Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

[@mikecarter5631]

College campuses are a breeding ground for skepticism? Yeah, we call that education.

[@liamwiltshire3400]

Mike Carter couldn't have put it better myself pal

[@jesusfingers8961]

Exactly, they're a place that gives education and teaches you to think critically in order to formulate a logical answer to questions.

[@myster.ejones1306]

LightheWorld444. They say 'Ignorance is Bliss'. Enjoy your Bliss mate 😊

[@donovanclerk2418]

If you want to straw-man it THAT way....

[@sarenareth689]

Haha yeah. If you want good scientists, then they HAVE to be skeptical, about EVERYTHING. Apparently this man wants people not to be skeptical, essentially destroying our scientific community.

[@samuelbcn]

All credit to a Christian radio station which is prepared to have a really open and intelligent discussion that goes to such intellectual depths with a non-believer.

[@radgooklos2453]

We often see beliefs be held in very close circles that don't often acknowledge or talk to the other so I'm really glad that Unbelievable does this because it opens these circles up to discussion and debate.

[@badbadnotgoodgoodgodnotbad2930]

He politely and constructively crucified him and his argument

[@brucerojas24]

@@badbadnotgoodgoodgodnotbad2930 Who are you talking about?

[@borneandayak6725]

Amen for that. Jesus bless

[@ezbody]

Religious narcissists always believe themselves to be above the "unbelievers", having no self-awareness.

[@cristian_5305]

This debate isn’t fair because Alex has a British accent, instantly making all of his points 30% more credible

[@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504]

Cristian _ That's a subjective statement 🤔

[@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504]

The 99% Well I don't see any black philosopher's stepping up to the mark, the opportunities are there for everyone based on how good you are in your field, nothing to do with colour.

[@chairmanmeow3693]

@The 99% Is 0.99 your IQ?

[@michaela.kelley7823]

Yet hes still losing. I think the British accent makes him sound dumber

[@michaela.kelley7823]

@The 99% look up voddie baucham. I'm white and watch Him more than any other youtube. I notice though that almost all proud atheists are white. And yes, very privileged

[@Robmancan1987]

This is how two grown men with differing opinions should talk to each other. Good job to both you guys.

[@ogaplibang7803]

Agree , nice debate there was no Jesus christ sucking my dick , he didn't even said he sacrificed his testicle in cross -all those nonsense religious fairy tales something likes that

[@xeres-robloxgaming4556]

@@ogaplibang7803 Huh???

[@olgamartin4016]

Two sofisticated gentlemen

[@catherinemackolil1031]

@@ogaplibang7803 There is something called respect, I hope you understand that your secular beliefs shouldn't be a reason to disrespect Jesus like that.

[@ogaplibang7803]

@@catherinemackolil1031 doesn't give any shit about fairy tale character

[@Mrqwerty2109]

I'm about halfway through the video, but I just had to pause and comment how polished, polite, and well spoken all three individuals are.

[@aaronpaguirigan4549]

Agreed this is actually an amazing conversation

[@G4nda1f]

Agreed. Seeing such contemptuous, arrogant disrespect that is often displayed by skeptics, this is a refreshing change. Granted, my impressions are based on anecdotal experience so this certainly doesn't represent all interactions on this topic. But hubris and disrespect generally tend to be evident from a significant number of interactions in this context that I've observed.

[@Veran1337]

Thats what happens when you have people who do not allow differing view points to get in the way of their respect for each other…if everyone was like that we would have far less problems in this world.

[@JohnPaul-ol5zl]

Agreed. Although Religious have at time become disrespectful, it pales in comparison to Athiest behavior. Most, NOT all, have a serious case of arrogance. Hitchens and other similar to him, are very condescending, arrogant, disrespectful and love to mock others. One might say they get that way only when their "opponent" throws the first figurative fits full of mud. But that's not the case. Just about every video I have watched has them being less than civil. Humbleness and respectful is beneath them. Sad but true.

[@bend3rbot]

Intelligent radio exists and big idea debates have narratives that most people can follow and appreciate, they just don't sell ad revenue like jingles and jokes, and joviality! You really have to look for them.

[@dippy9119]

(Paraphrasing) Alex: 'Reasoning is subjective' Turek: 'Is that objectively true?' Damn, that was good.

[@radgooklos2453]

I can get where Turek's coming from because at first, it looks like a contradiction but to say that you cannot call anything subjective because it would be an objective claim is rather counter-intuitive because you've succeeded in saying nothing. Also, I may be making an assumption here but I'm glad you enjoyed the debate.

[@dippy9119]

@@radgooklos2453 I enjoyed it. I've only just discovered KosmicSkeptic. I like listening to him.

[@radgooklos2453]

@@dippy9119 As do I, the topics he covers fascinate me

[@leonelavellaneda5907]

Peter Piper our ability to reason came naturally and it evolved into something that feels objectively true. But if we know that our ability to reason has gotten us so far and we can prove that, then it is still subjective and just as credible. We evolved into a society that believes racism is wrong and we let our children believe the same things but it’s so subjective that the idea that racism is wrong could change and we could all hate black people or something. At least that’s how I think of it lol what the hell do I know

[@rayanfielden6410]

Imagine if the COVID virus gained consciousness, allowing that virus to know its own nature. Given that it's nature is to go forth and multiply, it's reasonable that whatever morals the virus developed would be on the basis of ensuring that, as a species, the virus continues to flourish. It is reasonable then that the virus would consider "Murder" of its own by its own as an immoral act because that would specifically act against it's own ability to flourish. To the virus this could easily feel like an objective moral, but it is only objective if you accept the notion that the virus flourishing is a good thing. Which subjectively I doubt any human would agree with. This is the point of Alex's that I don't think Frank was able to understand. Our own nature is to survive, to flourish, and is why we feel objective morality about things that ensure our survival, but it is not objective that humans flourishing is a good thing unto itself. It's good for us, but there are billions of creatures on this planet, who if provided consciousness would absolutely, subjectively, disagree with that underlying assumption.

[@robertaylor9218]

I'm so proud of you Alex for getting a chance to debate Turek, and stepping up to it, on a theist's show, while you're doing finals, before you're 20.

[@327legoman]

A-Levels are done by 18 year olds throughout the country, it's the norm. In the UK many finish High-schools at 16, and then go to a an A-Level college. and finish at 18. :P

[@MrAndyStenz]

Right? Boss level. Alex, you're amazing.

[@shuriken188]

jamie M You misunderstood what he meant. You think he said "you're doing finals before you're 20," but in reality he meant them as separate points. "[debating] before you're 20" and "[debating] during exams."

[@diljem1083]

I have a feeling that Alex is going to become incredibly influential in the future. He may be one of the great thinkers of our generation.

[@IAmShouTucker]

Dont think that he will be one of the greatest thinkers of our generation. He's a good debater, but only time will tell. And just because I believe he will not be, I can be wrong.

[@chrispatterson8210]

One thing is for certain: Neither of these guys spend much time watching mindless television.

[@thevulture3142]

lmao.. so true

[@rrjkss3992]

Frank is just the typical full of shit apologetic. Nothing he says is factual good doesn’t equal god especially not the biblical god. Frank is just too indoctrinated to see pass what he was brainwashed to believe. So therefore everything must be because of god. Frank is too stupid to explain truth or reality. We don’t get our morality from the Christian god. Only dumb brainwashed morons. Are stupid to believe morality comes from the Christian god. Our morality comes from empathy.

[@kowoh]

Frank is a creationist that’s bottom of the barrel stupid.

[@zac3392]

Jennifer Jackson Where does empathy come from?

[@rrjkss3992]

Zack Derese it’s natural ok sorry stupid it not from god who says to have a disobedient child stoned to death. Sorry we definitely don’t get our morality from the evil immoral fictional god of the Bible.

[@skyylarpearl4125]

As a Christian, I appreciate Alex's ability to control the discussion with discipline and kindness.

[@anthonykenny1320]

Yes but why are you a Christian

[@toke0009]

Alex is a fool!

[@skyylarpearl4125]

@@toke0009 May be. But he's an honest fool.

[@toke0009]

@@skyylarpearl4125 he's not even an honest fool..otherwise he would've admit that he is wrong, and accept knowledge and wisdom from TMH..he is just FOOL! Just like Darwin the biggest FOOL ever..

[@Chris_Sheridan]

@skyylarpearl ..Lol! You're not a Christian.

[@razzle_dazzle]

I don't think people realize what a big deal it is that an 18-year-old can hold his ground (with apparent ease) against a _professional apologist_. Well done to Alex.

[@chucho1985]

daz7887 with apparent ease? Look at the whole podcast again and look at his hands. Idk if that's anxiety or anger or maybe even ocd. Idk but man. He definitely does not look at ease.

[@razzle_dazzle]

He may have been feeling anxious, but I don't think it was obvious. But anyway, I didn't say he felt at ease; I said he handled the debate with ease. That is to say, he wasn't stumped by any of the things Frank Turek said or anything like that.

[@Adversary198]

DURR HE HELD HIS GROUND LOL. Refusing to address the substance of an argument because you dont have burden of proof or because "well not quite theres 2 types of athiests!" This channel is nothing but angsty 15-17 year olds who are naive and have little understanding of reality. Once you experience the evil in the world and real hardships you will realize why people believe in god.

[@johnlesley2746]

Jonathan, only weak minded fools who can't handle the real world believe in god. Believers in fairytales are nothing but little snowflakes.

[@martinio20]

Frank Turek takes the stance that there is a god. He is the one that has to show why he thinks that. Alex then goes into the subject very carefully, as to not say anything that these guys can pick him out on (e.g. 36:53 "MORAL CLAIM MORAL CLAIM").

[@sequoiatree107wood4]

Alex as a Christian I would like to thank you for being a very reasonable sceptic, I appreciate that you don't insult your opponents (unless there absolutely asking for it) you have shown me a new look into the atheists perspective, and even shown me different views of my own faith. Thank you for the authenticity you put into your conversations and content.

[@MacCadalso]

Same. I too as a Christian am thankful that there are people like Alex. People should be skeptic and then choose what to believe.

[@stavroguine3239]

Same for Frank. As an atheist I have to say he made some good arguments and wasn't hiding behind usual sophisms. The nature of mathematics and the "objectivity" are really interesting questions which are almost impossible to correctly answers from an atheist point of view. Alex lose himself a little bit in semantics at this point of the video.

[@e.azcoitia5198]

Same, I'm glad there are others out there

[@MacCadalso]

@Randy Shields That's not the correct term. You need to stop skipping English class.

