rare thing, unfortunately, because these guys are exceptions on different levels. IQ and experience with debate mainly, causing them to be able to take a higher perspective of thinking. Zero judgment from either side and either side sincerely listening to understand instead of listening to respond.

[@Uouttooo]

It is easy on something that can't be trivially proven either way as long as both sides are reasonable.

[@somanytakennames]

What a shame Shapiro has undoubtedly played his part contributing to the flame war that is discourse today. He behaved himself here because he realised doing what he normally does would result in a disaster.

[@thomasdupont7186]

this is such an American thing to say, like having a ORDINARY conversation is EXTRAORDINARY in your world, which is sad.

[@ivanpuklavec6494]

​@@GinoNL what? Ben Shapiro is constantly dogding the questions and does not engage at all with arguments from Alex

[@KingJulius349]

I love this debate , as a Christian these are questions I asked myself when I was deciding whether to be an atheist or not.

[@stevenwilliams1805]

As it should be, this wasn't about either side "winning" rather than presenting the case and allowing the audience to make up our mind. Fantastic debate gentlemen.

[@LudvikKoutnyArt]

I absolutely love debates on this level. High quality arguments exchanged in a civil manner. This channel is about to blow up. You're doing an amazing work!

[@madrooky1398]

I would have enjoyed to disassemble Bens opening my self, and i am not an atheist, i am agnostic. The relevance of a god in a belief system is totally overrated. Just a humble view over to China, the one civilisation that has outlasted so many others and is still very present on this planet, larger in numbers than the US and Europe combined, is not falling apart because of the lack of a monotheistic figure everyone can pray to. Whether one likes it or not, you can also put a photo of the great leader of the communist party onto your wall and be content with someone watching all your actions and provide judgement... And that is not even a joke, its true, but the irony though is still hilarious.

[@chizukinspiration613]

Is this the atheist guy who beat mohammed Hijab in a debate so hijab proceeded to edit the video online and ban comments?

[@WillyJunior]

​@@madrooky1398agno gang represent

[@Shiroyashasama]

@@madrooky1398that such a horrible comparison. China had an exchange of dynasties through history and they were locked out of the rest of the world for the most part and millions of their people were killed by their own leaders (Mao). The idea of “contentment” is internally validated not externally by a authoritarian human

[@peuppeuppeup]

‘high quality’

[@manasesa.davila1828]

This was great, not just a tiktok brained debate where "geniuses" are trying to DESTROY each other. Love both, and hope more actual debates like this happen.

[@psyphile1330]

Tik tok debators are basically all hasan clones 💀

[@TomisaLami]

That's because Ben Shapiro is in a room surrounded by people who follow him arguing against teenagers. We're just trying to like make the world a better place. I'm guarantee if Ben was talking to another adult who is clearly smarter than him with good faith, education and knowledge he would be doing exactly what you say trying to destroy him with rhetoric instead of warming reasonable argument.

[@manasesa.davila1828]

@dannyraygun That's just not true, and I know it's not cause I watch him too throughout the years. He's had many hard conversations with great people, including the likes of Sam Harris, Niel deGrasse, etc. The format and aggression with babies who try to make him look like a bad guy vs actual hour long conversations and debates will always look different. He's been debating intellectuals long before Alex has, not taking away from Alex cause he did great and is growing more and more. With that being said, that's a horrible way of putting it.

[@manasesa.davila1828]

@@psyphile1330 pretty much.

[@greyngreyer5]

Alex was acting like "a genius" trying to "destroy" Ben though

[@cleverestx]

This was a fantastic talk. Thank you.

[@g4p5l6]

Whoa, this is a tall glass of water. Really enjoyed this, thanks for posting.

[@gavinjohnston9749]

I think this conversation was brilliant because it stepped away from the typical religious discussions which almost exclusively hinge on whether god does or does not exist. This highlights the functionality of religion in society irrespective of whether or not it is true, which is a very refreshing question to hear discussed.

[@immanny85]

In that case, watch Hitchens & Fry on “Is religion a force for good?” debate.

[@martanieradka4675]

If it functions it must carry truth, it’s the principle that governs scientific research!

