'By Chance'. If only you had an inkling. Nothing happens by chance. If you don't believe me, study astrology for the next 35 years, every day, and then we can talk again. Until then, continue to throw God out with the orthodox religion bathwater.

Alex has his progressed Sun conjunct Saturn next year (2025). Death of a father figure. Chat later then, and I'll tell you more about this universe that God created.

Take your medicine @@newtonbelieved

@@newtonbelieved bro idk what drug you're on, but I want it!

A deluded person who meets another deluded person feels very appropriate to reinforce the delusion.

He does have good comedic timing, lol!

Well that's too late

We will see how smug he is on judgement day

@@enki647 How smug will you be when you are watching Alex on judgement day?

@@enki647 I bet every generation believes there's gonna be a judgement day and it never happens

He already is, but I hope his reach continues to grow. We need more logic and reason in our societies.

I have to agree, just listening to him and watching his stuff feels like reading the other philosophical classics I've read so far. I always find myself thinking harder and researching more after absorbing his content.

@@kadenhansen948 if you like his content, I highly recommend reading “reason; the only oracle of man” by Ethan Allen. You can read it for free off of google books. It gives great insight into one of America’s founding fathers who was adamantly against organized religion. For a book that was writ 225 years, Ethan Allen makes some great points.

That doesn't make him, or Dawkins, right. He speaks of 'sheer coincidence' in meeting someone. May he live long enough to find out that absolutely nothing happens by coincidence. Coincidence is an illusion resulting from synchronicity, most likely designed to fool leading thinkers like this, in that they are never able to see beyond the veil. Everyone you meet in life is by design. Speak to me in 40 years, son. At your age, I too, thought there was nothing.

I just wish he looks at Islam again because his first debate was a disaster, (when I say disaster I mean that some disingenuous things happened and our religion wasn't portrayed properly)

Duh. And who cares.

​@@ChristIsLord7 i mean, you replied.

agree.

I feel the same way

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. LOL

Ah, good to see like-minded souls 🥃

​@@oluwolechaviro9937Wait but we have already established that there is no such a thing as a soul

you could have just pressed the like button and called it a day. but no

@@opensocietyenjoyer That's what I usually do.

There are worse habits to have😅

The fall of man, from light into the darkness of ignorant bliss.

​@@danstaification God shot my dad in the gall bladder and robbed the bishops of the church of England for being the son proceeding from the father

@OniLeafNin, very pertinent observation! Greetings from Brazil.

​@@Santos.Sarmento du nada um brasileiro aq

Their lord is satan!!

That is the problem. Humans are not rational, and merely use rationality to justify their emotional conclusions. Scientific rationalism is not a viable path forward for humanity because it assumes the vast majority think, reflect, ponder, and then act on that pondering. Atheists may not need God, but the vast majority of the non-intellectuals do.

He’s already past hitchens imo. Hitchens had a tendency to argue with more emotion than rationality

bow the knee and worship, every person must have an idol ..... pop idol, sporting idols...celebs

If everyone was the same it would be a very bland world. And you all here, are quite quite bland. You all need some salt lol

🤔

I think we need both

leave fairytales behind, sure. how do you think the universe was created?

Well how about who created god then​@@Channel507

The only fairy tale is the false assertion that Atheism provides something original when actually it is parasitical - all comes via Theism! Proof is in the pudding: theists founded modern science; theists take over 90% of Nobel Prizes; no atheist has discovered Universal Laws - if so who? Present western culture is founded on the rock of monotheism The greatest thinkers, mathematicians and philosophers in Ancient Greece sought after one God, as have the geniuses that came after them - eg Issac Newton, Francis Bacon, Galileo...to name a few among thousands. Even the Christians anti-biotics and vaccines give you a longer life; scientists who sought God for direction, put faith in their experiments. Atheists have zero/nothing of their own, no original starting point - their world view of everything, espec. God, depends on God-faith !, comes thru the lens that theists have provided, since the time dot. No evidence for ANY atheist civilization that has ever existed as their fore-runner Belief in God/s, the supernatural, the unknown, the creator of all, is the status quo - not its opposite

As much as I love Alex and his logic and intelligence, Hitchens was just way more ruthless and more cynical which I enjoyed quite a lot.

Did not die with him? Alex is farrr better than Hitchens when it comes to truth and Philosophy.

Hitchens was a polemicist he wasn't a debator or a philosopher.

@nomen6 Presently? No not at all. Infact, it's not even close. Though I do think him surpassing Christopher is an inevitability if he continues and persists along this path. Give him 10 more years. He's growing quick, but still has a long way to go.

@@nomen6 _"Alex is farrr better than Hitchens"_ Better? This is neither a sport nor competition.

You mean English accent. Because a Scottish accent is British and that would be -50 IQ points

Oh dear. As a Brit, I just want to say that it really doesn't. There are so many idiots out there in the UK who can oil their way around with a refined accent (Cameron is one).

Of course to you it doesn't. But us in the USA. When Brits speak they automatically sound intelligent because of their accent. @@lorddevonshire6382

Calling an English accent British is as stupid as calling every person from Argentina to the border of Canada real Americans.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Your idol is Alex!! Lol

@@bootsie280 lol! Hardly!