[@euthyphro4188]

@@MacCadalso you could have just admitted you missed the joke

[@CosmicSkeptic]

I know I did something similar only recently, but I couldn't help sharing this with you. Thanks again to Premier for hosting me. Edit: the intros last for around 7 minutes - feel free to skip.

[@malirk]

Thanks for having an honest and open discussion! I'm not finished yet but it drives me nuts that many people say we need an objective standard for morality yet their God giving the objective standard doesn't meet the objective standard.

[@LRBeforeTheInternet]

+CosmicSkeptic The suffixes "ism" and "ist" are designed to define a person or group, not an object like a book. Why didn't you call Frank out on this?

[@gavsmith1980]

Eion HD Cos rape isn't a good way to pass on your genes. Rape victims are less likely to lead to emotionally and physically healthy descendants than 2 available loving parents.

[@loodlebop]

at around 53:15 you started to really kick his arse haha. this was a very interesting talk and I'm grateful you shared it thanks.

[@cynicmiss5231]

+Eion HD Try reading this www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/morality_evolved_first_long_before_religion/

[@torinux4980]

It's always refreshing watching a debate/discussion/talk as polite as this one.

[@devontolly1596]

That's actually bad news and makes me not want to watch this. I need fire debates not civil ones. Boring!

[@Mothsrcool]

@@devontolly1596people like you, are the reason why people can’t get along

[@TadValente]

"Humor and ridicule have its place, but if you want to make a change, you'll have to take them seriously." More insightful of a quote than you think it is. Brilliant debate.

[@elnino9106]

Exactly 👍

[@VeritableSmorgasbord]

It’s hard to say. Good satire may make people feel silly for their positions, but that doesn’t mean they won’t double down on them out of spite.

[@djvdiddy]

tad valente I would say that quote should be common sense. As a Christian, it’s hard to have a conversation with most unbelievers because they take the approach of ridicule rather than reason.

[@TadValente]

@@djvdiddy I can sympathize with that; sometimes I may even be guilty myself. Hope we don't give you a hard time in the future ;)

[@djvdiddy]

Jin p these “idiotic religions” and “how stupid religion is”? I know you THINK that you are above us who acknowledge our creator, but when you shut down conversation with these kind of uninformed insults, it comes across to us as a defense mechanism to avoid logically reasoning through your worldview. Honestly, it makes me feel sorry for you. We know you haven’t even cared to understand what we hold to. Someone who is thoughtful and rational doesn’t have to do what you did. It’s very disappointing

[@nicholaslannan]

Wow. Honestly every discussion/debate needs to be done like this. The amount of respect, clarification, and fairness in this is amazing. Well done Alex and Frank

[@keyman6689]

Agreed. Politicians, take a lesson!

[@DavoidJohnson]

I would point out the multiple interruptions to Alex's opening and the complete absence to Frank's. The bias is subtle but speaks volumes. Always watch for the "let's move on " maneuver to avoid a difficult point.

[@arandompanda1349]

@@DavoidJohnson dude if alex "lost" (I put cotations because i believe this is not a competition) that debate doesn't mean there is bias involved.

[@pat08mullins]

a random panda I don’t think there is a loser in this conversation. It is two people laying out their beliefs and asking questions of the others beliefs. Good conversation.

[@Savurameshi]

@@pat08mullins there is clearly a right and wrong Alex worldview has lead him to the belief that there is no objective right or wrong there is no laws of logic or anything it's "you believe or you don't ".

[@davidlindsey5363]

This video taught me two things: 1 Alex is way smarter than I assumed; 2 Frank is way smarter than I assumed lol

[@rodbob11]

Frank is more more full of shit than I imagined was humanly possible ,so there must be a god,but where did god come from? Oh he just always has existed.

[@graypokedri1024]

Roy Licona Finally someone said it. Thank you!

[@marcocortes9968]

@@rodbob11 didn’t science already prove that time, space and matter came to existence at one point? (S.U.R.G.E. , Stephen hawking) It supports the Bible completely. Anything before that had to be timeless, immaterial, and spaceless

[@MyReligionIs2DoGood]

@@marcocortes9968 This does not support the Bible - it technically supports every religious creation story _ever._ However, since there is no evidence that anything supernatural is even possible to exist or happen, the _reason_ for this appearance of space and time is almost certainly not god/s. Furthermore, science _never_ 'proves' anything. It may be that we have a different 'best explanation' tomorrow, with another piece of evidence. This does _not_ mean, however, that everything else we found out so far is wrong.

[@marcocortes9968]

@@MyReligionIs2DoGood mmm. I would recommend you to read the comment to which I responded. Second, the fact that nature proves there was a beginning to space, time and matter does support the Bible. Yes, it may also support others too, but ultimately they don’t have any evidence for their beliefs or historical veracity. Christianity, is the one belief that can be backed up with history (Jesus, dead see scrolls, etc.) and there is evidence for the belief in nature and human nature. And the fact that he did Exist, buried in a tomb (fulfilling the scriptures long before that. That said jesus would be buried in a tomb, even though he was poor), that he indeed left his tomb empty (even with though there were roman guards outside tomb so no one stole his body), he died on a cross like he predicted and he turned coward followers into men that were willing to spread the news that Jesus is alive, soon after they saw him physically proves me that it had to be real to change those men. And if he was real then everything the bible teaches must be real too. And if you don’t accept this, then that’s just your opinion according to your state of mind. Cosmic skeptic said it as well in minute 11, atheism is the psychological state of doubt. Meaning you are just in disbelief. And for you to change you must believe. You can sustain that with evidence, reason if you like, but without faith, one can’t change.

[@TronciM]

The fact alex was 17/18 here is crazy. So clever and well spoken

[@oliver2001]

Yeah, It really surprised me I'm currently in my first year of A-levels I wouldn't dream in a million years that I would be able to debate efficiently and with such respect.He much has a real passion for these debates

[@Chris_Sheridan]

Alex O 'Connor is not clever - he's quite stupid. All he has learned is how to manipulate sentences and language - he never arrives at any meaningful conclusions. In every so-called debate O 'Connor is completely out of his depth - he understands nothing, yet pretends to. He is always very disingenuous.

[@aaronscheuman]

It’s just ridiculous. My brain functions half that well in my thirties haha

[@allrequiredfields]

​​@@aaronscheuman What's even more impressive than his astounding intellect is this level of sheer objectivity at an age where kids are only JUST starting to pretend to care about important things to impress peers and those dumb adults who don't know anything 😂

[@CALLS2]

still wrong and stupid now is even more

[@tirza6439]

Okay, so he's 18 and doing his A-levels and I'm 26, sitting here and trying desperately not to lose track of this debate. wow

[@kunntakentay]

I don't blame you this debate was beyond convoluted

[@naturoganism1641]

25 here and trying hard to grasp what’s the conversation all about

[@Кенжетайұлы]

Maybe it's because English isn't your first language or you've ADHD

[@tirza6439]

@@Кенжетайұлы wow, thanks

[@alibeautyyy]

@@Кенжетайұлы they’re joking 😂😂😂

[@rkane19]

What impressed me the most with Alex here is that he’s outnumbered 2-1 here and is debating people significantly older than him and he stays very composed. Not easy to do. Well done!

[@freethoughtgreg6424]

Of course we can trust ourselves. Our logic is demonstrable. Under a theistic mpdel we cant trust ourselves because there could be a god that hides truth from us or gives us fallible logic or consciousness. Under a naturalistic model we can know whatever we can demonstrate.

[@canyonparkerfirebird]

Some Time With Sam I agree we did not cone from monkeys and not to mention which God is real there is over 1000 religions and 100s of Gods insane right

[@canyonparkerfirebird]

Some Time With Sam yea no, you sound very biased most likely because you're apart of the christain religion but i find it funny that you say your religion is the only one that could be right because you stand up to atheist but you lose almost every single argument that's not really defending that's being gullible and stuck in an ideology the fact that you say that morals come from god but even in christinanity Catholics and Baptist disagree on the God given morals yet follow the same God. That is my entire point and no Christianity is the least credible religion not the best only a Christian would say that and the difference between your religion and most others is they encourage doubt and say to find answers for yourself Christianity on the other hand discourages any form of doubt. It's also funny how if God's word is absoulute why did mankind make a 2nd testimate surely just because man has changed does not mean that the word of God has you get all of the b.s. or none of it

[@canyonparkerfirebird]

Some Time With Sam no actually if anything the Buddhist God's are tje most loved and spread the most love they dont need to be worshiped to be in a happier place just a good person but if you choose to look into something else and see how fucked up and retarded Christianity is. I was Catholic for most my life I am well aware of Christian beliefs that shit was forced down my throat since i was a kid lol sounds wrong but it's not. You people are backwards and only do things nice to people because yoy want to be accepted in the afterlife not because youre nice people. Look into Buddhist God's and then learn their religion and tell me honestly your God spreads love cause he does the opposite and I'm glad knowing if any God exist it DAMN sure isn't that one your bible legit says in the first paragraph God created light a couple days layer then somehow created stars which litteraly give us the light he created in the 1st day. Ironic right not to mention it says the world is 6000 years old we have pyramids older than that but you dont wanna accept that because it would mean you're wrong show me evidence of God and how do you know he made us in his image LITERALLY NOBODY KNOWS WHAT GOD WOULD LOOK LIKE IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW THAT'S SO STUPID LOL I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU WORSHIP SOMETHING THAT CREATED YOU FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF YOU BEING HIS SLAVE AND TREATING HIM LIKE A KING I'M GLAD I DONT BELIEVE IN A GOD THAT WOYKD BE LEGIT HELL

[@canyonparkerfirebird]

Some Time With Sam I'm good I'll pass there is no evidence he existed the acts he did were impossible and ya know what I woulda killed him too fake ass b.s. for somebody that can heal on touch y would he put sand into a blind persons eye just seems like this Jesus guy is a massive douche bag not to mention he doesn't exist and never did and I'm sure u think imma go to he'll but that's fine good night dude it's 417 in the morning on the east coast and I wanna sleep before my wife has this baby which will most likely come tmr bye.

[@mrmotatohead]

Regardless of which side is right, it's refreshing and rare to see an actual debate like this where it's not just a shouting match. This actually looks like a couple of people discussing a topic, being respectful of each other(not using personal attacks), and listening to each other instead of just waiting to get in the next word. Look at the world and look how angry and closed everyone is towards each other, that's not what we need more of. Please have more debates like this!!

[@Tylerthety]

I agree. People need to be more respectful. It is indeed good to see people who disagree so strongly have a friendly debate like this one.

[@RalphLambiase]

That's the essence of the "Unbelievable? with Justin Brierley" radio show. Great stuff on there. It's always an exercise of actual thought from disparate views, unlike many other forums... I love it.

