Alex O'Connor's EMBARRASSING Debate Against Cliffe Knechtle w/ David Wood

[@CapturingChristianity]

So many atheists in the comments raging about the title! But who among you watched the video? The title was discussed and defended at length. If you have a problem, fine, but interact with the points we actually make.

[@gowletr]

I think you're missing the point. Clickbait = lie / deceit. That says a lot about the contents of your character, and the version of Christianity that you're choosing to act out. ...but I know that you know this, and yet you still choose to perpetuate the behaviour, even in the comment that you've just made.

[@prodanalexandru219]

I mean, you clickbaited so you get what you get, you can not have the cake and eat it too

[@milantarbuk1039]

"I am getting soooo much pushback for my shitty clickbait title that in no way reflects the actual contents of the debate! Must be those darn atheists!!!"

[@greyknight627]

Where is the clickbait you all having an issue here? The title of the video is about the issues that embarrass Alex's argument, which is what the video talks about. Right from the get-go, these guys discuss how Alex presents arguments long debunked that he himself does not even employ any more.

[@swolenj]

@@prodanalexandru219 imagine an atheist telling someone “u can’t have ur cake and eat it too”. Believes the universe derived from nothing; yet denies creation. Thinks he has solid grounds upon which to judge and convict; yet he’s a materialist moral subjectivist/relativist. Here’s a thought: if u take a bite of ur cake, not only do u still have ur cake, but u’re eating it too. If that sounds stupid, imagine an atheist telling someone “u can’t have ur cake and eat it too”…

[@bradymoon1889]

I am a christian....to suggesy that it was Alex that looked bad in this debate is absolute absurdity.

[@themiddlechild8952]

I agree cliffe doesn't have sufficient knowledge to debate scripture imo what he does he does great and his love for the Lord is inspiring and beautiful but debates like this where biblical exegesis and harmonisation is crucial need someone like Sam shamoun on

[@Man-u-flex]

I agree we need sam or Wes to do battle with little Alex

[@Nutterbutter123]

They make that known regarding Cliffe and Stuart. It’s just that Alex in particular seems to take advantage of this, especially having interviewed them and (possibly) “weaponized” their own lack of sufficient understanding for his own win

[@lizzard13666]

Cultural or progressive Christianity doesn't count buddy. If you watched this video, you would see they gave good arguments for why Alex made bad moves. You haven't responded to anything they said lol.

[@shadowxaf]

They are criticizing Alex for not debating both sides of the argument because the Knechtles aren't familiar with the arguments. "Oh, but surely Alex is aware of the counterarguments." Yeah, OK, but he probably has issues with those counterarguments. Why isn't Cameron comprehensively presenting the counter-counterarguments?

[@Pankeekii]

I'm a Christian, but I was truly embarrassed by both Cliffe and Stuart constantly getting emotional during this debate, not really engaging with the legitimate intellectual challenges to Christianity that were presented, and overall just giving a bad image. Alex is one of the skeptics I respect the most and I think he kept his composure exceptionally well, even in the face of the emotional attacks on his character that Cliffe was hurling at him. This debate is a terrible look for the Christian side.

[@borneandayak6725]

Alex is a joke for me. He keep talking about animal suffering and morality with his emotional empathy, but he as atheist never explain why should animal suffering or morality matter, while in atheism is normal, just a survival of the fittest. And there is no possible of morality in atheism, because Alex can't explain the origin of morality in purely atheistic scientific worldview. They can't explain how a merely atoms, molocules and electrical biological mechine produces morality, right and wrong and goodness. They can't reduce morality or goodness to chemical substance.

[@stewartdando7755]

What a fantastic comment. I agree 100%... Bravo... 🙂

[@ek2022-r6l]

As a Christian also, I was 100% embrassed by Cliff and Stuart's performance. Alex O'Connor was incredibly professional and argued well. The Kinechtles are great when it comes to evangelism and rhetoric, but not when it comes to the precision and strategy of debate (Alex's specialty). Some of their arguments could have been done better and their emotions ramped everything up unecessarily.

[@borneandayak6725]

@@ek2022-r6l nahh, both of you are not Christin, but atheist who disguise as Christian to make fake impression of Christian impress with Alex.

[@borneandayak6725]

Alex is a joke for me. He keep talking about animal suffering and morality with his emotional empathy, but he as atheist never explain why should animal suffering or morality matter, while in atheism is normal, just a survival of the fittest. And there is no possible of morality in atheism, because Alex can't explain the origin of morality in purely atheistic scientific worldview. They can't explain how a merely atoms, molocules and electrical biological mechine produces morality, right and wrong and goodness. They can't reduce morality or goodness to chemical substance.

[@rattlesnaketv]

I am a Christian. They lost the debate fair and square. No need to cope.

[@katiek.8808]

So you win debates by bringing bias stats and ignoring all questions?

[@dealerovski82]

Debating is a sin according to bible

[@mirandahotspring4019]

@@dealerovski82 I think that's master debating

[@katiek.8808]

@ no it’s not.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

@@katiek.8808 I think you missed the pun.

[@seanothemanproductions253]

Cliffe and Stuart are not debaters. As a christian, I love them both. But they tend to get emotional and harsh during debates, without actually making good points. A lot of it is misrepresenting Christ, but I do that every day so I can understand the struggle.

[@lament22]

wdym bro? cumeron said alex embarrassed himself so he must be right please dont question mr fartuzzi

[@jeffreyallen2382]

Good point about misrepresenting Christ. They explicitly say Christ grounds them, Christ is the source of their peace when they lay their heads to rest at night. But what does the audience see? Two intellectually impoverished men, easily rattled, ready to anger and snarl and bite, triggered and battling ghosts of their own imagination, overwhelmingly frustrated that they and their case (or absence thereof) aren't paid the deference they think they deserve. They fall back to their usual antics of belittling and bullying and bluster which they learned debating on college campuses against unprepared children passing by.

[@justinmadill240]

Love your humility

[@whosgeno7524]

Well said

[@GabrielMillen]

So true! I’ve seen them in multiple debates and quite frankly they’re poor debaters. Especially against the non-religious. Watching their evangelistic highlights I imagine they’d do better against those in other religions. In general I think they’d should stop doing debates.

[@Diom_des]

Alex should've debated someone such as Jay Dyer or Wes Huff, I feel they'd be more formidable opponents. Cliffe and Stuart, I love them both, Cliffe got me on a journey to becoming a Christian, but I feel like he does better with preaching and teaching.

[@Mista_Awesomeness]

He would never debate Jay Dyer. It would be the most one sided debate of his career.

[@broshutup-ku5bz]

@@Mista_Awesomeness wht u mean??

[@nzesway538]

@@broshutup-ku5bz I think he means that Jay Dyer would easily beat Alex in a debate

[@fatskyrimnerd3975]

Like Mista said, Alex would never do that debate. He'd be signing up to lose, and that would not be great for his career.

[@theultimatetank2179]

@@fatskyrimnerd3975 alex is legit a fraud at this point he debates people who dont know anything like dinesh

[@ynzmadeleine]

Alex has nothing to be embarrassed about... He was polite and patient

[@fr.hughmackenzie5900]

he was a bit too generic in the bit they highlight - but his opponents WERE excruciating to watch in the actual debate.

[@vilmarjohns.irigan60]

If humans have no morality we don't even know how suffering works. That's why animal suffering is a bad argument cuz they have no morality.

[@pigzcanfly444]

@ynzmadeleine did you watch the video because they mentioned several different points where he seemingly makes points that he knows philosophically are incoherent and has been shown this on many occasions with acknowdgement. That would indeed be embarrassing if true, no?

[@zacharyshort384]

@@pigzcanfly444 You're saying arguments that Alex is making he himself acknowledges is incoherent? O_o

[@pigzcanfly444]

@zacharyshort384 watch the video, and you will understand what I'm saying clearly. What i said was not ambiguous at all.

[@Fabio-bu9bp]

I don't like the clickbait title because i am a Christian and Alex presents himself in such a respectful manner that I find it dishonest and disrespectful to title it that. I also dislike clicnbait in general, but i find this to be disingenuous

[@mightymanofvalour8691]

I take it you didn’t watch the whole thing? I initially felt that way (click bait, and maybe a little unfair to Alex). About 40-50 minutes in I got why they titled it that way. I now agree with the sentiment of the title.

[@paulthompson9668]

@@mightymanofvalour8691 What part of what Alex said do you think was embarrassing for hi? Can you give me a time stamp?

[@mightymanofvalour8691]

@ just going through it again. It warms up at 30:20, 45:00 and 1:02:00 (just quickly looking at it again). I will listen to it once more and give more timestamps. Listen until the end (skip the Q&A bit - unnecessary). Lastly, I think ‘embarrassing’ is a little unfair for those who are not inclined to debate and philosophy generally speaking (and I’m not a debater or philosopher myself for the record). But I understand why they say it when you watch it until the end. I would say it’s more disappointing from Alex and a little predatory/aggressive, seemingly for the sake of winning a debate/argument rather than exploring for answers and truth, which Alex seems to be more inclined towards (the latter).

[@paulthompson9668]

@@mightymanofvalour8691 I went to those timestamps, and none of them are parts of the video where Alex is speaking. Were they the timestamps of the original video? If so, can you give me the corresponding timestamps for this video?