[@featherton3381]

@martanieradka4675 If that was true then the most effective politicians would be honest. There’s a study that shows that if you talk to a person whose views are fundamentally incompatible with yours, then usually both of you will leave the conversation with more extreme beliefs. However, if you pretend to hold the other persons beliefs and frame your arguments as doubts that you are having, then you are much more likely to convince them. Lies and manipulation can be functional.

[@jsguinomhay1097]

I guess despite religion's unverifiable claims and inconsistencies, something that survived a millennium or two must surely have something positive to contribute.

[@mirapilates]

I think the "existence of God" debate is central. Jordan Peterson shies away from this with his word salad and never acknowledges if the events in the Bible are true, he drones on about the "meta".

[@bartkl]

I definitely think Alex was more convincing, but I was pleasantly surprised by how nice and smart Ben was. It's a massive difference from his political work which I honestly find deeply problematic. Anyways, keep these conversations going. They really do a great job in combating further polarisation.

[@jamesgains8652]

Genocide advocacy and Apartheid defence is more than a little problematic

[@swagikuro]

Ben plays nice when he knows he cant win. Guy is a coward. This is the person who got famous for "pwning" college students over the lowest hanging fruit of political issues.

[@CRJC777]

@@jamesgains8652genocide? And apartheid? Where?

[@afterglow5285]

i get you, hitler was the same.

[@bartkl]

@@jamesgains8652 Well I did say *deeply* problematic. I agree with you.

[@dsha2006]

I'm looking for the recent debate they did. Is it out yet? Or maybe there is no recent debate and I was seeing promos from 5 months ago from the algorithm

[@kensimmons3356]

If everyone could agree to disagree and have civil conversations like this the world would a better place.

[@Valketa]

If only american politics could conduct themselves in such a respectful and genuine way. Truly a beautiful example of how most political and philosophical disagreements should be done.

[@TheInfectous]

American politicians appeal to american voters unfortunately and I don't think the majority of the population in any country is substantially different.

[@TheBiggestMoronYouKnow]

this sentence is making my brain melt

[@ioncasu7495]

These two gentlemen are talking to intellingent people. Politicians talk to masses of people most of which are very mediocre.

[@jeffburman7832]

@@TheInfectoussome American politicians lie to Americans. To their face, on camera. For 50 years in a row.

[@jeffburman7832]

Define religion. The aims of religion? I.e. love your neighbor and love you enemies. Or the failures of religion? Pedophile rings in sovereign churches.

[@BeastmanWatchUrMouth]

Ben really struggles during the conversation about slavery. Alex is spot on with his assessment that Ben's position is moral relativism here.

[@albertbecerra]

The thing is though, in a world where free will does not exist, and morality is simply subjective, what is it that makes slavery "wrong?"

[@MrVonzine]

@@albertbecerraI guess limiting someone else’s freedom is hurting them and as such it is wrong?

[@henry306]

@@albertbecerra My moral belief that human suffering should be avoided whenever possible makes slavery wrong for me. But if you're implying that religion provides objective morality, I'd disagree. The morality that is provided by religious texts is just the subjective moral opinions of whoever wrote the text. Even if you believe in a god, any morality provided by a god is also just their opinion, meaning subjective.

[@albertbecerra]

@@MrVonzine but that is subjective. If one king or war lord or whatever, conquers one group or community or whatever the setting, logically it be smart to imprison the now conquered as they would look to regroup and retaliate, as it is common to for man to seek retribution. And it would be the same result vice versa.

[@albertbecerra]

@@henry306 religious morality isn't solely based on subjective opinions. Some argue it's grounded in a broader framework, suggesting a divine source or higher purpose. This perspective contends that religious morality provides an objective foundation, beyond individual viewpoints, offering a more universal basis for ethical principles.

[@BuckScrotumn]

Really cathartic to hear someone say they don’t believe in free will. I proudly claim my atheism but I’m a little shy to openly admit I don’t believe in free will lmao. 😂

[@liamthomas2014]

Don’t worry that’s just your biological drives protecting you. You can’t help it

[@fartpooboxohyeah8611]

Why?