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

He speaks from both sides of his mouth.

The insult of the simple minded. Life isn't as black and white as that.@@juansuarez705

@@juansuarez705 No, he simply does not misrepresent or make belittling strawmans of the religious arguments. His stance as an atheist is very clear

"If we expect atheism, what would we find and what do we find?" We DO find a universe of heat in DIRECT contradiction to THE MOST PROVEN of all laws known to man: "Thermodynamics is THE ONE LAW of UNIVERSAL content which will NEVER be overthrown"--Einstein "Anyone challenging thermodynamics has no hope...only total humiliation"--Eddington 1st LAW--"heat NEVER comes from cold"...ERGO: this universe of heat DID NOT begin 2nd LAW--"heat goes ONLY to cold"...ERGO: this universe WILL go to equilibrium--it hasn't; IT CAN'T BE ETERNAL AND "ALEX" HAS NO THIRD OPTION...try, try, try as the Penroses "perpetual motion machine" theories pretend --kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rq94gNF1l6yolY0.html Above is the be-sainted Richard Dawkins sitting mute/deaf/sub-moronic as ACTUAL, ACCOMPLISHED biologists, Nobel laureates in biology Hartwell & Altman, along with co-chair of human genome mapping Craig Venter ALL SAYING "it is IMPOSSIBLE that humans will EVER know life's origin". WTF! WTF! WTF!?? THAT'S Dawkins' sine qua non!! Certainly not "selfish genes", as though that adds ANYTHING to Darwin. --No one expects anything out of this simp "Alex". So it falls to me to explain Einstein's, "Did God have a choice in the creation of the world?" archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/millennium/m1/overbye.html?source=post_page WTF do you IMAGINE Overbye means conferring that as the greatest insight in 1,000 years?! Overbye of MIT in physics. HERE I'll make it so easy even "Alex" could have a go: history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/essay-einsteins-third-paradise.htm No one alive has more ability or insight explaining Einstein's meaning than does Holton (alive at 101); Jewish refugee at 16 of Hitler...Ph.D. in mathematics/professor Harvard...reads and knows Einstein as native German. It means that the Abrahamic God had "no choice other than THIS UNIVERSE when insisting faith alone would absolve" AND SO "ALEX"; in this universe absolutely refusing to prove meaning you have uncontaminated choice for or against faith. THE ONLY FUCKING UNIVERSE THAT GOD COULD HAVE!!

​@@universecreator988You know for a people so powerfully represented and chosen as his divine conduits of the infinite creator of all time and space you sure have delicate little egos so easily bruised by simple logic that even a child could make sense of.

Yes another religious speech by a atheist. thanks

@@joman388Yes, you are right.

​@@joman388so funny to me how the religious LOVE to call atheism religious lol. "Yes, we recognize that being religious is dumb, so we'll just say 'I know you are, but what am I?' haha, got you so good!!!".

@@DatHombre Your little joke was utterly halarious. Religion. a pursuit or interest of supreme importance. That fits atheism ,wouldnt you say illregardless if you think it is dumb.Do you always think definitions are dumb or just this one? thanks

@@joman388 God, how much I love when people use secondary definitions to try to "prove their point" lol. Reminds me of when "racism" was "changed" a few years ago to "prejudice with power, so only white people can be racist", and people would bring up that cherry picked definition to prove their point. Like gee, I wonder why you chose not to list any of the other definitions? You had to have read all of them first since they were at the top, but you then went to the next when you saw that it didn't back your point, right? And you know the one you listed could be used for anything, right? "I collect stamps all the time, collecting them is my interest of supreme importance- it's my religion!". Like it's very obviously the "colloquial" definition. But most importantly, do you seriously think that atheists are as interested in their lack of belief in God as theists are in their belief? Let's put it this way- if all theists left the Earth, do you think atheists would all sit around and talk about how much they don't believe in a god? Obviously not- what would there even be talk about lol? Now, if all atheists left the Earth, would theists still sit around and think about God? Yes, every single day lol. The only reason that "a-theism" even has any meaning is BECAUSE theists exist- like what do we call a non-unicorn believer? And how often do non-unicorn believers think about their lack of belief? Never, unless someone who believes in unicorns tells them to believe in them ("or you'll burn for eternity!!!" lol).

CS Lewis was an idiot. Only evangelicals think he was philosophically significant.

and? your point? any of Lewis’s philosophical points you would like to bring up that led him to his conclusion. Not the Mic drop you think it is.

@@convinceme6676 I don't know what mic drop means, but my point was, the argument that he is making is old, and it has been answered many times...including by persons like Lewis who once thought it to be profound and unanswerable. Lewis's books "Miracles," "The Problem of Pain," and "Mere Christianity " each give excellent answers.

@stephenwright4973 CS Lewis was a moron. What he thought profound is trite.

@@stephenwright4973 dude, hes saying that if you have a counter, post the counter, not the idea that there is one lol

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

I've been following him since the beginning of his channel, when he was just in his bedroom with books on his desk. It's nice to see how things have changed for him, and how he's grown as a thinker and speaker.