[@mightymanofvalour8691]

@ ah ok. I’ll get back to this asap

[@alexnichols9251]

It’s gotta happen now. David Wood vs Alex O’Connor on the existence of God. Please, please, please.

[@malirk]

I can tell you what would happen: Alex: Brings up tons of internal consistencies with Christianity in his opening. David: Addresses none of them and goes presuppositional apologetics. It'd basically be what we saw with Alex and Cliffe.

[@isaac7292]

@@malirkThere are answers for all those “contradictions”. Just literally look them up. Not hard.

[@blakeceres]

@@malirk Is David presup?

[@Chris-q7w2q]

@@malirk that,s a pretty presuppositional thing to say

[@malirk]

@@blakeceres Not sure but I think he'd have to fall back on believing the Bible is true because there are no other answers. He alluded to believing Islam if he had to pick between atheism and Islam. He stated it's because Islam has answers. It seems David Wood just wants a religion that gives answers. He never talked about Islam giving truth. He just said they answer the questions. That's a faulty epistemology. Basically he'd jump from faulty Christian epistemology to faulty Muslim epistemology rather than give up and be skeptical of religion. He thinks you have to have religion which sounds presuppositional to me.

[@SilentGamingFTW]

It's probably for the algorithm, but putting the title "embarrassing" debate is really just ugly.

[@c0ax]

It’s truth

[@SilentGamingFTW]

@c0ax No, it's just a bad match-up. Cliffe and Stuart are better for preaching, not debates.

[@Theboatmserfgsd]

Exactly what I thought it just makes us look bad to scoff especially when its not even really true. They could have click baited differently

[@SilentGamingFTW]

@@Theboatmserfgsd Yeah, exactly. Cameron is just really desperate for views at this point. He really just needs to change up his channel.

[@gilwaa]

I don’t think it was just a click bait title. If you look at the clips and discussion presented, it is either embarrassing or predatory that Alex selectively chooses arguments he knows his non-philosopher opponents will not have good answers to. He continually smuggles in loaded premises to make his worldview seem more plausible, and an untrained debate opponent will struggle against such a technique. It’s like telling a 3 year old, “your mommy is never coming home!” You know the mother is just at the store, but the 3 year old is none the wiser and falls into your trap.

[@leandroschepers1571]

How ambarrassing to not respond to arguments never made in a debate....

[@kylepetruzziello3321]

@@leandroschepers1571 some people will never admit that a Christian lost

[@ktb1381]

Exactly! It's like these guys don't even know what a debate is.

[@christopherneedham9584]

I don't think its about not responding to arguments not made in the debate, its about putting forth arguments that you claim are true when you already know there are refutations. It would be like me telling someone who is uninformed about the arguments that the 1+.9999... does not equal 2 because logically a 9 must follow every other line, even if I know all the mathematical proofs saying the opposite. it would be one thing if Alex didn't make a positive assertion that he knows is false, and just asked easier questions to answer that he knew more learned people would be able to answer. The issue with Alex, and why its embarrassing, is because he effectively lied to the audience by making positive assertions that he knew full well were incorrect because the refutations exist. Even though Cliff and Stuart lost the debate because they were outclassed doesn't excuse Alex for lying during the debate.

[@ktb1381]

@@christopherneedham9584 I don't think it's lying in a public debate if you make assertions that some person somewhere has written a refutation for. It's up to the opponent to bring that up. I mean think about it, how long would any debate last if no one could bring up anything that someone somewhere had provided a reputation for? There's supposed to be engaging with each other's ideas and if someone can refute a claim that someone makes or an assertion that someone makes then they should do it.

[@ktb1381]

@christopherneedham9584 think about it. Sure there's reputations for a lot of things but are they convincing? In a public debate where everybody's cards are on the table, Cliff should have provided reason or evidence against Alex's assertions. It's really out of line to say that Alex was lying here in my opinion.

[@whatsinaname691]

Alright. I gotta say something mean here and I don’t like that. I am at the 22:44 mark, so, if this is fixed later I’m sorry. However, so far, Cam has been badgering Alex for not addressing the scholarship on animal suffering. He even explicitly mentioned TD’s 2014 book (Good book btw). However! Y’all are doing the SAME THING!!! Phil Halper has a Published response to Dougherty’s Theodicy in a reputable journal. So, how can y’all be attacking Alex and Phil for not addressing arguments which Phil has addressed… IN THE LITERATURE?!? I get that the complaint is that they don’t even acknowledge that there are animal theodicies, but I don’t think that that’s a very serious complaint. Alex clearly acknowledges the existence of such heavenly theodicies, even though he is painfully dismissive of them. But how much ruder is it to not even acknowledge the existence of published responses to your view? Like what? How are you not embarrassing yourselves by doing the exact same thing that you are accusing them of?

[@maestroja2575]

Whos philip halper? I just want to know where can i fino the journal.

[@Adimant2097]

@maestroja2575Phil, from the video lol He’s one of the debaters, the blogger

[@whatsinaname691]

@maestroja2575 The guy in the video. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion A soul-making theodicy for animals?

[@BathwaterBender]

@@whatsinaname691 He even mentioned the specific theodicy. Unfortunately, as a, self-proclaimed, knowledgeable Christian in these specific areas, I'm quite disappointed in this video.

[@whatsinaname691]

@ ​​⁠As a fellow self-proclaimed knowledgeable Christian in this area, same.

[@JehovaStan]

You guys are creating a credibility gap for yourselves with these titles.

[@NLJ-c2f]

Hey Cam, I appreciate the content but my only concern is the abnormality in publicizing the embarrassment of the debate for Alex? I just fear potentially the title could be more empathetic to someone with a good reputation of seeking intentionally? It just seems like an oversight towards Alex as a human being with a relatively good relationship to the channel.

[@ScottPutnamART]

Same. He’s been the most fair to religion than any atheist. He just is in search of the truth. Not out to destroy it

[@malirk]

The bigger problem is people watching the debate thought Alex did a great job. Alex remained calm. Alex truthfully answered all questions. It was Cliffe getting mad at Alex for saying, "I don't know" yet Cliffe said it a dozen times in the debate. Alex was there for a debate/discussion. Cliffe was there for a debate/sermon. Alex won hands down via his composure and ability to make his points and address what Cliffe brought up.

[@malirk]

@@ScottPutnamART Big question: If Alex has been searching for truth for a decade and grew up in a Christian household, why do you think it is that he still isn't a Christian?

[@jamiegriffin3777]

​@@malirkThe problem is that Alex's entire argument is of vapor and mist.. his stance on everything is that he doesn't know. It's easy to knock at everything when you yourself have nothing to defend. I think it aggravates Cliff because Alex is very intelligent and obviously has thoughts and opinions but continues to "act" naive and "ohhhh, I dunno" 🤷🤷🤷when he's talking with other people. Is Alex truly in search of the truth, and even willing to look inward at his own ideas, or just winning debates and knocking down other people's beliefs?

[@artax7664]

@@jamiegriffin3777I will say that Alex has become faaaar more charitable towards the Bible in recent years. So much so that he like to disassociate himself with his old self.

[@the_real_espada]

For God's sake, this was a debate, not a podcast. Alex has no obligation to hand out objections to his own points. You saw the podcast, where Alex defended objections of the bible when discussing with the very same people. In debates, you're in to win, not to actually convince the opponent of your position. This is from a Christian who has always appreciated Alex's approach to following evidence and finding truth.

[@PatricksBreastplate]

Finding the truth or winning a debate? How does this help people watching who are seeking the truth?

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@PatricksBreastplate By showing people that the ‘arguments’ for God are extremely poor. Most people know this already, but some people hold on for emotional reasons. That is an embarrassing position for an adult to be in.

[@Simon-nv5zj]

The title hooked me in, since Cliff and Stuart are known to be horrible in this format. After watching this nothing has changed. Its the same Cliff getting very emotiional, Stuart being smug, and neither one making any sense. Surely, you guys cannot be this ignorant to suggest they did anything better than an abysmal failure?

[@mattpistachio5497]

There are three things you’re clearly exhibiting..ignorant bias, outright lack of insightful thought and shallow understanding of who God is.

[@annikadamaris8068]

Did you watch the stream? I'm almost one hour into it and they didn't say that Cliff and Stuart did a great job so far. They just talked about some weak points and arguments that Alex made which surprised Cameron because he expected Alex to do better. He apparently didn't have high expectations for the others. I don't like the title of this stream though.

[@Fabtsp]

They even saud cliffe did a bad job what are you on?

[@ÍtaloResiå]

The title brother, he's talking about the title ​@@Fabtsp

[@ravissary79]

​@@ÍtaloResiåand the title has nothing to do with Cliff. They know Cliff isn't on Alexs level... so how does implying theyre defending Cliff come into this? No one is saying Cliff won. This was a one sided curb stomp... but theyre critiquing the boot used to stomp.

[@EmilyTodicescu]

When Alex "debated" Dinesh D'Souza, it was clear that Alex was punching down. Alex is still punching down. Perhaps modern debates need the intellectual equivalent of weight class divisions? Otherwise it isn't a fair fight, and everyone knows it.

[@Alien1375]

To be fair, debating pompous christian apologist clowns is always "punching down".

[@deheroes4797]

What's your point exactly?

[@wet-read]

Kinda. D'Souza debated Hitchens years ago. I think it is more accurate to say D'Souza was "scraping up".