[@WesBurkeLEMG]

PART TWO PLEASE

[@bradlii]

Ben Shapiro repeatedly says that he can’t pretend to know the mind of god, yet he also repeatedly assumes that god has some progressive strategy to morality which explains away the clear endorsements and prescriptions for slavery. I wish Alex would have capitalized on this clear contradiction central to Ben’s claims. I know he asked Ben who was the moral relativist, but the central reason for Ben’s relativism is caused by 1. first claiming ignorance of God’s grand design and intention, and 2. then proposing and arguably attempting to defend God’s design and intention. We need a part 2.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

Ben earlier said something about that being a feature of his argument 😂.

[@GodsWeakestSoilder]

Well said

[@asdfasgdfgsd107]

Knowing the mind without knowing what was decreed are two different concepts. Say an omnipotent being thinks vs the omnipotent speaks. One is unknown while the other is. It also isn't about Judeo-christian religion specifically, it is about religion in general vs atheism for morality and/or society

[@BlueCoore]

It seems to me that we are putting more than one concept into the same basket which leads us to the Judeo-Christian religion rabbit hole, in any case, I think it has to do with knowing the cause (mindset of God) and knowing what the scripture says (decreed), which ultimately will end up in Ben arguing that time/era is a factor along with the hermeneutic. Listening to Ben makes me feel that any intent of rationalizing religion (faith) falls apart due to the fact that God, by definition, it’s what transcends us in every aspect. This is why he never defends his faith nor feelings, obviously, but facts. Personally I don’t see any utility for religion-social topic debate Alex capitalizing the moralism relativity argument as Ben never argue to impose religion on anyone (and I think Alex thought of this beforehand and didn’t keep poking in) When Ben explained Alex to offer the kid the two philosophical arguments atheist and theism and let him grow and choose, Alex says and nods agreeing from its core and also realizing a little bit more deeply Ben’s values (Ben’s faith, if you will, which is the pre course of his moral ground, therefore his values) Alex notices that the bridge they are trying to build between them, for some reason, requires a God only knows (un ironically) how much more complex engineering.

[@anthem4333]

Ben doesn’t deny all capacity to understand God. Obviously, he can learn about God from the Torah. That doesn’t mean that he will know everything about God, as the Torah doesn’t reveal everything about God. There’s no hypocrisy.

[@richb2124]

Amazing debate. I wish everyone could just have calm debates like this.

[@CormanoWild]

Why tf are u watching drybones the zionist then lol

[@DebNKY]

Yes, this is good stuff.

[@harry-cee]

In the span of my 42 years inhabiting this human form - of which my humble mind recalls but a fraction - I must confess, Andy, that you are unequivocally the finest moderator I have encountered across all mediums and platforms. Your podcast is a masterpiece. It's destined to captivate and soar!

[@Joelthinker]

The way that they were able to immediately compartmentalize eachothers aeguments, think it out, and then provide a reponse is lightning fast! Some very high functioning minds here. So fun to have watched them interact!

[@gustavolamego9913]

Okay the delivery of the line "facts don't care about your feelings" by alex in response to the claim that a purposless life isn't a very good way to look at it by ben is awesome

[@israelgulley9104]

Can you rephrase that I don’t think I quite understand what you mean

[@Joshcaldwell24]

If this of course was in fact a fact to begin with lol

[@mateussantiagolage1005]

@@Joshcaldwell24 Sure, but it does expose the contradiction on Ben's line of thought.

[@japanbeta]

For many, religion allows people to live a purposeful life. This is good for society and that is the topic of the debate. The truth of religion is not the topic.

[@gustavolamego9913]

@@japanbeta facts dont care about your feelings

[@user-od4lb8pr7q]

Incredible, respectful and insightful debate

[@SodexoVincent]

Great discussion guys

[@praiseit4805]

I don’t know why but I find it incredibly charming that Ben and to a lesser extent Alex were occasionally chuckling throughout the video. I love conversations that are so civil that both sides can joke *with* each other rather than agains them.

[@DebNKY]

I agree, the humanity is appealing.

[@Unnamed7964]

Alex did amazing, he's 24 but yet it seems as he had decades of academic education on his back. The maturity displayed is also exceptional, a great inspiration for all gen z

[@yalineclaire1969]

It is far easier to criticize a worldview than come up with one. Alex only has arguments against issues but he fails to say anything 'for' something because he knows how hard it is to hold that worldview.