[@henmaydostuff8338]

can you site your sources please?

[@thomascarroll9556]

Eli Winter sentences should be commenced with a capital letter. Did you mean “cite” your sources?

[@henmaydostuff8338]

Thomas Carroll why didn't you correct the person above me? contrary to what you may think it do know proper grammer, i just don't use it when i'm on social media because no one cares. but yes, i did mean "cite", thank you.

[@laloj2236]

I remember watching this years ago as an atheist, now I’m a Christian. I would’ve never thought I’d end up here

[@BeLikeJesusPlease]

Funny enough, me too. I'm reminded of 2 Timothy 4:3-4....so I thank God he continued to chase down my heart through all of my pride. Years ago, I cheered for Alex although re-watching this now, he does not address the heart of Turek's questions. Alex dismisses everything as "subjective", a terrible framework to live life by.

[@juliedelrosario2620]

God bless you bro.. I'm happy that you made it to Christianity.. Glory to Jesus Christ our Lord! ☝

[@SnapFuses]

@@BeLikeJesusPlease How can I become a christian? I am a lukewarm "christian" but I don't feel like I am one.

[@j.w.presents9552]

AMEN!

[@ciancian22]

​@@SnapFuses Surrender your life to Jesus and don't look back. Also, read the word of God everyday, ask for understanding from the Holy Spirit and apply His word in your life.

[@NathanYudnich]

Great discussion for both sides. As a Christian I Appreciate the cosmic skeptic for being well- rounded in reasonable discussion

[@peytonrobinson3469]

Coming from a believer, Alex brought a very good argument and helped me understand why Atheists believe the way they do. The respect from all parties really shows the best in both parties. It shows how not every Christian or atheist is out to kill the other and dismiss the opposite belief. They came together to gain understanding from one another and let the convincing take place in the heart if it even happens. Beautiful

[@GlowingMpd]

👍Very well put!

[@pranavlimaye]

👍

[@tonybarron6377]

BELIEVE OR BE DECEIVED!! 1 John 4:1 1)Beloved, believe NOT every spirit, but try the spirits whether they ARE OF GOD: because many FALSE PROPHETS are gone out into the world. Matthew 7:15 15) Beware of FALSE PROPHETS, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly THEY ARE RAVENING WOLVES. Matthew 24:11 11) And many FALSE PROPHETS SHALL RISE, AND SHALL DECEIVE MANY. Matthew 24:24 24) For there SHALL ARISE FALSE CHRIST'S, and FALSE PROPHETS, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they SHALL DECEIVE the very elect. Luke 6:26 26) Woe unto you, when all men SHALL speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the FALSE PROPHETS. 2 Peter 2:1 1) But there were FALSE PROPHETS also among the people, even as there SHALL BE FALSE TEACHERS AMONG YOU, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves SWIFT DESTRUCTION. Jeremiah 14:14 14) Then the Lord said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart. Lamentations 2:14 14) Thy prophets have seen vain and foolish things for thee: and they have not discovered thine iniquity, to turn AWAY THY CAPTIVITY; but have seen for thee FALSE BURDENS and causes of banishment. Deuteronomy 13:5 5) And THAT PROPHET, OR THAT DREAMER of dreams, SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH; because he hath spoken TO TURN YOU AWAY from the Lord your God, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 12) For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore PUT AWAY FROM AMONG YOURSELVES THAT WICKED PERSON. 1 Timothy 2:5 5) For THERE IS ONE GOD, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS; 1 Timothy 3:16 16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Mark 3:29 29) But he that shall BLASPHEME AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST HATH NEVER FORGIVENESS, BUT IS IN DANGER OF ETERNAL DAMNATION: Matthew 12:31 31) Wherefore I say unto you, ALL MANNER OF SIN AND BLASPHEMY SHALL BE FORGIVEN UNTO MEN: BUT THE BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST SHALL NOT BE FORGIVEN UNTO MEN. John 12:48 48) He that rejecteth me, and RECEIEVETH NOT MY WORDS, HATH ONE THAT JUDGETH HIM: THE WORD THAT I HAVE SPOKEN, the same shall judge him in the last day. John 5:22 22) For the Father judgeth NO MAN, but hath COMMITTED ALL JUDGMENT UNTO THE SON: Job 21:22 22) Shall any teach God knowledge? seeing he judgeth those that are high. Job 36:31 31) For by them judgeth he the people; he giveth meat in abundance. Psalm 7:11 11) God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. Psalm 58:11 11) So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth. Romans 9:22 22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: Romans 1:18 18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Psalm 116:11 11) I said in my haste, All men are liars. Jeremiah 50:36 A sword is upon the liars; and they shall dote: a sword is upon her mighty men; and they shall be dismayed. Hosea 4:6 6) My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Jeremiah 6:30 30) Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them. Titus 3:10 10) A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Matthew 21:42 42)Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Mark 7:9 9) And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. Luke 12:47 47) And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. Hebrews 3:12 12) Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 10:31 31) It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Deuteronomy 32:22 22) For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. Job 19:29 29) Be ye afraid of the sword: for wrath bringeth the punishments of the sword, that ye may know there is a judgment. Matthew 25:46 46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. Revelation 7:17 17) For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes. Revelation 21:4 4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

[@tonybarron6377]

What an evil statement, only someone who secretly does not love God would say that. Romans 2:11. For there is no respect of persons with God.

[@pranavlimaye]

@@tonybarron6377 what makes you think that excerpts from the bible mean anything to me? This stuff is gibberish for all I care. *Think about your emotions towards the Quran or the Vedas. That's exactly how I feel about the bible as well.*

[@tigrblu]

I absolutely love how respectful all three participants have been towards each other. This is a standard that the rest of us could learn from!

[@rodbob11]

Trust me ,no Athiest has respect for any one who believes this guys garbage.These kind of conversations are not even debates. I dont know why people waste their time with this nonsense.

[@Mike00513]

Then why are you watching it hypocrite 😂

[@jesseisnoice3740]

@@Mike00513 l ¹¹1¹¹¹11¹1qqqqqqqq

[@rodbob11]

@KING JOSH Yes I can, ALL!!!

[@joshawawest2723]

I agree with the respect level and that we can learn from this conversation but through this conversation he is exemplifying God’s standard. Which should be all our standard. “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,” ‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭3:15‬ ‭

[@yeahcat7509]

I’m so impressed that Alex was pre university here and able to make cogent arguments around ideas like ontology, epistemology, logic, etc. I couldn’t get my head around these ideas into well into my 20s and couldn’t argue adeptly around them until I was in my 30s and well read.

[@gottabepablo]

If you had to choose three books - which ones would you say helped you the most to make that progression into being able to participate in conversations effectively, like this?

[@OhhhUtuchMYtralala]

Nah he made some stupid statements. Like reason is subjective because we disagree with one another. Reason is the ability to think, understand, make judgments using the process of LOGIC. It’s akin to saying civil engineering is subjective because mankind can make faulty bridges and buildings. Which is foolish to say because it’s the application of physics, which when applied by flawed people can err. Same with reason, it can err when used improperly. Edit: then he further contradicts himself saying that he doesn’t subscribe to the statement of “the fact that people disagree about morality proves that it’s subjective”. Yet reason is subjective proven by people disagreeing? He got outclassed here. He rehashes typical mainstream atheist arguments.

[@sethdunn8455]

​@@OhhhUtuchMYtralala That's, not at all what he meant - if objective reality were true created by a spiritual being everybody would understand objective reality but with free will could still have differing arguments that they know are just fundamentally false due to the laws of nature of physics etc: but these things are not so clear to us - objective reality leaves no room for subjective reality therefore everything like should pineapple be on pizza would be a truth claim ultimately then everything needs a burden of proof

[@frickinfrick8488]

I loved this debate, you were all so respectful and empathetic to the other’s views your composure was really admirable. I love seeing discussions like this, just debating ideas, no name calling, no interruption, this is like asmr for my brain.

[@shariquenguyen4945]

@Donald Nadeau you dont either

[@robertlewis9132]

@@shariquenguyen4945 turek is claiming something to exist, alex is not convinced. The burden of proof is on the turek as the claimant.

[@sotharynhem2280]

I feel like the way he explained about atheist is quite confusing. It's like to be or not to be lol I dont know

[@HeLpLOstGOdAny1]

@@robertlewis9132 Maybe, but the bigger burden falls on the omniscient Donald duck above who claims to know all things

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@sotharynhem2280 it's meant to be confusing, i've wayched people like turek and jordan peterson and they sound incredibly well educated, but they throw a ton of crap at you (rusty cars???) and try to befuddle, which works on the majority cos people don't know how to think, alex can hold his own, but joe public up against turek? brow beatering bible thumpers.

[@stevecortes9216]

What I loved, though, was all the respect exchanged in this debate.

[@AnuragKumar-xh3wc]

Yes, I wonder why we can't have that in the comment section of any of their videos.

[@stevecortes9216]

@@AnuragKumar-xh3wc sorry. I may be a little slow today. How do you mean...exactly?

[@AnuragKumar-xh3wc]

@@stevecortes9216 I was referring to the battle going on in the comment section. My comment was just a rhetorical question on that.

[@kamilbro6106]

Look up Christopher Hitchens

[@anuragvaliveti3413]

@@AnuragKumar-xh3wc Regardless of whether someones beliefs are delusional or not, we owe them the right to establish their claim and argue for it. Debates on the existence of god allow for that to happen.

[@lmarsh5407]

I felt scared coming to the comment section of this video(I am a Christian and the atheists that comment on Christian videos are very harsh) But I have to say I really respect all of you for not being so heated in the top comments

[@themanjaebla]

L Marsh heck yeah

[@Mr.H-YT42]

That's kind to say. Perhaps you'd care to ruminate on what might explain the origin of the hostility you say you're observing towards Christians. I hope this is an opportunity to honestly evaluate if the behavior of Christians at times fails to build the type of goodwill towards your non-Christian neighbors that is suggested in the New Testament. Just a thought to consider.

[@lmarsh5407]

@@Mr.H-YT42 Now I can't speak for the people in the comments. But I think a lot of the hostility that I experience is coming from the typical anti-gay views christians have( And I don't share). With that in mind, I understand why others would be hostile towards christians when there are plenty of Christians who are hostile towards gays without reason

[@DC-ss2jx]

@Bobsyouruncle Wilson on atheist podcasts, at each "Christian" comment, someone reply bashing it. On theological podcasts when someone comments "I am atheist but..." You only see supportive comments not hate. I watch both atheist and theological podcasts on KZbin so believe me. The hateful christians you are a talking about are a small minority highlighted by leftist media. Get educated before talking trash.