[@axiom6000]

@@deheroes4797He’s saying Alex is holding back which is probably true

[@davethebrahman9870]

The trouble is that there are no Christians capable of debate on these issues, because they are simply wrong.

[@GamerGuy-nd4ix]

Why try and disrespect Alex by calling his performance “embarrassing”? I’m a Christian, but the atheist/agnostic in this debate acted far more Christian-like than Stuart and Cliffe. Cliffe has admitted that he has anger issues, so I think full on debates probably don’t suit his personality because he gets too competitive, and takes things personally. This whole analysis of the debate is so cringe tho. It seems like ya’ll just get a kick out of clowning on Alex, instead of having a mature discussion. Not to mention that bizarre predator joke at 1:33:09. What’s really “embarrassing” is the desperate title, which could be argued to be slander honestly. Do better

[@tbc20065]

Hey man. I am a christian too and to be honest, I don't think calling the performance of Alex "embaracing" was meant to be taken as a act of disrespect towards Alex but as an act of criticism. Because to be fair, I was shocked too by the title but I've come to be convinced by it by the reasons given. I wouldn't go as far as to say that Alex and Phil were more Christ-like than Stuart in the debate(that would mean a lot of things) but I agree that on the "debate" side of things, Alex and Phil did a better job. But when you put things in context, you see as the video was intended to show, that there was some dishonesty by Alex and that's something you're not to expect from someone like him, making his performance "embarassing" I think that's all the video was meant to say. God bless

[@GamerGuy-nd4ix]

@ When does Alex be dishonest? I’m not saying he isn’t, but I already watched the debate, and I can’t be bothered to watch a full 3 hour analysis of it lol. I think this title is certainly misleading tho. It’s pretty clickbaity, and just makes Alex look bad. Just not really something I expect from a Christian channel tbh

[@Muffln]

@@tbc20065 "that there was some dishonesty by Alex" We need to stop throwing around the word dishonesty in places it doesn't belong. At what point was he ever dishonest? You can't be dishonest if you believe what you're saying, and I don't think there was any point at which he didn't believe what he was saying.

[@HopefulRain]

@@GamerGuy-nd4ixI’m not trying to disrespectful in the slightest, but the fact you don’t even want to bother with watching the video is the reason you didn’t notice the dishonesty. In this video, Alex was using logical fallacies that he should know doesn’t work, yet he still did them because he knows cliffe isn’t a debater. The reason why the guys are saying it was embarrassing for Alex was because they expected him to respond better to such simple pushbacks from Cliffe, someone who isn’t nearly as adept at debating as he is.

[@laca103]

"acted far more Christian-like than" ... How would you define what does "Christian-like" mean? Jesus himself never truly debated. He called his enemies as serpents and such. He regularly threatened the unbelivers with hellfire. He did never properly reasoned by logic ... "He taught. And after that 10 sick man came across. ".... And the miracle is quite precisely described here... but the ACTUAL teaching? Or the teaching itself is unimportant... the Miracle, the Glory of God is THE teaching.... also known as "might is right"....

[@Deppability]

Stay honest guys. Don't become like all those propagandists out there.

[@swedensy]

Thy shall not judge, and yet all is what they did.

[@sb75303]

Jeez this is cringe. The irony of you calling alex embarrassing.

[@ravissary79]

They didnt say HE is embarrassing. Theyre sayjng hom using arguments he knows aren't currently valid or don't reflect what hes said is what he thinks is true or currently defensible... that THAT is embarrassing, but its rhetorically cynical to use an argument that others have put to bed against people uninformed or equipped to catch this.

[@sb75303]

@ravissary79 you are right, they didn't say he is embarrassing, so I'll accept that correction, however their actual point, that you articulated, isn't correct anyway. We don't know he was cynically omitting those particular theories because he's scared they go against his point. He may, and likely will, have very good reasons for not accepting them. After all, do we really think someone like Alex, who is almost unanimously respected even by the guys on this show, for being thoughtful, smart and most of all honest, would all of a sudden cynically do something. Especially against opponents that really are leagues below. It would be such a strange time to break character. Basically...they're filling in motives and assumptions and then calling it embarrassing, disappointing and dishonest. My point about irony is that they are being those exact things.

[@ravissary79]

@@sb75303 there's certainly room for that interpretation, but I think Cams perspective isn't deceptive here. He personally expected more from Alex.

[@sb75303]

@@ravissary79 it may not be deceptive, but it's wrong and unfair. To have a 2 hour hit piece on someone when they're not there to defend themselves, and to cast strong assertions on his character when, as I said, really they are assuming his motives, which don't fit his character or any other video we've ever seen of Alex, is wrong. And what is deceptive, is the title. We all clicked on it thinking he was talking about how poor cliff and Stuart are.

[@ravissary79]

@sb75303 so you don't think anyone is rightly permitted to criticize anyone who isn't present to defend themselves. That's not a very fair or realistic standard. Alex doesn't follow that standard. I'm honestly not aware or ANYONE who follows that standard. That's not how criticism in media works.

[@JohnBurt-iu6bg]

Wow, i just watched the whole debate, and you think Alex did poorly? The preachers say they think God exists because funerals make them sad and therefore wishful thinking is proof? Wow, cringe. Do better

[@edafematthew8406]

Cliffe doesn't know much about Islam or these big topics He is more of an evangelist Formidable opponents should be chosen next time

[@cupra2Jock.]

KZbin is just main stream media now lol. If 3 million athiests watch Alex O'connor absolutely ruin a weak debater like Cliffe then they believe that atheism is correct. They all pick and choose who they go against. Why you think Dawkins or the fat American athiest who debates...none want smoke with Sam Shamoun for example.

[@andrewb6466]

I used to support you on Patreon, Cameron, so I'm not just some unreasonable atheist. This behavior is that of a manchild, and it is why I stopped supporting you. I'm only telling you this because it appears that you are in desperate need of criticism.

[@DPM917]

Cliff asked Alex a question about personal motivation to which Alex said he did not know the answer. Cliff claimed to be gobsmacked at the notion that Alex didn’t have a definitive answer. Later Cliff was asked a question by Alex that went to the heart of Cliff’s belief system. Can you guess Cliff’s answer? “I don’t know… we’re not meant to know everything…”. No recognition or self awareness of his seeming hypocrisy. Also, the theodicies for animal suffering are fantasies that argue that somehow animals have properties and abilities that believers did not believe existed for two thousand years, and most still don’t. Animals have souls according to Christianity? Really? Then is aborting a non-human animal fetus or eating a non-human animal immoral? The Benificent theodicy does not work for a lot of reasons, particularly if you presume an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving god, like Christianity. And every theodicy can be argued as possible if at some point you insert “magic” (ie supernatural forces) as a causation force. How convenient.

[@piotr.ziolo.]

I stopped listening at 23:15 because you can't even honestly discuss these topics, just hehe haha, no pushback on anything. Listen to 22:30. Than is claiming that he never met a Christian who does not believe that animals have souls. He claims that all Christians believe that animals have souls. David Wood was evidently quite perplexed by this evidently incorrect statement, but they went on "it's so weird", "and what's even weirder". Guys, for years I've been looking for an anchor, an intellectually honest Christian who I could follow to explore a more reasonable faith. I listen to countless podcasts and channels. And I failed. Maybe with two exceptions - Josh Rasmussen and Robert Barron, but the first one mostly discusses very specific topics and not the most crucial ones, and the second does not go that deep into topics. Most atheists have just objections to offer, nothing constructive. But the theist side is even worse, because they act contrary to what they teach.

[@La_vera_primavera]

💯 agreed

[@philipmitchener28]

You've been looking in the wrong place. All Christians are hypocrites, and I say that as a Christian. All Christians fall short of the standard that Jesus sets for us. Jesus is perfect, we are not. He's the one who is consistent in His character. You need to anchor yourself in Jesus. Ground yourself in Him. He is the only one who won't let you down.

[@piotr.ziolo.]

@@philipmitchener28 I think you are right. The problem is that we have no direct access to what Jesus said, just testimonies of people who wrote down what they heard from other people who remembered better or worse what Jesus said. Gospels are still by far the most consistent and inspiring part of the Bible, but they lack crucial answers, for instance about the sense of history of salvation and Jesus' sacrifice. The Letters show how early Christians struggled to understand what really happened and what sense it made. And as far as I know, we still don't fully understand it. This is why Jesus is not enough. We need philosophers and theologians.

[@philipmitchener28]

@@piotr.ziolo. If you only rely upon reading the Bible and don't go to God Himself and ask for a relationship with Him, you won't be able to truly know who is and isn't trustworthy. Understanding the trinity and who God really is is important. Understanding that the Holy Spirit is the one who draws you to God and indwells God within you. Understanding that the Son makes you right with God and makes God your Lord. Understanding that the Father is the mind behind everything God does and the wills of the Son and the Holy Spirit are His will. 3 persons, 1 God. The Bible is God's love letter to us. He wants to be a part of our lives and to have a relationship with us, but that requires us going to Him in prayer and ask Him what He wants us to know and us to do. Until we do this, we will always be missing something in our lives, even if we have the Bible.

[@piotr.ziolo.]