[@ryomensukuna4526]

​@@yalineclaire1969I don't think you've watched him enough.

[@tfwnoyandere]

@@yalineclaire1969 maybe thats why religious weirdos are constantly criticising everything that falls outside their own incredibly narrow bigoted worldview they got out of a thousands year old book, rather than come up with their own as the rest of us have done lol

[@firefly9838]

@@yalineclaire1969 it IS hard which is why most including Ben fail😒

[@bratprica6383]

​@@yalineclaire1969 Not believing in a god is a worldview in of itself though.

[@akashdtx]

That's how people who disagree can go about debating/discussing!

[@dasame2386]

Wonderful debate!

[@shirinatron3585]

I've been wanting this for so long. I love how big Alex is getting and how respectful Ben is to people he finds intelligent. They should do a show together lol

[@yungbusta]

😂 except Ben literally works for right wing propaganda companies with the same societal perspectives shared by David Duke. He is genuinely one of the worst figures when it comes to thinking objectively and self-critical thought. The fact that he genuinely has no respect for even those he percieves as less intelegent is evidence of him allowing his moral shortcomings to dictate his ability to reason. Hes by definition a bad faith actor and a political shill.

[@yungbusta]

What im saying is, this is no "meeting of great minds" this is "political tool, good talker and thiest attempts to prove known fallacies and absurd ancient claims to be true by the hand of a well educated, well spoken, self critical atheist."

[@adamchristensen8566]

If only Ben could pull off "respectful" with no qualifiers.

[@daseinz]

Alex will not sell his values and work with him

[@fisharepeopletoo9653]

​​@@adamchristensen8566No one does that, what are you on about. For instance if you are disrespectful to me, you're getting disrespect back, because being respectful is one of the qualifiers I require in order to be respectful. If you don't deserve respect, you're not getting it. Period.

[@aid4026]

Such a refreshing conversation to listen to. This is a proper way to have a discussion around important/interesting matters, not the drivel Piers Morgan puts out as a "debate" with the solo purpose to produce short viral clips. Thank you Alex and Ben

[@wtfboom4585]

If I had a penny for every time Piers Morgan finds a way to bring up his opposition of the Iraq war...

[@S.D.323]

funny enough both Alex and Ben have talked to the great Interruptor himself

[@alxdavy]

To comprehend if there is not free will we need to define “will”

[@battt1718]

True. Personally, the way I define free will, is just, "the ability to make a decision." Some people define free will as, "the ability to make a decision without external factors affecting that decision." Which just simply isn't possible given our nature and the nature of our reality. But you just can't get around the fact that you make decisions everyday. You choose what to wear, what to eat, where to go, what to say. You can claim that the decisions are made by external forces, but it's simply not true. *You* are made by external forces, but you are made *with decision making capabilities* . The decision making capabilities that are a part of you, are created by external factors, but they are still by definition, *your decision making capabilities* . Making a decision is freewill. Everyone makes decisions. It's less complicated than a lot of people make it.

[@antonywilkinson2824]

The quality of the discussion is very refreshing from both sides. Alex is the slightly tighter philosopher, but he didnt convince me. Both made exceptional well-constructed points. We need more discussions of this quality. As some others have mentioned, considering the depth of the discussion, I at times found it hard to keep up with the pace. The quality of the debate is right up there with some of the best discussions I've ever seen on youtube. As for who "won" - the viewers did.

[@timmanning5206]

Ben Shapiro always makes me check that I'm not listening to KZbin on double speed

[@LB-yg2br]

unfortunately a lot of people think he propensity to "speak quickly" is indicative of intelligence. Its actually just to aid his gish gallop where he throws out too many claims for you to debunk and as you spend minutes just trying to refute one wrong thing he said, it leaves the other 5 wrong things to linger in the minds of the listener.

[@MLior311]

@@LB-yg2br Oh, what a load of rubbish. Some people just talk faster than others. Get over it.