[@Mr.H-YT42]

L Marsh I think that’s a good start. Why else?

[@JohnPaul-EruRainon]

Ive been watching a lot of debates recently just to get more perspective and this is the healthiest one I've seen so far. The point of a debate is not to get the opposition to believe in your claim, but rather to understand different perspectives of the subject matter being debated. Most debates are ruined by people who arrogantly yell over the others, glad to see a healthy one

[@ALANA-hu8qo]

just because the conclusion leads to something you don't like, doesn't disprove the conclusion.

[@booAHHHH]

Amen Sister

[@logans.butler285]

Yes but you could say that both from atheism and Christianity. Here's one of my favorite quotes from my dad, the reason why most people believe in God is because believing is easier than thinking. Atheists have no fantasies, it was them who started calling religion a fantasy, not the other way around. Atheism is no religion, of course, I'm no atheist, but there is no possible way you can "conclude" that God exist, so don't bother.

[@onthegrind-np9yp]

@@logans.butler285 so your christan how do you know god is real??

[@logans.butler285]

@Christopher C. Morgan No, I'm no Christian. Geez, apparently the term "atheist" applies for anyone who doesn’t believe specifically in the Christian God, right?

[@pranavlimaye]

@@logans.butler285 so, do you believe in some other religion or do you call yourself an agnostic? Just curious

[@brandonrobinson3834]

i am a christian but i do like the way that Alex makes an honest argument for atheism with out devolving into insults and sarcasm. good job!

[@jessemcilvenna2980]

Agreed! This was a very pleasant discussion to watch.

[@jessemcilvenna2980]

@@johnathancerda8976 But experiencing a relationship with Jesus is the best thing ever! My depression is gone along with years and years of trauma. And I feel such amazing joy!

[@mcsuck1]

@@jessemcilvenna2980 I can say the same thing for Muhammad, or Thor, or Azatoth, or Krishna, or my imaginary friend Bob etc. And people do in fact say these things. But that doesn't get you anywhere closer to finding out if any of these beings are real, does it?

[@mcsuck1]

@Delon Duvenage I watched the first 10 minutes and it's just nonsense coming from a sociopath. I really don't want to watch 30 minutes of this.. What were his reasons for becoming a Christian?

[@jessemcilvenna2980]

​@@mcsuck1 I don't believe that what's holding back people from giving their life to Jesus has anything to do with lack of empirical evidence. It's a heart thing, not a head thing. Many people (myself included) have been hurt by people in the church and have transposed those hurts onto their view of God. Secondly, I don't think most people understand just how valuable they are to God! You are very valuable to Him. He's madly in love with you!

[@grandpre9442]

Well after that 58 mins I feel objectively uneducated in a subjective kind of way.

[@eliramirez3798]

🤣🤣🤣🤯

[@eliramirez3798]

Troll alert!!!

[@grandpre9442]

@fynes leigh Very good question. Reading the line back to myself, not sure why I put the word well at the start of it. Proving my piont on how uneducated I must be.

[@grandpre9442]

@fynes leigh Thank you for your reply. I enjoyed reading it. I didn't take your first comment in a negative way so no need for the apology, but thank you anyway. Picking up on my response and if I'm honest I have really worked on understanding the importance to balance humbleness against the ego over the years and the importance of knowing when to use and show both. When someone like myself is lacking in knowledge its important to me that I listen and try to understand others opinions and questions and keep moving forward. I am in awe of the young man in this video and will watch with both enjoyment and interest his future videos. Eckhart Tolle is another person I can watch and listen to all day. I wish you well Fynes, and thank you again for the question and if honest making me conscious of something I was unaware I typed and why I typed it. Lol.

[@halalgummybearz]

well ok then

[@SelfproclaimedLizardWizard]

Alex I’m a firm creationist and I have to say I admire the fact that you have the ability to keep the debate chill and respectful. So many atheists (and christians too sometimes) lose it completely and make the world of debating very uncomfortable. I found myself subscribing to your channel even though I don’t share the atheist view Alex you’re a legend even though we disagree with you. And you were young here. Good on you

[@loveroftruth8148]

This debate made me realize i need to read more lol. So many times i had to pause and google search definitions of the words these guys were using. Lol.

[@DundG]

Funny how two semingly opsoing sides of the intelligence scala can teach you so much.

[@alanroberts7916]

Now we need for these two guys to read up and google meanings of words. It would cut down on a lot of side discussion.

[@youngdrosenumbaone8371]

@@alanroberts7916 I thought to myself "What is this guy talking about?" I am currently at the 30 minute mark and these are the types of conversations I have when I am stoned. The religion argument is over because one side of the debate does not change and relies on (quite frankly) baseless individual perceptions of the world to stay alive. They are basically sharing theories on how humans came to perceive evil as we do today. Rather than explaining why he believes that God sending his son Jesus down to have him sacrificed for the sins of his other (much less impressive, by choice) children, is a rational explanation for our breakthrough in moral understanding. I'd say if God was real our perception of evil could have very well stemmed from him but not in the ways that Frank chooses to believe it did.

[@RatedDehydrated]

I recommend audio books as well! Nothing beats good old fashioned reading but you're still ingesting the book!

[@alanroberts7916]

@@youngdrosenumbaone8371 I wonder why Christians and others enjoy saying that it took god to set us straight on our moral way. All the while obeying laws, rules, regulations, ordinances and limits all of which needed no god because they were all written by PEOPLE.

[@HoseaCuervo]

is it just me ... or do people sound smarter when they have a british accent

[@naxo6609]

they do lmao

[@allahspreadshate6486]

I think it's more a case of people who sound British tend to be smarter. Just saying...

[@jimmorrison4291]

Not many people in the UK sound like that

[@educatedperson1243]

That's probably cause the britian doesn't have as many dumbasses as USA

[@arcticwolf6402]

No, it isn't just you. It is a very simple fact. I'm not racist, not hating on anyone, etc. But having a British accent 100% makes you sound smarter.

[@MicahBuzanANIMATION]

I love how Frank says "Way to go Man!" to Alex at the end. I saw some videos before of Frank preaching that made my skin boil with rage. But after watching this discussion, he seems like a much more likable guy and you can tell he respects Alex. This was an all around respectful debate.

[@conquerneptune1171]

Micah Buzan Frank is an amazing, kind, and understanding person. I don’t understand how you can get mad at his preaching. He never says anything based off his opinion that could make someone angry unless they are ignorant. He purely quotes scripture and then explains it.

[@eliramirez3798]

@@conquerneptune1171 You have to remember that people don't really hate you. They hate what you talk about, Jesus.

[@smedlz]

What was it about frank that made your "skin boil with rage"?

[@eliramirez3798]

@@smedlz I'll tell ya. Christ.

[@MarkVanReeth]

@@smedlz he is a lot friendlier here than in many clips you can find online. I wouldn't go as far as saying he makes my skin boil, but he's usually a lot more obnoxious.

[@paulstuart9948]

Thank you all three of you for a well spoken, interesting, incredibly respectable discussion.....

[@ashmoneyrecords6996]

Oh he absolutely did not enjoy being (accurately) described as an 'Agnostic Theist'

[@Cyba_IT_NZ]

Haha I was just going to say that. When he realised what Alex said and that he was right he cut it off pretty quickly.

[@oysterpopsicles3362]

No such thing as as an agnostic theist or atheist. I own Cambridge University dictionary of philosophy along with Oxfords. Definitely in top 10 of best universities in the world and you never see this illusory construct solely based your primal in/credulity. You can't rely on you making uneducated , pop-atheist erroneous conclusions.

[@Cyba_IT_NZ]

Oyster Popsicles For someone who owns Cambridge University dictionary of philosophy along with Oxfords you have terrible grammar.

[@oysterpopsicles3362]

Cyba IT Are you completely daft? Is your IQ so egregious that you don't understand the difference between a dictionary of philosophy and grammar? Its banal that you don't and that you've never even opened one. Let's keep your red herrings, ad hominems fallacy (poisoning the well fallacy) where they belong, in the garbage.

[@Cyba_IT_NZ]

Oyster Popsicles triggered

[@pngballar24]

19:25 for the convo to start.

[@RobbDepp]

Thank you.

[@loiseboateng300]

Thanks 😊

[@yudeshsohan5853]

Wtf were they doing for a wholse 20mins

[@matthews95_]

pngballar24 THANK you

[@aaronmueller1560]

I found the discussions before the main points equally as interesting, so I recommend not skipping over them

[@TylerAndToast]

Regardless of who's right, this is how we learn, grow, and discover for ourselves - Rationality and respect. Well done.

[@isoldmysoulnowwheresmytale6945]

I must say it's so nice to see a calm debate between Christians and atheists

[@Tony-qt4zv]

I'm just bummed that Frank doesn't talk about the things that are impossible to argue though. Like "the earth is held by nothing in empty space" thousands of years before discovery of space science. Or Job 40 talking about dinosaurs and as the creator God was able to wipe them out. Or Blood being the life of flesh and how we can now get blood tests that tell us the life of our flesh. Or how the bible told us Russia would align with Ethiopia, Lybia, and Iran which perfectly surround Israel.

[@DannyBashy]

@@Tony-qt4zv fr I got so mad when he said none of the indisputable proof and that how the dumb kid could be right and he is not 100 % sure God is real but he better learn cause it says in the bible u must believe in me with all your heart not 99% but 100%

[@Tony-qt4zv]

@@DannyBashy God bless you mate. It's okay though, God made the world so that it is how it's supposed to be, that includes this debate. I just wish the arguments about God included the things you can't physically argue, because how would anyone in the time BEFORE Jesus know anything they testified about?!

[@DannyBashy]

@@Tony-qt4zv amen brother

[@miguelangelopate9252]

Hey Alex, I am a Christian and I love listening to you speak! Thank you for pushing back on a staggeringly brilliant level. Keep up the amazing work.

[@oppothumbs1]

Evolution is proven. Fossil records are the main proof. Creationist nitpick at Evolution and made little sense. Fossils of now-extinct species, showing that different organisms have lived on Earth during different periods of the planet's history. The science of carbon dating is unquestionable. Older materials can be dated using potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium and uranium-lead dating. The world is about 13 billion years old, Earth is 4.5 Million. Homo sapiens are approximately 200,000 thousand years old. All of this contradicts the Bible. And the Bible has hundreds of misstatements and bad dogma that people just brush over as if it's nothing.

[@brian8369]

Very civilized discussion, well done. Alex, only 18 but so intelligent.