@@philipmitchener28 "Understanding the trinity and who God really is is important. Understanding that the Holy Spirit is the one who draws you to God and indwells God within you. Understanding that the Son makes you right with God and makes God your Lord. Understanding that the Father is the mind behind everything God does and the wills of the Son and the Holy Spirit are His will. 3 persons, 1 God." This seems to be your personal understanding. I don't even understand what it means that the Spirit indwells God within me. I also don't understand what it means that the Son makes God my Lord. I also don't understand what it means that the Father is the mind behind everything God does and the wills of the Son and the Holy Spirit are His will. This looks like the text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church - vague sentences without real meaning, written in confusing language to sound profound, but in reality to hide the real lack of understanding.

[@loisjdncpskdjnc7786]

we need a david wood vs alex connor debate

[@HideyoshiR]

second that

[@kolothebob3999]

@ttff-bd2yfu mean that same guy that Jay Dyer Killed

[@Teehsir69420]

@Thesues2233wasn’t even close between them if that’s what you would consider.

[@z3rocodes]

I am Christian but Cliff needs to stop fornal debates. He can't do it. Jay Dyer would smoke Alex.

[@teks-kj1nj]

Jay Dyer would also get demolished by Alex

[@Mr_Gato02]

@@teks-kj1njAlex the guy claimed that he lives in a ilusion created by evolution. Yeah right 😂

[@c0ax]

Cliffe definitely does a better job than most

[@antoniotodaro4093]

Very faint praise for Jay

[@thatsriiiiight4170]

@@teks-kj1nj lol..

[@JaeTylerS]

This clickbait title....whatever helps you sleep.

[@shoulohrey8000]

Every argument has counter arguments, alex does not have the burden of mentioning the list of counter arguments for his argument, it feels like making up flaws so you can deflect the embarrassment and attention off of cliffes ineptitude to deal with them, its up to alexs opponent to give their counter arguments, not alex

[@739jep]

Stop making sense. It’s not allowed here!

[@squillsify]

@@739jep lol

[@cupra2Jock.]

Cliffe isn't a debater lol.

[@shoulohrey8000]

@cupra2Jock. for real

[@carrotbrainYT]

Father and son got emotional and didn't even answer a single argument that alex made, embarrassing 😂😂

[@tobias4411]

Of course, Christianity has nothing to offer, no rational answers, nothing but hardening of hearts and enslaving of minds.

[@brundlefly204]

Why was the atheist lying about there being no theodicies that explain animal suffering? Atheists need to do better.

[@akun10years10]

For real, the knechtles were getting mad and dodging the questions on animal suffering

[@carrotbrainYT]

@@brundlefly204 nah he said there is no theory in Christianity, not in every religion

[@Fabtsp]

Yes it's embarassing but for those questions you need a bit of time to prepare. Absolutely smoking a few of Phil's & Alex's arguments: First of all I am not perfect in knowledge so feel free to debunk me if you can, yet I won't answer to all arguments since I have a busy life. Bonus Argument from Alex: If god wants you to actively know him why does it depend so much on where you are so that we can predict what you believe about god with the factors of your life(Culture/Country/etc) Answer: Luke 12:48: "But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (NIV) And I think we can agree that almost every culture knows about Jesus now. Argument 1: Why do animals suffer even before the existence of humans? Answer 1.1: Suffering on earth is temporary and makes the soul stronger and if they dont have a soul then they are just like robots and it doesnt matter anyways. Answer 1.2: Fallen angels -> Job 1:6-7 (NIV) Satan appears before God and describes his activity: "The Lord said to Satan, 'Where have you come from?' Satan answered the Lord, 'From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.'" Argument 2: The cosmology of the Bible is dead wrong. Answer 2.1: The Bible speaks in metaphors and figurative language. Answer 2.2: Do you really think that if god created the earth before the stars (Which he didn't from what I know) that you could accurately predict its age if you can't even predict the age of a piece of cloth (Shroud of Turin 1980s study) Answer 2.3: The Bible is written by humans inspired by God. I even agree that there is a possibility that people like Moses lied in scripture, since they were sinners. So why do we believe ? Because there are so many books with so few errors and archeological findings, for example, the New Testament Argument 3: The fine-tuning argument is wrong, since we don't know that these constants are different. Decide for yourself: The universe contains a set of physical constants and laws (such as the strength of gravity, the charge of an electron, or the cosmological constant) that fall within extremely narrow ranges. If these values were even slightly different, life as we know it would not be possible. Argument 4: If God is uncreated, why can't the universe be uncreated Answer 4.1: Interesting point, yet I believe every process in the Universe has a cause so why should it itself not have one? Thank you for reading this far.

[@ChubbyChecker182]

Alex O'Connor is a very good skateboarder

[@flurry1337]

Wow this was a hilarious review. Here is the summary: Cameron thinks that Alex should have done the job of his debate opponents for them. He should have given his argument, then given the refutation of his argument and even if he thinks that the refutation is wrong he should have given it. Like when Cameron gave a response to animal suffering which Alex did not find convincing two years ago then Alex should have at least mentionened that response or all of the adjacent literature for that argument. Yea we know that Alex was making his opening statement and had time restraints but he should always give an overbuild the complete literature an not just give his opening statement and then wait for the opponents reply. So dishonest of Alex… he should always defeat his own arguments with the responses we think work even if he doesn’t think they work

[@739jep]

And let’s not forget that those ‘refutations’ are pure trash 😂

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

They weren't telling him to fit in an entire history of arguments for and against the existence of God. They were simply making the point that some of the claims that Alex made were embarrassing. Why not address their points instead?

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

Also, you claim that Alex didn't find Cameron's (originally Dustin Crummett's) theodicy - the one presented in the video- convincing. I'm pretty sure Cameron also said that Alex has never addressed that argument. So how would he be unconvinced of the argument? Does he address it in any video of his?

[@739jep]

@@IWasOnceAFetus but which claims were actually embarrassing and not just Cameron trying to direct traffic to another one of his videos ? 🤷‍♂️ Also this was a debate and not a discussion. If the leaving out of anything that went against his arguments is truly embarrassing- then the ones who should be embarrassed are the Christians for not brining them up.

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

@@739jep Well, the video goes through the claims one after another. Did you watch the video?

[@truthseeker7867]

So Cam thinks that what was embarrassing was that Alex debated who was in front of him, instead of the issues that Cam has brought up in the past… OK.

[@marfav123]

We need a jay dyer vs Alex O’Connor

[@Hbmd3E]

Jay making argumentation on -justification of your believe system- " and I make argument that you cant form a sentence according to your woröd view " and then it circles around this endlessly. .. and or he gets angry ( thus loses )

[@z3rocodes]

​@@Hbmd3ESounds like you have misunderstood the transcendental argument for God.

[@Mr_Gato02]

@@Hbmd3EI want to see your justification for your world view

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

​@@Hbmd3EGenuinely curious here: has any non-theist been able to logically justify their worldview in a debate with Jay? Point me to such a debate. I'll go and watch it.

[@Hbmd3E]

@@Mr_Gato02 abstract numbers, mathematics being able describing laws of physics, advanced mathematics, values good and evil: love, truth , right wrong, beauty. consciousness, conscience, quantum physics, ( time space matter ) design.

[@davidmireles9774]

I can’t believe I sat through this whole thing. The “embarrassing part” was not even embarrassing.

[@GabeGarsia]

I think people are missing what’s being said in this video. He’s not saying Cliff and Stuart did a good job in this debate, he’s saying that Alex, as far as philosophy goes, debated poorly. This isn’t a review about the Knechtle’s.

[@lostat400]

They are looking to see if the arguments Alex made, are valid and rational. The only social order possible, from an atheistic perspective, is tyranny. A will to power.

[@jessegrove5456]

This

[@Jerome616]

yES, up vote this please.

[@philoshua]

100% of the blame belongs to the person who decided on the title of this video though.

[@ChrisOrtiz-u6z]

Yea, that's exactly the issue. Instead of critiquing the knechtle's for their ad hominem attacks, overly aggressive demeanor, and crudely put together arguments, they decided to insult Alex, who is known for being respectful towards his opponents and the religious community. In other words, this isn't very Christlike behavior on their part, and this is the sort of stuff that pushes people away from religion and Christianity.

[@basedautistic6021]

37:33 I missed the livestream, but thank you guys so much. My father actually had two heart attacks it turned out and needed an angiogram and they had to put two stents in because of two blockages. It means the world to me and I’m so thankful for an online Christian community where not only can I discuss to me what matters the most, but you guys are such awesome leaders. Feels good to be supporting people who are authentic

[@ryancroy]

Amen! Glad that it sounds like he is doing better!

[@philipmitchener28]

We’ll be praying for y’all! 🙏🏻

[@afiron4856]

God bless you brother, seen you on the livestreams all the time! Praying for your father

[@lostat400]

Same here. The catholic church is woefully bad at giving a philosophical and rational argument for God/Christianity. You can easily predict what happens to western society, that lose trust in God, they are given over to a debased mind, that that is the now the norm, is truly prophetic.

[@titus1211]

Everyone accusing him of being a bad person, listen to their much more nuanced actual claims in the video. But if you want to avoid this, Cameron, stop clickbaiting

[@StealthySpace7]

Bad title brother. In the word of God we are told to correct GENTLY. That is not gentle it's just for attention. 2 Timothy 2:24-26 A Lord's servant should be kind, patient, and able to teach. They should gently correct those who oppose them, with the hope that God will grant them repentance. Galatians 6:1-2 Spiritual people should restore others who are caught in wrongdoing in a spirit of gentleness. They should also watch themselves so they are not tempted. Proverbs 15:4 A gentle tongue can rebuke, but it should always be for the good of the hearer.