[@LB-yg2br]

@@MLior311 Some people do speak more quickly than others, but I have watched Ben Shapiro and having studied formal logic I see how he engages in gish gallops. He throws out claims like "facts don't care about your feelings" but then goes on to argue his feelings with a few scanty facts and interlocutors are unable to untangle the web of fallacies that he knits. If he spoke more slowly, it would be easier to catch his BS. Maybe he doesn't do it on purpose, but he definitely does it. Sorry to you if you thought he was genuinely an intellectual with a 10 pound brain. Notice how much slower he is talking here vs his normal cadence of his cant.

[@SNESpool]

​@@MLior311some people do, but Ben ABSOLUTELY uses gish-gallop tactics to sound like he's making a profound point, while saying very little of substance.

[@tariq3erwa]

I did watch him on double speed🤣

[@jd4121]

37:12 Alex’s refutation of the idea that Western civilisation is the product of Christianity (rather than of transcending Christianity) was spot on!

[@autisticphaglosophy7128]

Nearly everything he listed off was still pioneered and perpetuated by Christians and when it comes to the more recent social movements Jews are heavily involved there it’s worth looking into.

[@baishihua]

@@autisticphaglosophy7128 That's not the point, Jew and Christians can definitely be scientists, but we are talking about this constant revisionism of Judeo-christian world view every time there is a new scientific discovery.

[@autisticphaglosophy7128]

@@baishihua Most of the major contentions were between prior scientific or philosophical consensus that was challenged and when it comes to this matter the revisionism is actually from later Protestant and atheist critiques who made up propositions against the church which had then funded virtually all scientific endeavors. Atheist Tim O’Niel has written extensively about this topic debunking this popular Reddit tier myth I recommend his KZbin and site which actually uses primary academic sources.

[@hellboy6536]

@@autisticphaglosophy7128 no shit, they lived in a time when the vast majority of people were Christian and not being Christian publicly would have lead to severe oppression.

[@autisticphaglosophy7128]

@@hellboy6536 That’s a worthless analysis and besides most of the well known ones specifically devoted much time to talk about their theology.

[@lieutent2654]

I think this is the first time that I’ve listened to a discussion for over an hour where I genuinely thought it was WAY too short. Excellent discourse and mad respect from both. As for who convinced me like the video kept asking though, I think I was more convinced and biased before but am more kind of split now. As if there is no truly good and right answer. There’s pros and cons to theistic integration in society and there are pros and cons to a society without. I do feel I have a better understanding as to what those pros and cons are for each better now though.

[@andyo393]

Morality with or without a god is plainly and clearly subjective. Morality can not by definition be absolute. However making god responsible for morality is a simple excuse to remove humans responsibility for what is or is not moral. 35:21

[@handitover.]

thank you guys so much for this great conversation, positively grinning the whole way through :) I'm glad the comments reflect this, this is the kind of debates people need to see and expect, not only more productive but way more enjoyable. And Andy Kind, what an absolutely wonderful host!!

[@somanytakennames]

If Ben hadn’t had a hand in contributing to the current state of discourse in the world I’d have been more willing to give him some respect. All I see here is a guy who realised he had to behave himself if he didn’t want to make himself look bad.

[@adne4336]

Really solid debate. Interesting to see Ben Shapiro debate someone who’s actually intelligent. Also really nice how both were very respectful of each other (something rare to see today)

[@georgedoyle2487]