[@christinajardeleza4486]

Intelligint to believe or not to believe

[@keishahenry8200]

Well the Bible calls him a fool. There's no such thing as atheism. Romans 1:19

[@brian8369]

@@keishahenry8200 Hi Keisha, intelligence is more to do with the ability to learn and apply that knowledge and less to do with differences in opinions. Intelligent people can have different opinions on things. For example I am intelligent enough to know that in your first sentence you actually meant something along the lines of "according to what is written in the bible" because we are both intelligent enough to understand that an inanimate object can't express an opinion. My personal definition of intelligence is the ability to learn from one's own mistakes because I have seen the same mistakes being made so many times in various jobs.

[@MrMeow-iq7kq]

yea... and if these idiots spent only 2 minutes looking up the definitions of atheist and agnostic, they would have needed no explanation from Alex at all.

[@raysalmon6566]

Or young and dumb

[@lukevitale3643]

I didn’t know Gordon Ramsey produced podcasts

[@moraleslopezdiegotenoch8810]

They both look like Gordon Ramsey ngl

[@MRakshay-fb2mu]

He is Ramsey long lost brother

[@vladdrac3927]

He's not Ramsey, he's Jazza

[@pranavlimaye]

@@MRakshay-fb2mu we are all Gordon's long lost grandchild/nephew-niece/sibling/uncle-aunt/grandparent if you go back far enough. So is a cow, a lobster, and a tree :)

[@pau.munozz]

Untrue.

[@PfEMP]

"If evil exists, good must exist" - Sure. - "And if good exists, God must exist" Woooah that escalated quickly.

[@tylera222]

PfEMP1 HONESTLY

[@rodrigovialerios]

I laugh so hard when He said that XD

[@vincentdaniels2596]

PfEMP1 Yea, there's uhh levels to logic mate, you just Hulk jumped up 12 levels. It gets even better when apologist do his giant leap and then do another big one to "then my God is the real God." What??!!

[@vincentdaniels2596]

Mr. Satan That sir, would definitely be a comedic miracle in my book.

[@zapkvr]

PfEMP1 this is the Ravi Zachariah fallacy.

[@infinitelyexhausted]

Thank you for the debate all. Really respectful and interesting discussion .

[@sarahnaomi23]

Love the handshake and ‘way to go man’ at the end. So good to see a gentlemanly, gracious debate.

[@lucaswilhelmmeyer6943]

Jesus called Judas friend when He asked him do you betray Me with a kiss ? Jesus washed Judas feet some ours before.

[@AkbarAto]

The host/interviewer talks too much, though.

[@ILoveYou-sg5bi]

This is a kid mentally, this alek guy is incredibly ignorant, a book cannot believe because it is an inanimate object... Oh my gosh... This is when atheist placate religious people to make them feel good about believing...

[@jackliechtenstein660]

@@ILoveYou-sg5bi You're arguing a book possesses a belief of the divine? A belief in anything?

[@ILoveYou-sg5bi]

@@jackliechtenstein660 Gosh, are you serious?

[@kabudoe]

You have an astounding level of patience Alex, good debate! Keep at it.

[@ihateexcessivelylongandpoi4490]

For now. Give it a few years and I'd be willing to bet he gets sick of hearing the same garbage over and over.

[@elohellqqz1680]

Absolutely brilliant, it is really impressive that at your age, you are able to express yourself in such accuracy.

[@Adversary198]

You're a complete moron, so is Alex and all of his subscribers.

[@elohellqqz1680]

And what makes us morons, if i can ask?

[@kaixakusaka658]

I agree, even i'd like to know this.

[@sarah-by5ky]

Jon, that's a half-ass argument. Care to explain, if you're so sure?

[@RIOTMAKERS]

Dude. Were you watching the same video? In no way was anything he said in any shape or form to be called "accurate" it was basically epistemological word salad. Alex's world view(if one can call whatever he presented one) was on a spectrum. Non binary pretty much when it comes down to it. Lol

[@RadwanParvez-gn6gm]

This is a great conversation. This is such a fascinating conversation that I was rooting for for a long time since it elucidate broadly to my understanding that, "Having no free will is a self refuting argument. But this is not the proof of existence of Free will".

[@michaelbedford8017]

Alex is an exceptional person. If as he says, he is in the middle of his 'A level' exams, then he is at max, just turned 18 and probably 17. Amazing.

[@MarcDufresneosorusrex]

we as humans have the ability to formulate thoughts according to experiences. If Ales is excpetional, does that not mean everyone is

[@MarcDufresneosorusrex]

@The Fabulous Eagle there is a Apollo/Dyonisus dichotomy out there. If you can find the bit where Bruce Lee expands on this topic on the net... it's not very long but he speaks clearly enough to understand. (animal/machine dichotomy).

[@raysalmon6566]

40, 3, Alex is an exceptional person. If as he says, he is in the middle of his 'A level' exams, then he is at max, just turned 18 and probably 17. Amazing. i didn't find Alex that compelling

[@orlamcmanus9019]

@@raysalmon6566 For a 17/18 year old he is pretty exceptional and very bright, his enthusiasm is unstoppable. I guess that's why he has 100,000 subscribers, successful to boot

[@ILoveLuhaidan]

Not that expetional tbh. He is just someone who happens to study philosophy at school. Unfortunately, I did not so I could have not done this. Not because I did not choose philosophy but it was never an option. Simple

[@fatpanda3305]

You're in an ACTUAL DEBATE with Frank Turek? 50 minutes of Frank Turek and Alex O'Connor is pure bliss, especially since I'm looking for something to watch right now.

[@fatpanda3305]

I know enough about Turek to not expect any meaningful intellectual debates, but I honestly enjoy his voice. The video of Armoured Skeptic debunking his video is one of my favourite atheist videos.

[@vanderkarl3927]

I think it's absolutely fascinating that one of the core disagreements between Alex and Frank comes down to an ancient debate regarding the philosophy of mathematics which mathematicians still hotly debate today: "Is math invented or discovered?"

[@zzzzzz69]

both...

[@vanderkarl3927]

@@zzzzzz69 My take is that the foundation is invented, but that the consequences are discovered; Conway invented his Game of Life, but he discovered the Glider within it.

[@davelaneve2446]

The core principles of mathematics are discovered. But the methods we use to express mathematics are invented.

[@zzzzzz69]

@@davelaneve2446 agreed

[@neilmcleary2153]

@@davelaneve2446 Ill start by saying I'm definitely not academic or gd at maths I'll like to hear different people's opinions on things without arguing with them what r the core principles of maths and how where they discovered when you say we use maths to explain it genuinely interested

[@keeverw12]

I enjoyed this! Question...what about moral ideals that are not conducive to human prosperity? Like self-sacrifice to save a less viable person than yourself. Or helping an enemy? Im sure there are other that dont come to mind. But if survival-instinct is the source of morality then why do some moral choices not support survival? In any event the reason that "drives" evolution being survival, does not imply a motive. And it would take a motive to go from survival-instincts to a broader desire for the betterment of your species, civilization, planet, etc. Animals being naturally selected are only randomly selected because they have the mutated advantage to survive, themselves. But there is no inherent desire for the species to survive there. Its just personal. The chipmunk doesnt want to die, but he doesnt care about chipmunk-kind. Only humans think in those terms. About whats best for society, and so on. So what about all the evolutionary steps that preceeded us? What was their motivation?

[@tomharris3046]

You sir are logical. They didn't even discuss this.

[@csopi144]

Interesting questions

[@doug2555]

I think I kind of understand what you're saying. I believe in general being selfish in nature is what lets you survive. If you think about it this way, being selfish can have multiple outcomes. If you're selfish and you meet another selfish animal, you will likely fight, one will die and one will live, either way the selfish trait lives on. Selfish vs. not selfish favors selfish, the not selfish won't be as likely to fight over that. Not selfish vs. not selfish they likely share but neither get to fully exploit the resource. So as a whole, selfishness is a very desired trait at least for more solitary species. As for why some animals don't self sacrifice for the greater of their species, well, the animal that has the desire to self sacrifice will likely die and not pass on that trait. As for many of cases, that sort of thought requires a great intelligence, that of which nature doesn't really demand because species will survive regardless.... As for humans, I just believe we're a remarkable exception due to our massive civilization and high intelligence. Self sacrifice is in a way, abstract. For why some moral choices aren't exactly conducive for survival, that is definitely an interesting question. But it's important to note that at this point us humans are kind of "beyond" nature in the fact that even the weak survive. People with disabilities and flaws have accommodations and aren't just discarded. It's a very complicating question indeed. I think it arises from humans ability to think more abstractly and abstract thought arose from the "side effect" of being extremely intelligent.

[@Poly_atheist]

There is the idea that through evolution, we've evolved to be social creatures, that taking care of those around you helped your group or tribe to survive. The more that the tribe worked together, the better they are able to protect themselves, Hunt and reproduce. Even animals will protect their young at risk to themselves.

[@chrismcaulay7805]

@@Poly_atheist From the perspective of evolution, by a theist: Part 1) Protecting your own young is selfish in nature. Because you are protecting the part of you that will still be here when you die, and everything dies. Your only shot at immortality is though your genes/lineage. Part 2) Protecting someone else's young is less selfish depending on the number of shared genes (a case can easily be made that your siblings are partially "you" genetically due to them sharing [in all but a single case that you get 1/2 of your mom, and 1/2 of your Dad, but you sibling gets the perfect mirror of both halfs] some subset of your gene pool). The only way to protect someone completely unselfishly is to do so where you are now less likely to survive, AND they share no genes with you... Logic for part 1: 1) Nothing lives forever 2) the best you can achieve is your genes (lineage) to live on. 3) Protecting your genes is therefore selfish as it furthers your best outcome. Logic for part 2: 1) Nothing lives forever 2)The best you can achieve is your genes (lineage) to live on. 3) If you genes exist in someone else, then its is therefore selfish to help those with them live on. 4) IF someone contains more of your genes they are therefore a greater payload of your genes moving on, and therefore it is more selfish to help them due to the larger amount that is furthers your best outcome. 5) The opposite of 4 is also true, that someone with less genes is a lesser payload of your genes and therefore you are being less selfish due the the reduced amount said help would further your gene pool

[@malirk]

7:10 Evil exists Thus good exists Thus God exists because God is a standard What I find interesting about this argument is that if God is the standard, God doesn't meet his own standard. Saying there is an objective morality means that God would need to follow it. God kills babies multiple times in the Bible. If this isn't objectively wrong, this God isn't worth worshipping. I told this to Matt Slick and he said God doesn't have to go by a standard. Guess what... you just made your morality subjective. QED

[@jackwu8550]

Brian Stevens so the God in this video only refers to Christian God right?