[@malirk]

You clearly read your Bible.

[@Swiftninjatrev]

Don't bait arguments on the comments section. They're unproductive and unedifying.

[@Jonathanhdz16]

Gently? Many of our brothers have that gift, to present the defense of the gospel gently, but don’t effeminate the way we zealously put a defense of our belief. When was Paul gentle with the heretics? When was Peter Gentle with the apostate, when was John the Baptist gentle with the Pharisees?. In no way am I saying to be a complete rude person, or make them feel less, but we can be zealous in our defense of the Gospel. Cliff and his Son put an amazing defense. They defended our faith where many are cowards to. Or don’t bother to keep learning to put a brave defense. This is what post modernism has caused to Christianity, our church fathers put the good fight with all kinds of heretics and pagans. I love you my brothers. And that is why I am saying this. Be gentle when you have to, be zealous when needed. God bless you all, and peace be with you all.

[@jamesprakashjc]

​@@Jonathanhdz16 their zealousness made them look like fools, because they acted like bad losers instead of being gracious. Alex had questions that stumped them, maybe they just need to learn more, but a gracious defeat would have shown Christianity in a better light.

[@malirk]

@@Jonathanhdz16 Read what the Bible says to do. Stealthy gave some exegesis.

[@thedog121]

The Knechtles lost 🤣🤣 keep coping though this is embarrassing

[@dazdavis7896]

And how is that kid.

[@Dagestanidude]

How did you pronounce the name in your head?

[@Fabtsp]

Absolutely smoking a few of Phil's & Alex's arguments: First of all I am not perfect in knowledge so feel free to debunk me if you can, yet I won't answer to all arguments since I have a busy life. Bonus Argument from Alex: If god wants you to actively know you why does it depend so much on where you are so that we can predict what you believe about god with the factors of your life(Culture/Country/etc) Answer: Luke 12:48: "But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (NIV) And I think we can agree that almost every culture knows about Jesus now. Argument 1: Why do animals suffer even before the existence of humans? Answer 1.1: Suffering on earth is temporary and makes the soul stronger and if they dont have a soul then they are just like robots and it doesnt matter anyways. Answer 1.2: Fallen angels -> Job 1:6-7 (NIV) Satan appears before God and describes his activity: "The Lord said to Satan, 'Where have you come from?' Satan answered the Lord, 'From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.'" Argument 2: The cosmology of the Bible is dead wrong. Answer 2.1: The Bible speaks in metaphors and figurative language. Answer 2.2: Do you really think that if god created the earth before the stars (Which he didn't from what I know) that you could accurately predict its age if you can't even predict the age of a piece of cloth (Shroud of Turin 1980s study) Answer 2.3: The Bible is written by humans inspired by God. I even agree that there is a possibility that people like Moses lied in scripture, since they were sinners. So why do we believe ? Because there are so many books with so few errors and archeological findings, for example, the New Testament Argument 3: The fine-tuning argument is wrong, since we don't know that these constants are different. Decide for yourself: The universe contains a set of physical constants and laws (such as the strength of gravity, the charge of an electron, or the cosmological constant) that fall within extremely narrow ranges. If these values were even slightly different, life as we know it would not be possible. Argument 4: If God is uncreated, why can't the universe be uncreated Answer 4.1: Interesting point, yet I believe every process in the Universe has a cause so why should it itself not have one? Thank you for reading this far.

[@FeloCoptic]

I think they said that already

[@c0ax]

Cliffe and Stewart won, have you even watched the video?

[@International-indic.]

It was embarrassing for Cliffe, not for Alex. What an embarrassing misleading title 😂

[@c0ax]

Alex got destroyed but that’s what happens in every debate, he drifts off into his own fantasy

[@Fabtsp]

They literally said Cliff did a bad job. Yet Alex's arguments suck. Watch the damn Video

[@ÍtaloResiå]

​@@c0axGood luck with that one

[@International-indic.]

@@Fabtsp whatever still better than these three jokers.

[@andrewhodkinson1]

Alex these days .... "I don't think Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy because they are not what I think is actual Christian virtue towards slaves and women .... now I find the gnostic gospels really interesting."

[@standard-user-name]

James Lindsay was saying this a couple years ago. Secularists, atheists, etc are Gnostics: salvation through knowledge. GK Chesterton also called it out in his book Orthodoxy. It’s the rational virtue of Christianity gone untethered.

[@SheikhMawini]

Yeah, the part of the Gospel of Thomas, I think, where Peter asks why Mary Magdalene can possibly go to heaven since she’s a woman and Jesus says (basically) “because she’s not like other women, she has the soul of a man” is super progressive.

[@swolenj]

@@andrewhodkinson1 YES! Those who know KNOW

[@tomasrocha6139]

Scholars have long known that 1 Timothy is a forgery, I've never known anyone who argued 1 Corinthians is a forgery however

[@CMA418]

The gnostic idea is interesting to me too. Jesus did speak in many parables which have a deeper or even "hidden" meaning. And it's quite prevalent that many Christians are obsessed with John 3:16(salvation) but almost completely ignore His other teachings(turn the other cheek, love your enemy, etc.) Additionally, I think it's somewhat telling that, here in the US, Christians are pushing for The 10 Commandments in schools but not The Sermon on the Mount, or The Beatitudes or even The Golden Rule. Like why would Jesus' teachings not be the top priority for CHRISTIANS? It's very suspicious.

[@tpoy1274]

I don’t think they’re saying that Alex lost the debate, but rather that he underperformed against himself and they theorize it’s because he was insufficiently challenged by his opponents. That’s really an interesting observation because it matters whether the quality of Alex’s arguments change based on what he expects his opponent to know or not. This is especially relevant because a good amount of internet atheism is strategically punching down, and if weak interlocutors tend to elicit poor or lazy atheist arguments, it would be good to know. If Alex is more reasonable and self critical when he’s debating his equals or his betters, but more like an atheist combox troll when not, that’s an interesting psychological profile being revealed.

[@CapturingChristianity]

💯

[@philoshua]

Ok, but the problem with stereotypical Internet atheism is that it applies only to a certain kind of religious belief and style of argument, not that it *doesn't* apply. What Alex encountered in this "debate" [sic] is precisely the kind of religious style that IS adequately critiqued by Internet atheism.

[@HopefulRain]

@@CapturingChristianityYou should probably pin this so people understand what you meant instead of solely looking at the title, and coming to their conclusions based off that

[@HopefulRain]

@@CapturingChristianityYou could even make a comment clarifying, even though you already did inside the stream

[@squillsify]

Ha, if that's the case then they could easily have chosen a different title. Just take a minute to scan the comments - folks on both sides of this debate think Cameron's angle here was childish.

[@unlimitedlive4ever]

I am a Christian, working in ministry and learning a lot about apologetic. I watched both videos. I agree that Cliffe and Stuart were not prepared or didn't had the knowledge to answer Alex questions. I would like Alex to Debate Stephen C. Meyer, or John Lennox. So I think it was not the best debate. But I also have to say that Cliff's question to Alex was a very good one. Alex evaded that one and had no answer besides to say that he dosen´t know. That is a very easy and convenient answer, because you don't really have to deal with that reality. It is easier to criticize other world views than give evidence for his own. Not the best performance of Cliffe, but Alex showed me that he is taking the easy way. Criticizing other world views, while claiming to be agnostic to his. Its to lazy and easy. And I say this while being a fan of Alex. I really appreciate him and love to watch his debates. God bless yall

[@2notBeRuledbyFEARandHatred]

Wow... I watched this entire debate, that said you guys are completely lying about Alex. Alex crushed these guys and was courteous while doing it. The father/son apologists were rude, yelling and turning red-faced. They embarrassed themselves... Alex just had to let them speak. Sorry, but that is just the facts.😂

[@ZararPolook]

this comment is sarcastic btw in case anyone didnt realize

[@tommygun5035]

This is a disingenuous title, and often the problem with the online rhetoric, we as Christian’s don’t distinguish ourselves enough from it.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

It's normal, hypocrisy is the Vaseline of religious intercourse.

[@sgtadhesive9044]

People keep reading the title like it says "how Alex, and not the knechtle's embarrassed himself in a debate." In the first 5 minutes they addressed how they didn't think alex lost the debate. They were disappointed by the arguments he went with and the errors he made.

[@squillsify]

@@sgtadhesive9044 If that's the case, then they should have chosen a different title. It's not hard to see the criticism here, and it's clear if you take just a few minutes to read through the comments that folks on both sides of the Christian/atheist aisle agree with this point. FWIW, I stopped watching some political folks I broadly agree with because I thought their titles were misleading clickbait. Channels can claim they have to do this to compete, but there are a lot of people out here who care about accurate and honest representation. Alex is actually a good example of someone who runs a successful channel without resorting to overly dramatic clickbait titles.

[@sgtadhesive9044]

@squillsify calling it click bait means you think that the content of the video doesn't line up to the title. I'm saying that the title and video line up perfectly and people just keep assuming that because a debate was embarrassing for alex, it must mean the knechtles did great or something. It's not Cams fault people don't have reading comprehension or watch the stream before commenting.