“Respectful of each other” NOPE!! TRY AGAIN!! That’s just laughable. Sorry but “RESPECT” requires a conscious agent/freewill and choice, that is rationality itself? But as “Mr Sceptic” of the elite university of Oxford helpfully pointed out freewill and choice, that is “RESPECT” and “MORALITY” is nothing more substantive than a delusion under this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism. Sorry but it’s self refuting as its truth implies it’s falsity and it clearly undermines morality and rationality itself!! Let’s just think about it rationally for a second. Because the fact is that under this strictly reductive, casually closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction “Mr Cosmic Sceptic” the conscious agent does not even exist??? Equally, “COSMIC SCEPTIC” never actually had over 70 million people “rationally” choose to view his arguments that freewill and choice doesn’t even exist because according to cosmic sceptics standard of “logic” conscious agents/freewill, that is RATIONALITY ITSELF does not even exist. Just hold that thought for second. Just keep holding that thought? Sorry you can’t hold that thought can you? Not even for a second because you apparently aren’t responsible and have no freewill or choice? According to this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction…. “People who rape and murder children are not responsible or accountable for their actions as they are not a conscious agent??? that is they don’t have freewill or choice”??? Glad we cleared that one up!! And they mock other peoples beliefs!! Yeah not dogmatic at all and perfectly “safe” and “sane” and perfectly “moral” and makes perfect sense!! About as much “sense” as bothering to turn up at a debate you had no freewill and choice about!! Well i hope that all you APEISTS are enjoying the delusion because your sense of the “SELF” including your constant very ironic claims to the “MORAL” and “RATIONAL” high ground are now officially nothing more substantive than an ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS ILLUSION. That is nothing more substantive than determined brain chemicals, that is nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda accidentally bubbling over. The BRAINS ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS USER ILLUSION OF SELF, that is nothing more substantive than SIRI ON STEROIDS!! Nothing more substantive than an ultimately MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL MACHINE, a determined chemical and biological robot on steroids!! Just brain chemicals, an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur, that is an ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE on steroids with the illusion of the “MORAL” and “RATIONAL” high ground LOL!! It beggars belief that anyone could subscribe to this total and utter b…sht!! It is clearly a blue haired, Oxford graduate, that is left wing elitist apologetic for paedophiles and child murderers!! Definition of APEISM… “HOLLOW AND ULTIMATELY SOULLESS APE MAGICALLY HAVE VALUE BECAUSE HOLLOW AND ULTIMATELY SOULLESS DETERMINED APE SAY ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE HAVE VALUE .” [Atheism/Nihilism]. Definition of Apeism/nihilism…. “ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL ASSISTANT SIRI HAVE MAGICAL VALUE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL ASSISTANT SIRI SAY ULTIMATELY HOLLOW AND SOULLESS VIRTUAL ASSISTANT SIRI HAVE VALUE” [Apeism]. Am i close? Am I close or “a long way to go” LOL? I’d bet my sanity and my life that I am pretty spot on there with those definitions of APEISM!! Atheism/Nihilism in a nutshell. I rest my case!!

[@georgedoyle2487]

“Respectfully” this is actually Mr “COSMIC SCEPTIC” hand picked from the elite university of Oxford’s “best” graduates. And basically his best argument was the self refuting claim that we can’t see into the minds of the plethora of self professed Judeo Christian scientists including the plethora of Judeo Christians who were actually the heroes of the civil rights movement such as Dr Martin Luther king JR who was actually an ordained Christian pastor who was assassinated for peaceful protest? Therefore they may have been atheists? We can’t see into the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless determined motion of brain chemicals, that is we can’t see into the minds that don’t actually exist in the first place under this strictly reductive, causally closed atheist, nihilistic fan fiction because the conscious agent/freewill that is rationality itself does not even exist?? It’s illusory??? Yeah makes great sense!! And they mock other people’s beliefs!! We can’t see into the mind of the brilliant Rabbi Johnathan Sacks who worked tirelessly to prevent another genocide against Jews and prevent genocide against all races through intercultural dialogue!! Therefore he may have been an atheist. Equally, we can’t see into the mind of Anne Frank? Therefore religious expression is evil and dangerous??? We can’t see into peoples minds therefore atheism, that is therefore fatalism and epistemological nihilism is coherent and true??? This is an unbelievably weak argument and a red herring, an irrelevancy fallacy, and a total and utter non sequitur!! We can’t see in the minds of all the heroes of the civil rights movement such William Wilberforce and Rosa Parks who were also self professed Christians right? The numerous people who campaigned and died for human rights during Liberation Theology Ok? We can’t see directly into their minds right? So they may have been atheists??? Does that mean that self professed atheists everywhere who do good things could secretly have been Judeo Christians because we can’t see into their determined brain/mind either ? Using the same “logic” this means that all the self professed Christians from the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts and all the Muslim terrorists could secretly have been atheists in disguise? That is a wolf in sheep’s clothing!! Therefore Judeo Christianity is True by default, that is therefore the fundamental nature of mind/consciousness/The One/Monotheism/Conscious agents/freewill, that is rationality itself is True by default!! Because we can’t see into everyone’s mind right? This is just laughable and is clearly an unbelievably weak argument. Is this actually the best that the elite from Oxford university can produce to deconstruct faith??? We can’t see into the mind of the plethora of Judeo Christian scientists and the plethora of monotheists who did good things for human rights and actually even formulated the scientific method itself, and even analytical philosophy making amazing break throughs in logic and mathematics. We can’t see into their minds therefore determinism/atheism rules? That is therefore fatalism and epistemological nihilism rules??? Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally nihilistic, totally fatalistic and totally and utterly self refuting!!