[@ClickHere4Naruto]

God, not Christian god...

[@asketikoscg]

Brian Stevens - Evening, good sir. I was just wondering whether all the 'good v evil' objective morality ideas that 'drive you nuts', are all really just red herrings of some particularly inedible kind?? Are 'good and evil', per se, terms with any truth to them at all?? Could we not argue that this 'objectivity' relates merely to that which is beneficial/harmful to humans and/or their social interactions - and then go on to claim that there is thus NO objectivity anyway, at the micro-scale, as we all seem to differ as to what actually is individually beneficial, or otherwise?? Thus we're maybe only able to speak of 'objectivity' in more general terms, as relating to larger human groups and their long term survival/cohesion. Its often suggested that the origins of morality lie within evolutionary 'tribal survival' processes, and it kind of seems there's maybe some truth in there somewhere. I must confess to being a bear of very little brain, so must go sit down and rest awhile, having thought of all that, by myself...

[@radiatorbacon5239]

Brian Stevens I'm in love with you now

[@enthusiasticagnostic7318]

Where in the Bible does the Christian God kill babies?

[@watermalone2766]

Alex starts a sentence instantly gets inturupted and dosent interrupt him and waits. Starts a sentence again and is instantly interrupted WTF was that let him speak

[@yashagar4443]

bryce roth quite a common Christian tactic

[@hli5457]

I know he is a very smart person so I want to say he wanted to have the high ground in terms of being respectful. He knows well that people will see what was going on.

[@mindspace3863]

Good debate but Frank ultimately makes the better arguments.

[@TheJwwinter]

Frank owns that kid.

[@douglasjacobs882]

bryce roth It was my perception that Alex spoke as much, if not more than Frank. Neither of them were trying to dominate the conversation but both of them were trying to interject their position when points of contention were presented.

[@DoubleTrouble-li5wi]

This was a very well done discussion. I vastly prefer this type of debate, which is more of a conversation than the traditional opening > response > cross examination > question period style of debate.

[@clay._.]

Hi Alex! I was one of your first viewers and fans. Since then I have come to find faith in Jesus. He (and Christianity) truly is the way, the truth and the life. I'll be praying that one day you and those who learn from you come to the same realisation. God bless you mate

[@ASTRO-R3]

So you threw in the towel on rational objective thinking for easy answers. That sounds like a digression. I am sure Alex appreciates your well wishes but wishful thinking isn’t going to change the minds of others.

[@BlueCoore]

If God, in fact, doesn’t exists the way you are claiming to, then Alex find no problem you doing whatever your cognition feels convenient to, on the other hand, if God, in fact, exists, then it’s just a matter of time for Alex to voluntarily choose to follow what you claim to be the Gospel of Jesus The question that rises is: We can’t grasp the concept of time, but time is required for someone to accept Jesus, by definition, seems that no human can rationalize the dynamic of the intentions of ‘God’, therefore, any intent to actively interfere with ‘Gods’ work, falls apart almost as if God says: Son, you are missing the point. If God is, by definition, that which transcends us humans in all senses, how could we judge wether a human already knows Jesus or no, at you could quote: by their fruits. But then another Christian can enter the debate and say: no, they need a relationship with the Holy Spirit, And then another theists enters and saysd: only God weight our hearts And so on and so forth… So it seems to me that the actual debate it’s not atheism vs theism as they both acknowledge their limits within their own epistemology and ontology, but between the hermeneutic among theists. Hearing an atheist like Alex is the tip of the iceberg, thanks to globalization and internet, But the deeper levels contains theists that cannot seem to grasp a cohesive hermeneutic of the Gospel I’m curious

[@B1GG3R_B0Y62]

I live for these debates.

[@loodlebop]

Kaleb Kolakoff same

[@mathewhill5556]

Why? are you atheist?

[@B1GG3R_B0Y62]

mathew hill I have not seen emiprical evidence to prove the existence of a god and there is overwhelming evidence showing that for the majority of the stories, the bible is not a reliable source of history. I would like to pose the question, are you religious, and if you are, then why?

[@loodlebop]

mathew hill is that relevant?

[@mathewhill5556]

I find it very interesting that so many people "live" for theological discourse.

[@jetsfanjordan6548]

As a Christian who’s been following and enjoying Frank’s content, I’m really impressed with Alex and his ability to stay focused on the details. I understand from both sides it must be frustrating when you’re talking to someone with a polar opposite worldview, but Alex does a great job keeping calm and purely logical rather than resorting to emotion. I do think the show host interrupted both Alex and Frank too much. Seemed like he tried too hard to remind everyone that it’s “his” show and to provide “his” input instead of leaving the two experts to talk it out. Very insightful regardless

[@mlthornton1]

I agree completely. I think Alex is one of the most respectable atheist/agnostic types there is. Seems driven by his search for the truth and not burdened with ego like so many from both sides.

[@ShaquielleOnielfitnessofficial]

i listen to both and a cycle that happens is i listen to alex, have doubts, listen to frank, doubts are released, then i watch alex again, and have to watch frank again to nt have an existential crisis xd

[@wholeheartedglobal316]

I agree. A host whether Christians or atheists should not give their own perspectives unless agreed upon by all parties. As for Frank's response at the end, maybe it is my in-education if that's a word, but to answer Alex, I would say that the arguments are not the same because Frank's argument is based on design and Alex's on the random occurrence of things. If it is God who gave you thoughts(even tricked you) to think of Him as the moral standard then it means that your thoughts are designed by God, flawed or not, the keyword is 'designed'. From the evolution point of view, it is a random process, so it isn't the same at 56:46, Frank's answer, 'That's how you prove anything' (true from a Christian perspective) is probably him not having enough time to process a comeback. May Alex find the truth. He is a treasure because all his hardest questions have answers and make Christian scholars (hopefully through the Holy Spirit) have better ways of evangelism.

[@MD99111]

Both of them are wrong in there view, one believing that there is no God, while the other believes in the wrong God, one didn't enter the class for the true exam while the other entered the wrong class for exam, the Christianity was true in time of Jesus Pbuh, but it changed after him, the true God is God the Father whom we called Allah and the right class for exam is Islam as the last religion for humanity until the end of the world and Muhammad Pbuh is the seal of messengers before him.

[@Lessonius]

@@MD99111 Then please, answer this simple logic: "Allah" claims to be the best of all deceivers. Satan is the great deceiver. Logical conclusion: Islam is Satanism. And you're talking about a wrong classroom? Wake up. You classify a liar, thief ,murderer, r4pist, having s3x with 9 year olds (marrying at 6), slave owner and trader AMONG OTHER ATROCITIES as the "best man that ever lived" and the "model to follow". Are you clinically insane? If anyone decided to actually follow this example, they'd be in jail immediately. There's no wonder noone is debating if "Allah" is the true God. Because it's obvious he isn't to anyone who spends 5 minutes researching. It's an insult to intelligence, by all means. Wake up before it's too late.

[@ryanzhiyuanli1016]

Dude, I am a practicing Christian and I really appreciate your channel and what you have to say. I think it is important to listen to others on what they have to say and I believe that the Bible even calls Christians to do so. Great content, you just gained a subscriber

[@wonder_9315]

Wooo you’re sliding down the rabbit hole man! Don’t rush the process, we’ve all been where you are

[@manne8575]

@@wonder_9315 ?

[@IcejjfishTbone]

@@wonder_9315 . Well this comment makes the assumption that every practicing Christian who looks at the atheist world view, Is willing to listen to the argument of an atheist, and supports the production of the content of an atheist, would become an atheist. Your argument is made on personal experience

[@Michael-oh8fk]

@@IcejjfishTbone it's not that deep man he's just making an observation about how lots of Christians start here in their deconstruction process

[@Daisika]

I remember doing that and I ended up atheist 😂😭 Not saying that will happen to you, but that happens to many people and I’m sure that’s why Wonder said what they said.

[@S_117]

It was nice to see a calm and collective discussion.

[@d-hunter9801]

Alex is pretty intelligent, that was a deep conversation with logic. I hated the fact that this was a 2 vs 1 debate, they were ganging up on Alex but damn son, Alex kept his cool and defended his position pretty well.

[@ksharky888]

A blade forged in truth will never break

[@kwahujakquai6726]

I tend to believe that if folks think about things, and are honest with themselves, then the truth will emerge.

[@Teragnau]

A 1 vs 2 debate is actually a good thing. And even better would be a 1 vs 3 or 1 vs 10. In a 1 vs 1 you are at the same level, not in the 1 vs 10. If you need 2 person to debate with one, it kind of show one side has a problem.

[@stewscum]

I don't think he was ganged up on, he was being pressed fairly. The moderator, though way more involved, was fair and tried to get clear answers.

[@seungk8607]

D-Hunter Van Der Horst No, he wasnt ganged up. Moderator was just asking Alex that Alex's argument is harder to explain "a weaker premesis", and Alex said these things still bother him, something he cant explain

[@righteous_lute6194]

This is how it should be in a discussion not making fun and saying things like "oh wow your floating man's so special" or "look at that turtle he's your grandpa" having a rational discussion is how I wish it would be most of the time .

[@badassproductions4734]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@deonmassyn4729]

8

[@XXX3RX0]

But my grandfather looks like a turtle. How do you explain that?! Checkmate Atheists. /s

[@xXxTeenSplayer]

But how can you actually have a rational discussion with someone who believes in a floating sky daddy? You really don't get it; faith is an irrational position, period, full stop. There is no reasoning with someone who believes something on faith alone.

[@matthewwhite9721]

@@xXxTeenSplayer I agree w/you, which is all the more fortunate that Frank's faith is based on reason.

[@elijahsimerson7839]

Hey cosmic skeptic! I wanted to let you know that I am a Christian. And I have all the respect in the world for you. This debate was very professional, you presented your points, and I'm proud that you did this.

[@wernerheisenberg4112]

If only his world-view wasn't so illogical.

[@naooho9392]

Werner Heisenberg, What about Alex's points are illogical? Or am I miss-understanding you?

[@wernerheisenberg4112]

That morality is subjective.

[@ztlabraptor211]

Werner Heisenberg morality is subjective...

[@naooho9392]

Werner Heisenberg, please back up your point somehow. You don't get to call someone illogical then not present any proof for your own claims

[@orandegellogaming4793]

I enjoyed this a lot. All 3 men stayed very respectful and calm. Christian here and the point that Connor kept bringing up how evolution leads him to the want for human prosperity was the main one I didn’t get. Given we are just an accident and happened to be how we are I don’t see any reason not to use someone to my own benefit.