[@dorangist7558]

I would rage against your click bait title like everyone else, considering Alex washed those 2, but it made me watch so well played

[@raskolnikov6443]

Embarrassing performance by him

[@Tjtellsthetruth]

What do you mean Alex did not "wash" them. He was intellectually unreasonable. Alex focuses on the wrong parts, the wrong message, looking for the wrong things. Cliff kept telling him "I know your a smart guy but you are being prideful demanding how & when God reveals himself" Cliff will be like here's the truth and here is the evidence that proves what I am saying is true and then Alex will be like "Well I just dont want to see it like that or I just dont agree with that" Alex honestly proved Cliff's point many times.

[@gabrielmccavanagh3458]

Lmaooo facts

[@ÍtaloResiå]

​@@TjtellsthetruthGive one example were he proved Cliff point

[@zacharyshort384]

@@Tjtellsthetruth That was incredibly vague, good grief. Alex was wrong cuz he said wrong stuff is the summation of that post. Bruh...

[@Sisyphus_Grind]

i don't know either of these people, its unfair to say someone was embarrassing in a debate in the title of the video. you should just let us decide.

[@ReadersOfTheApocalypse]

Alex' argumentation didn't live up to his reputation, that's all.

[@fuhaustinambe4934]

@@ReadersOfTheApocalypse Lies, he did well. As a matter of fact he was being nice and holding back

[@ReadersOfTheApocalypse]

​@@fuhaustinambe4934 I can't tell, I didn't watch the debate. I only commented on why the title says what it does.

[@zacharyshort384]

@@ReadersOfTheApocalypse How would you know why if you didn't watch the debate? O_o. You're just presupposing it?

[@ReadersOfTheApocalypse]

​@@zacharyshort384 How I know? Because the guys say that Alex could have done better... so they wrote their title accordingly.

[@squillsify]

Seriously appreciate all the Christian commenters calling out the bs clickbait title here. Cameron, bro - you can make these response videos, they're part of an important larger conversation, but you don't need the denigrating click-bait titles.

[@NomadOfOmelas]

To participate in a 4-person debate, which limits speaking time per individual (seen throughout the debate where each wanted to say more than they could), and for one to expect Alex to go through a bunch of theodicies and arguments that he has heard of/engaged with (though likely not convinced by, because if he was then I would agree it's wrong of him to continue to use his argument), is a pretty unfair standard, particularly one at which you Cameron seem to think relegates Alex's debate performance as 'EMBARRASSING'. Even in a 1:1 debate, doing through the number of counterpoints during one's own speaking time would not be suitable. I think that if one spent the time looking through videos from this channel, one could make fairly equally fair 'critiques'. I've followed this channel for many years, and as the titles have become more and more click-baity, I think that the conversations within much of the content to try and justify them seem to have fallen in standard as well. I will continue to watch this channel for topics of interest and quality material, which no doubt still exist, but I do miss the days where I was excited about the level of integrity/genuineness that I felt it once put out.

[@generichuman_]

The debate was like putting an astrophysicist in a room with two babies that are crying, and the astrophysicist attempts baby talk to soothe them. You guys are chastising the astrophysicist for using baby talk because it's "beneath him".

[@milansvancara]

This

[@squillsify]

Ooph, this

[@BackwardsR3LLIK]

Alex isn't even here but he is still making better points than all three of you.

[@BathwaterBender]

It's no longer an internal critique? Someone needs to keep our brothers honest. I can see David as the, clearly, most logical on the panel, really struggling to try and actually address things honestly without just explicitly calling out the host's clear biases.

[@extroxgt]

I'm a Christian, but i feel like Cliffe's response to Alex about what he believes is a better or more coherent belief is kind of off topic. The debate is about whether the biblical God exists, Alex's own view of reality doesn't seem like it would be relevant to the topic. If I'm wrong, can someone please correct me.

[@AbadonBIack]

Naw you got it dude. This is why big debates like this are so hard, you can visit a million topics but they all have to work together to prove your central case or it's just wasted time you could have spent laying better arguments. I feel like Cliff and Stuart are just too close to this issue to argue it effectively. I don't know if it's just this format, but cliff in particular disappointed me with how much anger and vitriol he had for the other side's arguments. If you're that emotionally invested in the topic, and obviously he would be, it's going to be an uphill battle because you often have a much harder time steel manning your opponent's arguments, and you take a lot of your presuppositions for granted that really need more grounding than that to be convincing to anyone else. I see it a lot in Christian debaters that they often see atheist arguments as being nitpicky or irrelevant when an objective viewer would see them as a gaping hole in the Christian's argument.

[@stefang.9763]

As a Christian I dislike this clickbaitly approach, especially when is targeted to one like Alex who proved to be pretty honest interlocutor. I understand Cameron wants to say that Alex might have argued below his usual level and brought some old already answered arguments...but, still, there is a long way till 'embarrasing'.

[@Yarp-y]

This is a deeply disturbing title, mean spirited, click bait. An honest person would delete the video.

[@danielcartwright8868]

Whether if's true or not depends if you think Alex's arguments are embarassing or not. After watching the video, I am convinced that Alex was playing dumb, offering up a debunked version of the problem of evil and so on, in order to score rhetorical points against a layman. Alex is philisophically informed and should be interacting with the highest levels of these arguments. That's why it's embarassing.

[@Yarp-y]

@@danielcartwright8868 Which version of the problem of evil was debunked? I didn't catch that.

[@1bonatsos]

Jay Dyer would have been a more formidable representation on the Christian side of equation

[@ExploringReality]

Thanks for having me on Cam!

[@mattsopinions]

The only thing "embarrassing" here is how misslesading this title was. Alex destroyed in this debate

[@greyknight627]

@@mattsopinions So, you didn't watch the video, making this claim incorrect. Had you even watched the first 5-10 mins, you'd know that they start with how they do not think Cliffe won the debate, their focus is purely on how Alex's arguments are either (A) long debunked or (B) are no longer used by Alex himself.

[@mattsopinions]

@greyknight627 A is incorrect. I'm not the only one who got the vibe from the misleading title and the substance of the video that they are indirectly claiming this was bad for Alex. As u can see in the comments. This should've been "cliffes embarrassing debate" because it was nothing less than terrible for him.

[@Alfie_7]

If Alex was embarrassing in the debate, why do you have to spend 2 hours pointing it out? His performance should speak for Itself. Very little you have said to counter his points have showed us otherwise. Especially around suffering of animals. You literally didn’t give a valid reason as to why death and suffering are mechanisms for creation, from a biblical standpoint.

[@kristopherwilson506]

Exactly. Feel like I just wasted crucial hours of my life.

[@trevorsoh2130]

I’ll address just that one point on animal suffering. How do you know animals are suffering? Do we know for certain that animal really fear death? Does an animal think about death or life? Maybe they don’t and maybe they barely feel pain. Do you know humans are more vulnerable than any other creature at birth? Do you notice that we don’t have hair or thick skin to keep us warm unlike all other warm blooded creatures? According to the Bible we were made differently -in the image of God. We don’t understand the depth of that meaning because we didn’t create ourselves. We could say conciousness, souls - but we don’t know at all -because we don’t know what animals think or feel (although we humans love to think we know everything). In fact we don’t know if animals feel worry- and even if they do - to what extent. Meaning when experiencing death or possible death, maybe animals already know what comes after (while for us it’s might be different and for a reason) We don’t know how the heart starts beating in a baby. We don’t know why people can die from emotions. We don’t know what spiritual activity is. This is complete guesswork / but what if animals are given/fed life my Gods own life force? What if they don’t fear death or loss of their life or farewelling family because they don’t think about future worries or past emotional loss- or the might know what comes after death- you might think that’s ridiculous - but they way their memory and thoughts work may be completely different from ours. What if death is like sleep for them and God bring his life back into himself when they pass and they return ‘home’ We’re not afraid to say these are mysteries. For atheists to call this suffering is to project human concepts and experience onto animal - it assumes much.

[@JB-jt6oq]

​@@trevorsoh2130If we're going only with "maybe", anything is possible, right? *Maybe* you're the only human and we're just illusions. *Maybe* there is an invisible and intangible dragon orbiting the sun. Maybe maybe maybe maybe... What we do know is that when a crocodile bites a boar, it screams and struggles just like a human to try to escape.

[@Dejan3979]

I love this channel, and I'm especially fan of your guest DW, but it is so frustrating to constantly have to explain this distinction. I'm an agnostic atheist, which means I don't claim to know if God exists, but I don't believe that he does. One is about knowledge and other about belief. Also, why does it feel like you are trivialising our objections? What if I had an intelligent ant colony, and I asked my followers ants to sacrifice other less intelligent bugs to show their appreciation and loyalty. Do you understand how absurd animal secerfice sounds to us? I don't care that this was changed later. Yahweh sounds at the beginning like a bronze age God that likes the smell of burnt flesh. I'm sorry, but Yahweh appears like that, in the beginning, a jealous God. Jesus feels to me like an ethical genius. Contrast is huge, sorry. I'm watching Chosen, and I cry almost every episode. And also our moral outrage comes from us wanting to minimise suffering because of compassion. What is so hard to understand here?

[@LukeCarfaro]

The only embarrassing thing I see is the idea that someone can think Alex lost this debate. Zero respect for this channel now unfortunately.

[@glitchy000]

Why can't we--any of us--get past "winning" or "losing" debates? These are discussion. The presentation and clashing of ideas, not some team sport.