[@Jaryism]

You must never watch Ben’s Sunday special because he’s had very in depth conversations with many intelligent scholars from Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or William Lane Craig. It’s really not too much different than this discussion

[@zuz-ve4ro]

​@@Jaryismyou saying that these crackpots are no different to O'Connor? that's insane idea

[@adne4336]

@@Jaryism I have not seen any of those debates, but I’ll be sure to check them out

[@user-dh1eu9qv7s]

I love both these guys. Great debaters with different views. Civil discussion, love it.

[@giuffre714]

Shapiro is a master debater.

[@krrishyadav12]

This was fun❤❤❤

[@jaz_shl]

The best comeback on this episode was, "Who's the moral relativist now?" Alex nailed it with just that one comment.

[@richardfranks5167]

If some future civilization becomes totally vegan, and looks back to our civilization in disgust as animal eaters would the same comment be effective?

[@bellgrand]

I actually don't follow. The existence of absolute moral principles does not preclude the existence of changing moral standards. For example, rape is wrong, but our understanding of what is rape has definitely changed over time. Another classic example is that chastity is good, but our standards for modest dress vary based on society.

[@barriakarl]

@@bellgrand That is just trying to downplay the paradox. You cant have this perfect being and his must follow book and then be like 'well, we gotta adapt some of the things it said because we know better now.' It is matter of how being perfect is a chain that bind god. If his word only said 'dont be a dick', and OUR understanding of what being dick is changed with time that is on us. But that isnt the issue, the problem is all the clearly wrong and outdated things preached by the bible. Is why people hate the 'well, but what it meant was-' / 'But during that time...' argument by theists. They try to gaslight people. It is f'ed now, and hopefully we can all OBJECTIVELY agree it was also f'ed up then.

[@xenormxdraws]

​@@richardfranks5167where is an all knowing god in that analogy?

[@bellgrand]

@@barriakarl Except that's how it has worked for thousands of years? I mean, your entire argument is a strawman because you're saying that the Bible is wrong because Jews and Christians do not interpret the Bible in the manner you do. This is despite the fact that you seem clearly hostile to the Bible to begin with. Slavery is wrong. But you do in fact see regulations in the Bible as well as a tradition taking place over thousands of years, both inside the text of the Bible and outside of it, that led to its global abolition in the Modern era. The Jews stopped practicing slavery well before then, and even Christians banned the enslavement of other Christians in the Middle Ages. The same could not be said for any other world view.

[@nunciomassara7534]

I’m pleasantly surprised at the quality of this debate. This sort of honest discussion has been lacking for some time. Good work folks.

[@ezra3776]

It's Alex o'Co

[@Runthemjewels]

I feel like this is what you say when you dont want to acknowledge one side was absolutely destroyed lmfaooo

[@dustinavant2003]

​@Runthemjewels I'm not sure anyone of almost half a million viewers changed their mind and that one side even significantly nudged more people than the other in their direction. If that could be shown I think that would be the metric to see a clear "winner".

[@albertbecerra]

​@@Runthemjewelsyeah the guy I like totally destroyed the guy I don't like 😂

[@derekeastman7771]

@@Runthemjewelsnobody was, really. The whole first segment came down to “who do you believe” and both of them acknowledged that that was the only reasonable end point of that discussion.

[@stephanieconley3234]

is it even possible for people to disagree and not argue.. why yes here you go

[@EDCPride]

This was a fantastic conversation to watch and analyze. I like both Alex and Ben, and I think they’re both fantastic verbal IQs. Tremendous talent on both ends! 💯

[@chazlewis8114]

In addition to being a fantastic conversation, the production quality of this video is superb. Great lighting, nice use of camera angles and movement. Well done to everyone involved.