[@SCRaetz]

Pre-judging from the top comments, I was expecting an ass-kicking from Alex, but Frank held his own pretty well. This felt more like a discussion than it did a debate and ended in a subjective stalemate. Great job to Alex. As a Christian, I learned a lot!

[@akoskormendi9711]

The comments are not a good way to judge a discussion, people tend to exaggerate and be biased. I mean, I see muslims insisting under his Hijab debate and response that he lost, ignoring how dishonest Hijab was, misrepresenting everything Alex said. It's best to watch the debate itself

[@irrevenant8724]

@Anonymous I have to agree that that completely demolished Frank's argument against evolved rationality being reliable. It frustrated the heck out of me though that Alex never pointed out: (1) That it's objectively testable whether rationality works or not and that rationality has repeatedly met such tests. (2) That evolution is the natural process of trying a wide variety of approaches and throwing away those that don't work in practice. It's true that evolution values effectiveness over accuracy, but to the extent that better comprehension of the world around us increases survivability we should *absolutely* expect that evolved rationality would be adapted to objective reality.

[@irrevenant8724]

@Anonymous re: #1 to take one simple example we consider it rational to gather a reasonable amount of evidence for something before we consider it likely to be true. This can be tested by comparing the objective success rates of one approach vs the other. I'm not clear what you're saying about Lovecraftian nightmares.

[@irrevenant8724]

​@Anonymous I don't really think that seeing what objectively works is even using rationality per se - it's just direct observation of reality. I'd refer to someone far more expert than me on the rigorousness of logical proofs, though. I understand they're strongly confirmed but I don't personally have the skills to demonstrate that. It's true that our senses and reasoning processes aren't entirely reliable. There's a lot of it we don't perceive and a lot of mental interpretation going on to build up a picture of the world that we can comprehend. The mistake is to assume as Frank does that senses and rationality are either entirely reliable or entirely unreliable. In practice there are elements that we can consider highly reliable (unless you want to start delving into 'brains in vats' territory, but even Frank recognised that was an unresolvable question not worth pursuing - plus it affects both sides' arguments equally). And there are elements that we know we can't trust. We're well aware of things like confirmation bias and hyperbolic discounting (which are incidentally flaws that make more sense as a product of evolution than as a product of intelligent design). And there's the classic issue of our minds and body overreacting to harmless stressors because it's an evolutionary survival advantage to err on the side of caution re: whether you need to run or not! IMO, it actually doesn't matter how heavily our inherent rationality is skewed towards effectiveness rather than accuracy, because our understanding of logic has been built from the ground up. So as long as *any* of our rationality is effective, that's enough of a basis to build up a reliable system of logic so long as we carefully confirm every step of the way - and we did. Arguably underlying reality *is* so alien that our brains can't comprehend it. As near as we can figure, the things we perceive as physical objects are actually composed of quantum fields which behave in *very* unintuitive ways. Even without going into the quantum, nothing is actually solid - at the particle level even the densest rock is 99% empty space. We're not seeing anything like objective reality. But that's the case with or without a God. And again, we get enough of a perception of reality to build up a more accurate picture. That we were able to discover and recognise the existence of quantum mechanics shows that we can develop better understanding of an objective reality we can't directly perceive.

[@marcocortes9968]

Wait. So you are christian, but you were expecting the christian to get debunked by an atheist? If you believe that you can’t find evidence, reasons or arguments for God. Enough to convince an atheist. Then why be christian?

[@thedefinitionoflife9192]

Its so nice that they can civilly talk about this. Its nice to see that some people can have polite discourse.

[@eldotjay]

*Listening to this and then listening to the debate with Muhammad Hijab. They’re worlds apart in debate etiquette, peer respect and just common decency.*

[@WWIIKittyhawk]

Yes because ones a Christian. Muslims very rarely show respect to those of whom they disagree

[@noface5605]

Because islam

[@MarkVanReeth]

@@WWIIKittyhawk Hijab's partner in that debate (Abdullah al Andalusi) was quite nice. Islam is garbage, but individual muslims can still be nice.

[@MarkVanReeth]

@ITS FACTZ Sure, a lot of people in the comments section merely point out how rude Hijab is, but there are some who also address the content of what he is saying. I personally think that has been adequately addressed by Alex, both during the debate and in his followup video from 2 weeks ago. Clearly Hijab is not only obnoxious but also very dishonest. Many of his "arguments" or "gotcha" moments rely entirely on twisting Alex's words into the opposite of what Alex actually meant. That is disgraceful. If you say that Islam is perfect, do you say that it is fine for someone who is well in his fifties to have sex with a 9 year old, or do you say that it didn't happen?

[@lrvogt1257]

@@WWIIKittyhawk : That's a step too far. I think religious zealots tend to be arrogant. Hijab and his buddy Saboor especially but there are a lot of dishonest and arrogant Christian apologists out there.

[@coreyloucks4865]

This is a great conversation and a great example on how two people who disagree with each other can still have a respectful and cordial conversation. I applaud all people involved, Alex, Frank, and Justin and I wish we could always be civilized when having discussions with people we disagree with. I generally think that most people, regardless of religion, beliefs, political alignment, and what not generally want to do the right thing, but just disagree what that right thing is. And that's fine. I think if people are willing to have conversations like this, we could come to some compromise and general agreement.

[@chriswilliams5109]

I'm a theist, yet I appreciate and find legitimate the questions that come from atheism and agnosticism and people like Alex who present these questions respectfully and with grace are critical to creating a constructive journey for the debate. Either side labeling and arrogantly accusing the other of absurdity or idiocy will never progress their respective view; it will only paralyze progress and dehumanize. Thanks Alex!

[@hopelesshoper7766]

Chris Williams Amen. I have all respect for every mindset as long it is represented with respect for other worldviews.

[@yunusahmed2940]

Dd s Why bother responding to an atheist like you who don't listen to reason?

[@yunusahmed2940]

Dd s Okay then you're an agnostic whatever. Still not listening to reason

[@yunusahmed2940]

It's not what I believe it's about the truth. Flat Earthers don't listen to reason, neither do atheists I usually give agnostics a pass if they're currently in a the search for the truth.

[@yunusahmed2940]

Because the evidence points towards it. Do you honestly believe considering that everything came from nothing by nothing is a rational viewpoint?

[@heatherlewis9951]

One of the best debates I've seen. Both persons respectful and thoughtful.

[@ramseycattn5941]

Great conversation between two very informed and articulate thinkers. Alex, you were only 18 at the time? Wow. You have a very bright future sir. Way to go wading into this with someone much older and with much more experience. This question you discussed is, I believe, of supreme importance. As a Christian I believe we need to be having this conversation more. I'll definitely be stopping by your channel from time to time.

[@tomhenninger4153]

Wow! That was an EXCELLENT discussion! I think Alex got Frank with the "If God gave you reason how can you use the reason you got from him to argue for his existence". THANK YOU SO MUCH! Looking for to the next one.

[@CBraximus]

That seems more like something Frank would've said to Alex

[@aleexozaki]

Is the question saying that you can't use God's creations to argue for his existence? That wouldn't make sense since he created the universe and everything in it

[@Phillybean15Productions]

@@aleexozakiexactly. So no he did not “get frank”

[@belphemmore3802]

⁠@@Phillybean15Productions i dont think you understood it… frank is using curcular reasoning and being a hypocrite by claiming alex cannot use evolution’s gift of reason to explain evolution based reason but frank can use god’s gift of reason to explain god based reason.. the same way 99% of theists use the bible as “proof” god is real.. its redundant

[@kasrkin3521]

In conclusion: *We live in a society*

[@tirza6439]

Or do we?

[@Ephesians--zs6pv]

I wonder who can save us from society

[@ultraman6950]

@@Ephesians--zs6pv Jesus.

[@bladebranson4312]

@@ultraman6950 amen

[@abygailb6023]

Lmaoo the best series of comments

[@MrWylis]

A nice, respectful debate with two smart speakers. Lovely to see.

[@loturzelrestaurant]

In other words, the utter and complete opposite of modern Politcs. And i dont say that as a Meme... its sometimes hard to watch debates... ...

[@NickRoses]

Loved this discussion. Was pleasantly surprised at the generosity on both sides.

[@zachj210tx]

Very good conversation. Well done from all parties.

[@skepticalphilip8898]

He called the microphone atheist because it doesn't believe in god. Are we sure he even knows the difference between a being with consciousness and an inanimate object is?

[@connoradams3318]

He thinks women came from a rib and men from clay. I would venture to suggest he's not the brightest man.

[@skepticalphilip8898]

Connor Adams lol yeah

[@AhmedAlMisri]

Hahahahaha, classic

[@twobob_lee]

SP, in case you missed it, Frank was using Alex's logic when referring to the microphone. I suggest taking context into consideration.

[@aquari_2344]

are we sure he's conscious at this point?

[@workinprogressforHim]

Thank you for posting this debate. Alex, I appreciate how clearly and thoroughly you presented your views. I found your comments on harsh realities/implications of both positions particularly well said and full of wisdom. Hope you're doing well, and thanks again for having and posting the debate.

[@michaelbalyeat4354]

A very good debate, especially considering it was functionally two against one (despite the host stating otherwise). This conversation has given me a lot to think about!

[@peanutbutter4166]

I’m 19, but it’s shocking to me Alex is this intelligent when he was younger than me… 😭

[@m4andi0ca]

facts, im willing to be able to articulate my own ideas just as him, i'm also 19

[@brionyenglish7901]

this counts as revision for my philosophy exam right

[@manycrows7882]

Briony English absolutely

[@brionyenglish7901]

brilliant

[@404namemissing6]

I should be studying for my Calculus exam, but I give up. I need my instant gratification procrastination.

[@brionyenglish7901]

lambda x well now I feel better as this will actually help with my philosophy but not your cal

[@artklym]

Many people are ungenerous. Ungenorosity cannot exist unless generosity exists. Santa Claus (or Father Christmas) is the epitome of generosity. Thus ungenerosity proves the existence of Santa Claus (or Father Christmas.)

[@morwennmusachia2670]

Arthur Klym A very good way to disprove the argument. Great job🖒

[@Lumidingo]

Insert whatever completely fictional character you care to, then. Generus, god of generosity. There you go.

[@artklym]

Yes, St. Nicholas did exist. However, fantastic stories have been added to his biography, and he does not exist now no matter what your parents may have told you.

[@Foreignerlin91]

I think it's more why should we care if generosity on ungenerosity matter or not if Father Christmas hadn't told us so (using your analogy).

[@ryrez4478]

😆

[@kongwakasomo9840]

I'm a Christian and I love these 3 gentlemen.