[@LukeCarfaro]

@ I don’t think there has to be a winner or loser, but when a side fails to coherently address the arguments of their “opponent”, they have forfeited the debate. This is what Cliffe did. He simply failed to address the issues raised by Alex, and instead preached and proselytized.

[@jackricky5453]

Did you watch the video? They literally said, early on that they were not saying that Alex lost the debate.

[@LukeCarfaro]

@ no I didn’t watch it

[@Nokky258]

Agreed, Zero respect. Typical Christians unfortunately

[@abhi5504]

"haha look at these muslims defending their dawah guys when they were so obviously humiliated" also christians:

[@lesliecunliffe4450]

For those who are ignorant about the actions of Christians in the UK fighting animal cruelty, here is the account. On 16 June 1824, a London vicar, Arthur Broome, met 22 founding members, including the MPs William Wilberforce and Richard Martin, at Old Slaughters Coffee House. They launched a society to prevent cruelty to animals. The RSPCA became the first national animal protection society in the world. They launched a society to prevent cruelty to animals. The RSPCA became the first national animal protection society in the world. Although the society was founded mostly by Christian social reformers, and in 1832 presented itself as a Christian charity concerned with welfare as well as moral reform, the RSPCA gradually developed into a non-religious, non-sectarian animal welfare charity.

[@zizouboy2]

Alex had a very good debate, Cliffe and his son really struggled in this one. Its a bit of a mismatch to put them up against Alex. The bias on this channel is crystal clear though.

[@ryancroy]

"Capturing Christianity" is biased? Say it ain't so...

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

They're just saying that Alex made some bad arguments for someone who seems to know philosophy.

[@bonnyevaknuktan3219]

Thanks for the gifted membership. Don´t know from who but it is much appriciated.

[@yellow8954]

Its clear most of these comments either arnt being honest of didnt watch the full video. theres alot of "I am a Christian"... comments but nothing much that seems to truly engage the responses in the video. Please watch the video

[@Era-lk1lo]

Because they aren't even representing Alex's arguments in a fair way, the argument wasn't just "animal suffering has no logical theodicies", the argument takes into account Cliffe believes in evolution, dinosaurs etc and that it's talking about animal suffering before humans first sinned which is what brought suffering, evil and sickness into the world, in Cliffes worldview. Honestly these guys should be ashamed "I thought Alex was smarter" "he might be being dishonest" "it's just his accent" "I had higher standards for Alex".... strawmanning Alex's arguments and then gas lighting your fans to believe he's not that smart/could be being dishonest. Nasty stuff here, glad most of the people commenting can see through this.

[@squillsify]

This is bull. I watched the whole thing (after watching the actual debate on the Modern Debates channel), and the broad consensus in the comments is spot on: Cameron is overplaying his hand with these kinds of videos and titles. Kind of a bummer - there was a moment where I really thought he wanted to be part of a larger honest conversation about the evidence for and against the existence of a God, but this approach is exactly the kind of thing people in this community are sick of.

[@johncassidy3071]

Dr. Wood starts killing it at 33:30.

[@sirmrdresqmd9200]

Unlike Alex, Peterson actively confuses his listener. He unnecessarily complicates simple ideas which amplifies his perceived intelligence

[@deeggoo5814]

You can’t go without mentioning during the Q&A part, Stewart used the suicidal thoughts and loss of a loved one of the person who asked the question to throw last minute passive aggressive comments after the debate was over to make a point. Truly embarrassing

[@mitchelllion6052]

When I clicked I was really hoping for a good critique of Alex but what I got was a weird attempt at trying to save face for a debate they weren’t even in and that’s what’s embarrassing😂

[@elisamastromarino7123]

59:00 I love the might makes right argument. I'm pretty sure it failed for Germany, too, though. In my life I've never met a Xian. Not one. I've met cultural xians and people who say they're Xian, but I've never met any followers of anything but money. Also, there are more than 1000 denominations that you'd disagree with, like Mormonism, Jehovah's witnesses, Putin's Orthodox Christinity, etc. Why isn't there only one true Xian truth?

[@trevorsoh2130]

Are you an Xian?

[@anzawilldie4379]

Again, what's up with the click bait wars between sceptics and Apologists?... Just quite it already.

[@danielwallace8015]

I finally got around to watching this debate. While watching your comical video I kept wondering why you felt the need to make such a dumb video trying to paint what Alex said as embarrassing... after watching the debates, it makes perfect sense. This is damage control because Alex has again made a high level apologist look like the nonsensical absurdity that they are. Cliff and Stewart didn't have a single intelligentbthing to say and couldn't answer even the easiest questions coherently. They had nothing of value to add and rather than having your followers watch the debate for themselves and see just how poorly an apologist did against Alex, you try to paint the whole thing an embarrassment for Alex. Once again... Capturing Christianity is wildly dishonest and in doing so is just the perfect representative of Christuanity. Well done guys. Keep feeding Christians dishonest nonsense to cling to as evidence to keep believing in your invisible friend.

[@airkami]

Attention everyone: I love the irony that people are announcing their logical fallacies that their opinion is relevant because they identify as Christian and then they judge other Christians for not being emotionless logical robots. Judge not lest you be judged by the same measures You have been weighed You have been measured You have been found wanting Y’all are cooked

[@jabulanij.mabika6298]

58:40 the levels of smugness while being horribly wrong of Christian apologists are unmatched. Alex never made an argument that there is any single center location of Christianity just that where it is located the inhabitants are orders more likely to be Christian than those who are not.

[@TourchezArt]

Except the countries on the map that didn’t have Christian distribution is most likely because it is illegal to own a Bible I.e china and a handful of middle eastern countries

[@dannielz6]

​@@TourchezArt Oh so national governments are stronger than god; the same god that fought the Pharoah and Babylon?

[@Nokky258]

You have it wrong, Cliffe was the embarrassing one! 😅

[@greyknight627]

Nobody is making the argument in this video that Cliffe's performance was not bad. They admit right away that Cliffe and his son are not on the same philosophical level/wave length as Alex. It doesn't change that Alex's arguments are not to the same standard they expect him to make.

[@borntofly9438]

Haven’t watched the whole video: just wanted to throw a thought out there without hearing the others thoughts. - first thing that comes to mind when Alex says essentially there’s no explanation for animals suffering: scripturally it is clear that Adam brought sin into the world - this not only affected the rest of mankind but all of creation. God destroyed the world including plants and land animals because mankind grew increasingly evil in Noah’s time. There isn’t a deeper reason in my mind - just, it’s mankind’s fault. As we were made in God’s image to care for the earth and everything in it, and we continue to fail as we continue to sin.

[@wet-read]

This "explanation" is nonsense, top to bottom. Monstrous nonsense, in fact.

[@MrSeedi76]

Bingo.

[@MrSeedi76]

​@@wet-readso you're claiming that humans never developed the ability to decide between evil and good? Because that's basically what "the fall" is.

[@not1207]

Animals existed before Adam and Eve. Evolution shows this.

[@TeddE9x]

@borntofly9438 To bring up the point this argument hinged on. Were there any animals in existence before Adam and Eve? If so, why were those animals affected by the sin of mankind that was yet to occur?

[@JNB0723]

Alex bruises all of their egos with solid arguments, arguments which these people either do not understand or ignore.

[@jsmith108]

Its so uncharitable to can his debate "embarrassing" even if you think the other guy won

[@nate8932]

Alex absolutely smoked cliffe and his son, idk what ur talking about lol

[@Sousabird]

They literally say within the first 10 minutes that they thought Alex won. They said that they thought his arguments weren't as good as they expected from him. I don't get how 99% of the comments can't seem to parse basic info that was less than 10 minutes into a video.

[@nate8932]

@@Sousabird Then why is the title so misleading? Makes it sound like it was embarrassing for alex when clearly it wasnt. I get that he thinks it was embarrassing to him caus e alex made faulty philosophical arguments but his title is really misleading

[@NoSabine]

The name is from the German Knecht. A Knecht is a servant on a farm. The -le at the end is a diminutive. So the name means little farm servant. The K in Knecht is pronounced like the C in Cliffe. The sound for CH as it is pronounced in German before E or I does not exist in English. Derived from the diminutive form, I would classify the name in the South-West German-speaking area or Switzerland.

[@CaptainCook1778]

It’s obvious to anyone with a little bit of common sense that suffering of animals (the ability to feel pain) is a natural phenomenon that exists in the world and without suffering and the ability to feel pain animals would be more likely to harm themselves by continuing to do something that they would otherwise not do once they felt pain. The same goes for humans who if unable to feel pain may place their hand on a hot stove and damage it beyond repair because they didn’t feel pain. As a Christian I don’t need to read the bible to understand that, I simply need to have common sense.

[@squillsify]

That's not what people are talking about when they talk about senseless or needless suffering, you're straw-manning the case and then saying "see, I don't even need to consider it because my position is common sense." You're arguing that pain exists because it's useful. But there are countless examples of animal suffering that serves no purpose at all. What about a flock of birds that are trapped in an oil slick and suffer for days before dying? What about a turtle who gets caught in sea-trash and suffocates slowly and painfully? What about pets who get trapped in a build on fire? There are way too many examples to even try to list. If an omnibenevolent god existed, why would he allow such pointless suffering to take place? To what end? Your weak and unconsidered theodicy - that "pain is good because it's useful!" completely disregards the bulk of animal suffering. Most people are happy to just ignore this kind of suffering, to pretend it isn't really happening. But it is, all the time.