[@BeastmanWatchUrMouth]

I would have preferred bisexual lighting personally

[@_help_me_please_]

@@BeastmanWatchUrMouth I actually would have preferred a trans-colored theme of lighting.

[@me1ody69]

​@@_help_me_please_fr it would attract all the ppl ben hates so much so we can watch him get destroyed

[@badazzmuffin5781]

The debate "You are wrong" "Well, that means you are wrong as well" End

[@Bayhuntr]

That’s not what I got from the debate. But depending on how you perceived debates, any that don’t end with somebody changing their mind, fall under that category?

[@DundG]

which is progress, because some people think one being wrong means the other in the debate is right, or is smarter and therefore more credible, which doesn't follow logicaly.

[@panterra5662]

As a theist, I cannot help but appreciate Alex O'Connor. It's refreshing to see respectful dialogue which isn't focused primarily on spewing as much vitriol as possible in the shortest possible amount of time. The bottom line is we're not going to agree on everything.. But knowing how to have these conversations without reflexively jumping down each others throats is so important.

[@marianomanto]

What an incredibly rich conversation

[@affiliateghost665]

The fact that both have completely different views about a crucial element of our lives and still can hold a civil conversation for an hour is giving me hope in humanity.

[@slevinchannel7589]

Theeen you dont know much about 'Lose all hope in humanity'-Guy named Ben Shapiro; covered extensively by 'Some More News'

[@RommyAli]

These comments are so cringe... these sorts of debates have been going on forever. This is not some new phenomenon.

[@hampter8992]

@@RommyAliFr I hate this type of comment so much, it should be EXPECTED that professional debaters are civil

[@AlbatrossRevenue]

​@@hampter8992 Yes, it should be expected. Yet you don't often see high profile societal/political commentators engaging with their peers on opposite sides of issues because they're perfectly happy sitting in their echo chambers playing it up for their audiences who they don't want to ever see weakness in their arguments and risk losing their precious clicks and views. That's the downside of modern alternative media. Just pull up a clip of something your opponent said and refute that without actually addressing the person directly and giving them a chance to clarify and counter. Then bask in those easy cheers from your fans addicted to confirmation bias. Hence, it can be refreshing for people to see this. If you find that "cringe", well, others probably feel the same way that you don't naturally understand something that simple.

[@E.Mulchi]

@@RommyAliIt is like people 2016 were two cons jerk each other off for supposedly having honest conversations about taboo topics Same comments then. Truly galaxy brains. You know people have nothing going on when rather than just talking they talk about talking. Great circle jerk. Intellectual dark web 2.0

[@jaydensydes3478]

Hearing Ben Shapiro use good faith arguments against an opponent that he respects is actually so refreshing.

[@ballisticfish1212]

Demonstrates the toxicity and hatefulness of the modern right wing that the divisive, ‘destroying’ persona of Ben Shapiro is the one which got all his followers

[@lukeriely4468]

I mirror your sentiments.

[@aSSGoblin1488]

ben is good faith debater

[@jaydensydes3478]

Ben is typically not a good faith debater. He will use every debate club trick in the book to delegitimise, denegrate and embarrass his opponents. No matter how low quality his argument is, no matter how bad faith it is, no matter what type of logical fallacy it uses. Ben's style is to command and conquer.

[@lukeriely4468]

@@jaydensydes3478 And his Daily Wire streams are used to feed stochastic terrorist narratives.

[@pagerhoads1531]

Our purpose is to give each other a purpose no matter what that purpose should be that way we never run out of purpose

[@marcosotillo3337]

Alex may very well be our next Hitchens

[@CarlFredrik-uo1cu]

He is really, really sharp and intelligent. And really accomplished for someone his age (barely 25 ). What he lacks (at the moment) is Hitchens' swagger and savagery. He might get that latter. But he doesn't need to be "the next Hitchens". I'm happy with him being the first "O'Connor" too. He will be interesting to watch the following years (decades really)

[@S.D.323]

he is absolutely obsessed with drugs!