[@towhomthismyconcern]

no one care that your Christian just say you like these 3 gentlemen.

[@kongwakasomo9840]

😂

[@towhomthismyconcern]

@@kongwakasomo9840 why delete the comment about wasteing time commenting lol nice 1 also i know u dont have Faith Xp or else you would of posted it :] beileve in your self not Faith.

[@kongwakasomo9840]

@@towhomthismyconcern 😂

[@njh4731]

Angel Segura Your an arrogant fool 😊

[@Buddybud12378]

As a christian, i am grateful for his attitude in these conversations. Zoned out after half way but he was very respectful

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

I love that Alex finds Sam Harris' attempt at a scientific expansion of morality as baffling as Christian apologists. It shows he's more thoughtful than your average atheist popularizer, even when that person has a doctorate. I will also say that while I like Frank and agree with Frank on misty apologetic aspects, Alex is much better at articulating differences and not mis-stating himself. I have a ton of respect for Alex despite disagreeing with him.

[@vertigo2894]

No, Alec is simply more pretentious

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

@@vertigo2894 Alex: "I think you´re an agnostic theist....." Turek: "Let´s stop talking about labels, and start talking about evidence...."

[@MLamar0612]

@@robinhoodstfrancis *evidence that Frank doesn't have*

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

@@MLamar0612 Well, your assertion is a form of denialism, and is easily refuted. In fact, Frank only goes so far in his conservative/reactionary theology, but I´ve taken strides for Progressive Christianity. So, Turek often takes up WL Craig´s arguments, so that he´ll go to the Resurrection. Craig´s argument is a powerful one. Jesus´ empty tomb was found empty first by women followers. His Resurrected appearances were witnessed by multiple parties. Jesus´ followers went from dejected at his arrest, conviction, torture, and crucifixion, to powerful evangelists about his teachings and Resurrection until almost all, or all, were martyred. Such literature is in the Jewish prophetic tradition, not Greek mythological forms. And early Christians became a historical phenomenon. That´s the standard starter argument. It gets better and current. Christians turned monastic schools into Universities, and straightened out ancient Greek limiting assumptions, as the pivotal monk Thomas of Aquinas did. And so on up to FD Roosevelt´s Social Gospel vision and legacy in UN human rights, and Rev MLK, and more. Your kind of denialism simply lacks explanatory power and logical coherence.

[@MLamar0612]

@@robinhoodstfrancis it's one thing to "sound smart", but it's another to "sound smart" and say NOTHING of substance🤣🤣 You've taken strides for Progressive Christianity?? Welp, ig you'll be the 1,000th+ Christian to say that and STILL not get anywhere regarding your arguments and logical backflips But on that note, continue making strides for Progressive Christians, but don't come to me and other atheists until you actually have sufficient evidence for your deity and the validity of your holy book

[@user-qt6ud3sp6w]

Host: Alex, what do you think of this? Alex: Well - Other Guest: NOW HOLD ON LET ME STOP YOU THERE

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Let the person who knows there is an invisible man living in the clouds do the talking.

[@voiceinthewild5751]

Not what I seen at all lol.... Turek - Alex are u wearing headphones and talking into a mic tell me what u think? Alex - well, let’s talk about this p, the. Turek - mhmm Alex- Ok let’s talk about this p, Turek - mhmm, right Alex - now I’ll answer ur question about am I wearing headphones and talking into a microphone. I do not confirm and deny. I do not belief that I am or that I am not. I know that I can and Could be and I can and could not. Turek - mhmm 🤔

[@SundayMatinee]

@@voiceinthewild5751 Alex needs to be able to explain his position before Turek and the host (and you obviously) make assumptions about where he stands. You can't discuss whether a boat will float without having a common agreement of whether you're talking about a sail boat or a picture of a boat or the mere idea of a boat. Given that many people have incorrect assumptions about what an atheist is, Alex must explain what he means when he says he considers himself an atheist. Sorry (not sorry) that those clarifications ran contrary to your assumptions.

[@voiceinthewild5751]

@@SundayMatinee no he played it safe

[@cypr7120]

As a Christian it is good to see clean debates like this with respect and maturity. I hope all believers and unbelievers are like this, it will be better for both of us

[@MrDalisclock]

I was really hoping to hear Alex and Frank debate free will honestly. We got a tease there at the end with no resolution.

[@nevanderson1164]

The term "Wise beyond his years" most certainly applies to Alex O'Connor. I consider myself as always having had a high EQ, but he leaves me shaking my head in admiration. Hope that this is the beginning of very great things.

[@Chilidog02]

Nev Anderson Same

[@BarelloSmith]

You mean IQ?

[@LookMeInTheStraps]

Wisdom is not the same thing as intelligence

[@ripsumrall8018]

Ricardo but you might think wisdom in such a young one is a sign of an underlying intelligence.

[@adamweaver8533]

yes ...will be watching this kid for a long time.. amazed at how articulate he is.

[@evilwayz1464]

2 against 1 at times but a very good debate.This young man is brilliant. It's exciting to imagine how much sharper,intelligent, & wiser he will become when he's an experienced 40-50 year old man.

[@djfinesse1]

47:35 alex disagrees with a "not at all"

[@memyselfeyetallent7149]

He is a dimwit now and in 50years a gray haired dimwit

[@roeazy]

@@memyselfeyetallent7149 I don't agree with him but hes def no dimwit. Very smart kid

[@helpmeunderstand5950]

The friendly tone of the debate was so refreshing... I actually understood both sides and even learned something, compared to the more common debates that end up in ridicule and attacking.

[@TonyEnglandUK]

I simply don't buy either of them. Frank Turek is espousing a religion which already bans him from his own heaven because he's a multi-millionaire. And Alex O'Connor is just as bad, look under the video how he's begging for _"donations via PayPal._ They're both as bad as each other - using this debate for their own financial ends.

[@TonyEnglandUK]

@Colton Catalli A camel will go through the eye of a needle before a rich man enters the kingdom of heaven. Frank is a multi-millionaire. So no, he can't get to heaven. But you will rewrite the words of the Bible to pretend he can.

[@TonyEnglandUK]

@Colton Catalli *Matthew 19:24* _"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."_ Frank Turek is a multi-millionaire. So you're wrong. Don't twist the words of Jesus Christ until they excuse Frank Turek's riches. He's a rich man. Therefore, unless a camel goes through the eye of a needle, he has no chance of entering heaven.

[@TonyEnglandUK]

@Colton Catalli No it's not by *MY* logic, it's by the logic and words of Jesus Christ. Read them out loud to yourself and stop twisting them, and redefining them and pretending they mean something else and then twisting them around until they make enough excuses for Frank Turek - they mean exactly what you see. *Matthew 19:24* _"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."_

[@TonyEnglandUK]

@Colton Catalli But you will disagree with the words of Jesus, because then you can make excuses for Frank Turek.

[@RyanGhezawi]

I admire Alex’s brilliant patience and calmness and his ability to have a sincere genuine discussion 👍

[@SteveHardie42]

This debate is a lesson in courtesy It is the most resonable that I have ever seen Frank. I suppose, if you start from a grounding of respect, you get respect back. Both Frank and Alex clearly understood the other's position, even though they didn't agree with it. Kudos to Alex for having a maturity and world view way beyond his years, even earning praise from Frank for this. Bravo, gentlemen.

[@TheRealShrike]

Unfortunately, Frank was on his best behavior for this debate, and that "best" behavior has eluded him since...

[@nicolab2075]

​@@TheRealShrike Alex manages to declaw his debate opponents 😄 Are you really BTS?!

[@TheRealShrike]

@@nicolab2075No

[@ADDGamerJoshua]

Hey Alex, I'm not gay or anything, but can we get married?

[@Ziegfield]

ADD Gamer that's what (by definition) gay is..

[@cypalmer7425]

Aussie Raptor Weeeeeell... If he's not in love or attracted, that's not gay...

[@irun_mon]

Technically and legally you don't have to be gay to marry him

[@FrostedJr]

ADD Gamer I get it man.... I'm not gay either, but I will fight you for him.

[@omtejano]

Get in line. Lol

[@roygossjr]

I've just witnessed the coming of the next Christopher Hitchens in you Alex...NOW...if you could just insult people politely, without them knowing it, you would be a perfect fit. Great interview!!!!

[@Xarai]

IfixPCs hitchens nooo....

[@hatzikuN]

_"if you could just insult people politely, without them knowing it"_ Whoever you are talking about, it's not Hitchens. Hitchens Hitchslapped people. That is not "insulting politely without them knowing it". He made sure no one in the whole room would miss it.

[@LittleMAC78]

That was one of Hitch's weaknesses that, luckily, Cosmic Skeptic doesn't share.

[@adrianmeyer2157]

Definitely.

[@roygossjr]

I concur. Exactly what I intended. Of course...the highway to hell is paved with intentions...

[@patrikahlberg3710]

As a christian I found this discussion respectable and well-mannered, but I also REALLY wish that you would have the same kind of discussion or even a formal debate, with a reformed christian. Topics of presuppositions, claims to knowledge etc. are so important, and if you debated someone like James White or Jeff Durbin I am sure the discussion would be extremely helpful and interesting to audiences of both sides.

[@TheCdr19]

Nah, I would hope Alex wouldn’t stoop to debating the intellectually bankrupt premises of presuppositionalism.

[@patrikahlberg3710]

@@TheCdr19 Why not attempt to crush the arguments in a formal debate instead of doing everything to avoid the debate? If you want to reach audiences with solid argumentation for your case, it would seem more profitable to actually respect the opponent and explain why their argumentation is flawed, rather than mocking them and avoiding the conversation.

[@irene1445]

Alex did amazing considering the host was tag teaming him and always interrupting him when he was building up a point. Also loved how he'd cut him off and then cite him going into a new topic as a reason when he can't respond

[@gixelz]

Yeah, I noticed the host kept interrupting Alex when he was just getting his refutations going and it was really frustrating. Like, let the guy speak for fucks sake. But Alex didn't get flustered.

[@beanteam2217]

He lost, get over it

[@platonichain6937]

@@beanteam2217 but he didn’t

[@beanteam2217]

@@platonichain6937 he did, he really tried to argue over the term atheist for 20 mins.

[@beanteam2217]

Interrupted?😂

[@coupdq9race16]

Is the host the same guy who made the dice video?

[@coupdq9race16]

Mind of the North Star cool thanks

[@marusis4453]

he debated his dice video too.

[@PrestonGranger]

Oh dear

[@lmozzoml9902]

Everyone is respectfully talking with each other, that really made me enjoy the discussion. It's so much better when people are not allways getting interrupted and purposefully missunderstood.