[@CaptainCook1778]

@ so why does God have to sort out man’s stuff ups? Oil slicks and plastic nets are not the doing of God but of man. Perhaps you haven’t seen the part of the bible where Jesus asks who is greater the servant or the master? Well of course the master is. God is the master and has made lots of rules if followed would not allow those evil things to occur. The trouble with too many people is they expect God to wipe their shitty arses and runny noses for them and clean up all their stuff ups that had they followed the word of God would not have happened. God is both omnipotent omnipresent and caring but it’s up to humans to follow his word and stop blaming him for their stuff ups!

[@blamtasticful]

Glad to see people call out Cameron's BS here. No one is above criticism. Just hope he learns from it for the future.

[@jkm9332]

I thought Alex had crucified and buried his inner atheist troll, but it appears the troll in him resurrected for this debate.

[@Qwerty-lp1fz]

59:00 is education in the US so bad that Cameron never heard about European colonialism?

[@kristopherwilson506]

Yeah I had to stop watching here. It’s as if they completely overlooked the question.

[@Pouncealot2023]

Especially when they thought they’d somehow caught him in a lie. He clearly stated conquest

[@davidmycota]

Honestly, it felt like Alex was doing 1v3 lol Seemed like his partner was giving arguments that even Alex had to punch up to help him out. To the question of “what are you living for?” And Alex’s “I don’t know” doesn’t come from arguing in bad faith, I would give the benefit of the doubt and say they’re talking past each other cause maybe Alex is thinking deeper than what Cliff was asking. Similar to a Jordan Peterson when asked if Jesus actually rose from the dead.

[@Truthstter]

Alex knows guys like cliffe aren’t philosophers and will debate them endlessly, but you’d never see him go anywhere near someone like Jay dyer who could destroy his worldview with ease.

[@giovannymendez9587]

Idk Jay dryer but is he a scholar ?

[@joshuamccarty8173]

@@giovannymendez9587 KZbin apologist for Eastern Orthodoxy iirc.

[@mrman5066]

He literally debated trent horn, bishop Robert barron, and Ben shapiro. You are a rude fool

[@samlandry2798]

I mean he does talk to philosophers like William Laine Craig, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that just because he hasn’t talked to your chosen philosopher yet

[@giovannymendez9587]

@@mrman5066 ok none of them scholar so what position of knowledge is Jay dryer in ? Is he a apologetic theologian cause that doesn’t hold much weight to anything

[@DailyBible]

Alex did not do well in terms of Philosophy (but he did well intl terms of winning the debate by getting Cliffe and Stuart emotional and making them look bad) but Cliffe ans Stuart did a lot worse...they should stop doing formal debates... both get emotional too quickly.. not helpful to Chritians..

[@DailyBible]

Bring Trent and Jimmy !

[@joshuapearson9950]

I thought Cliffe and Stuart got too emotional too many times in this debate. As a believer, I was embarrassed by their behavior. To me- I think Alex laid out some of the best arguments he could for his position. I wish this would have went better overall.

[@AtomicSkeptic]

Nice clickbait with saying it was emberassing from Alex, wich is not true ofcourse. Trash

[@LukeBowman08]

i agreed with literally everything yall said throughout the stream, but this title is too demeaning. sure yt needs to be a little clickbaity (not that thats even a bad thing) but this title could be read as just being overly provocative

[@Swiftninjatrev]

Fancy seeing you here. I think we're in the "thick of it" if you catch my drift.

[@Swiftninjatrev]

Also, yeah. Clickbait is annoying

[@LukeBowman08]

@@Swiftninjatrev is it the greatest ai zoomer parody writer ever!?

[@Swiftninjatrev]

Yeah? 😃

[@mikegrecamusic5917]

Why don't theists ever rebut the problem of suffering with a corollary problem, the problem of joy? I find it rather peculiar in a world made only of matter and energy (molecules bumping into molecules) that we witness things like love, joy, laughter, connection, insight, narrative, poetry, laughter, unity, etc. Those goods seem every bit as problematic to the atheist as suffering is to the theist. If not, moreso.

[@amaizenblue44]

Why? The problem of evil is tough for Christians specifically because they claim an omnibenevolent creator. There is no corollary on the other side.

[@glitchy000]

I'm not familiar with the "problem of joy" but my reflexive steelman argument from an atheist's position would be appealing to a learned evolutionary incentive for feeling pleasure akin to how sex or taste work. Stories are the ancient way of preserving wisdom and wisdom helps survival. Unification strengthens a group against other groups. The existence of laughter may be seen as a "glitch" of "over-pleasure" but does not explain humor. The appeal to the arts like poetry is an expansion of narrative but more abstract. What would be the critical issue with the problem of joy that would be more difficult than the problem of evil/suffering?

[@davethebrahman9870]

It is not problematic at all. We have emotions of suffering and joy because they functioned to motivate us in ways that led to the propagation of our genes in the ancestral environment.

[@amaizenblue44]

@@mikegrecamusic5917 well, you likely think we do all the bad stuff on our own, cause you don't want to put that responsibility on god. So why is all that good stuff any different? Your problem of joy becomes just as bad for you as the problem of evil.

[@mikegrecamusic5917]

@@davethebrahman9870 Thanks for reminding us to add motivation to propagate our genes to the mystery.

[@JTOG94]

It’s as if they wanted Alex to debate himself? And why are we treating Stu and Cliffe with kid gloves as if they are incapable. No theist has good responses to the problems Alex and Phil raised. Yes, theodicies that address animal suffering exist, but they all suck balls. One of you should debate Alex.

[@Andrew-pp2ql]

Sorry what a misleading title….the behavior of the Christian’s was embarrassing not that of the atheists in their composure and behavior during the debate period. And the fact you did not mention Phil was also present at the debate….this channel and the so called guy headlining this channel is embarrassing. This is how insecurity looks like…but I expect more from those hold to the faith. Again…I was appalled by the behavior (like many Christian’s) of the Knechtle’s and found it highly embarrassing….why your title was wrong regardless of your reasoning for the content of the video it was inappropriate.

[@jakehoward2493]

Guys you know you can be honest and non partisan sometimes

[@avishevin1976]

That’s quite an assumption.

[@Thomas-bq4ed]

Ahhhh O’Connor is killing it and the vultures come for scraps.

[@sherlockshlome473]

Killing his image, yes

[@Thomas-bq4ed]

@ he is more popular then ever, talking to all kinds of Christian’s and thinkers. He basically entertained a preacher in this talk. His image is better than ever, even Christians think so.

[@alwayslearningtech]

Alex has learnt that you don't get guests, especially not those who are firm believers of an opposing view, if you grill them. He's even said as much, numerous times, on various videos. I'm enjoying his content much less now, and it's why I like David Wood. Wood is always willing to take on a challenge and doesn't care if he never gets a guest on again.

[@abhi5504]

you dont grill a guest too hard when its an interview, the point is to get their side. in a debate like this however, alex is not afraid of absolutely destroying the opposition

[@ronjones2266]

By and large, the ability of an animal to feel pain is crucial for their survival, just like with humans.

[@739jep]

But an all powerful/ all benevolent god wouldn’t need or want to design it this way. Why not design a world where the feeling of pain isn’t crucial to survival? That’s the point.

[@dannielz6]

​@@739jep Yup. Why not create heaven and skip the earth hell and suffering altogether? There's no reason why a God couldn't do that, so it becomes clear that religion is a post hoc rationalization of our reality and not the actual truth.

[@jamesprakashjc]

Yea, say these things in Alex's face, then let's see

[@greyknight627]

🤦‍♂please try harder.

[@jamesprakashjc]

@greyknight627 xD sure, their counter argument is just the fine-tuning argument and they are acting like that's a gotcha. Just search "Alex O'Connor fine-tuning argument" and you will get many videos where he talks about it. The one with that prominent scientist is especially good, because he showed how Christians fool themselves into thinking that argument is solid. My personal opinion is, the universe isn't fine-tuned so that we could be born, but we were born because it happened to be. Plus all that talk about there being nothing if there's is no God is also just dumb. Like how do they even get to that conclusion? We don't know how everything came to be, doesn't mean we need a God to explain it. It's not a contradiction to be explained, it's just a lack of knowledge that needs to be explored. And God doesn't explain it anyway, because the Christians can't say how he came to be either. They just believe.

[@PattyEdge-w7b]

I'm favoured financially with Bitcoin ETFs approval, Thank you buddy.$28,600 weekly profit regardless of how bad it gets on the economy.

[@Bridget1-k7s]

Same here., I strongly agree that the Bitcoin ETFs approval will be greatly life opportunity for us, with my current portfolio of $102,500 from my investments with my personal financial advisor Steve Miley I totally agree with you😊

[@chigbochinenye2600]

YES!!! That's exactly his name (Steve Miley) so many people have recommended highly about him and am just starting with him from Brisbane Australia...🇦🇺

[@ElizabethSerah-i1g]

The very first time we tried, we invested $1000 and after a week, we received 4500. That really helped us a lot to pay up our bills.

[@SusanSummers-i1w]

Steve Miley has really set the standard for others to follow, we love him in Canada🇨🇦as he has been really helpful and changed lots of life's

[@TheophilusGogo]

This sounds so good and i would like to be a party to this, is there any way i can speak with him?