​@@thehigherevolutionary LoL I could literally have written your comment myself. I have followed Alex since the early days, here on YT. Do you remember he had the drawer from Beauty and the Beast and the inflatable globe 🤗

Agreed.

That drawer though@@-Thauma-

@@resinsminia 😊

if only there was a noun in use in common parlance that stands for 'philosophy person'

He's just reaffirming your biases, it's easy to agree. Go and seriously watch somebody you disagree with every single thing on, and then consider they might be right.

​@delocon sure, always a good idea. But it's also good to watch arguments from your own side to implement what you've learned from the other side.

I used to watch him “religiously” until he became vegan and started preaching about that

actually, it's likely not (just) that simple. Your bias is that it is. He's made some terrific points that few would dispute, like the example of the three bishops terminated for stepping outside the "official" box. Yes, there's more digging to be done, but on the surface the point is well made. @@delocon

Man's natural state is to worship an unknown greater something.. or a being, a Creator, unknown - a nourisher, warmth, food, love, protection... provider - it's instinctive from conception The developing child in the womb shows me that

I thought you were seeking sophia, not sophism.

@helviov No deceit here. Just pure love baby! ❤️

So in order to feel better about being a terrible person, and the fact that you are a slave and a hostage to your sins which you cannot hope to control, you worship Alex for deceiving you in to believing that man created God and that actually your sins are not sins at all, because there is no right or wrong. And yet... every day you are reminded of the consequences of sin and the horrific world we live in where everyone worships themselves instead of God. So you watch Alex again... and gain momentary relief from the distraction. Every day you are confronted with the reality that if there is no right or wrong... why is everything going so wrong in the world and in my life? What if I told you that there was a way to be completely free from your lusts and desires, to break free from the cycle of sin and consequence over and over again, to no longer be a slave to your selfish desires? What if like magic, you woke up one day and were twice as good of a person as you were before? What if you experienced true happiness, and true love? What if it were as easy as making a wish in a well? What if all of these things made more sense than you could ever dream of and all you had to do was see for yourself? It is all of these things and more. Will you come back to the light?

​@@jebediah4780you are off your rocker mate

Tell me one thing I've said that is wrong or crazy in any way, good luck! And guess what, that message also applies to you and anyone else who reads it. :)@@invalidopinion5384

I agree - the beard works, it completely throws people off when they hear not only a well constructed argument, but one that is presented with some wisdom and humility - out of someone who looks to be too ' fresh-faced' - I really appreciate the attitude of someone who wants to do more than 'win' the debate and score points - the difficult work is to find common ground and agreeing basic aims for the discussion

Mee too i saw him in his room😊😊

Did you and his channel become good friends?

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

When the Emperor Constantine declared himself to be the Summus Pontifex, what followed was more than ten centuries of Dark Ages, during which time people who professed Christ rather than Mary or the Popes, people who denied transubstantiation, were fed to lions or burned at the stake. During the Dark Ages, for a common person to read the Bible was a sin for which there was no forgiveness; and so the people were spoon-fed from the papist pulpit. The Bible was said to exist only in the Latin text and the common and largely illiterate people could learn the stories that were in the Bible from paintings and stained glass windows. Those who first made the Bible available in the language of the people were killed for their trouble; but when Martin Luther quoted Paul, of all people, the Protestant Reformation began. The gospel that saves is that Christ accomplished everything needed to save you from sin and death when he died on the cross for sins.

@@ishiftfocus1769 You're wrong. Your argument is not based in any historic or scholarly reality. You simply tied together a variety of misconceptions and lies that not even most atheists would have come up with. When I was a Protestant I made some of the same mistakes. You're pulling things up from the Renaissance and attributing them to St. Constantine baselessly. If you're going to try and comment on an intellectual video and "sway" anyone to your view, you must first have an actually intellectual argument to begin with. We can see through this. It's invalid.

@@ishiftfocus1769 Put it another way, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato were genuiuses who worsiped one eternal God. And discovered as Newton did - universal physical & math laws The early church=Monasticism. That grew through the so-called dark ages+ to become SCOLASTICSM; The Church was the first CE body to sponsor science. Moving on, the greatest minds, the founders of modern science were followers of Christians, Jews or theists: A/Greeks, Thomas Aquinus, Galileo, Capernicus, Issac Newton, Francis Bacon, Kepler...[Jenner, Pastuer, Currie..vaccine, peniclin, X rays... Christian discoverers are many. Atheists - in their cynicm - produced ....? Magna Carta 1215. Church and monarch set down the first biulding blocks of modern democracy, building on the A/Greek model. Greatest men & women to bring freedoms and rights: A Lincoln, Wilberforce, Shaftesbury - abolishing slavery, providing rights to chidren, w/free education. M L King, another who made major changes to bring all people equality. Vicorian church movement - equality/votes for all; first to set up charities; free libraries to educate the population; homes for widows, orphnages... social services 1st schools, hospitals. uni's in the Commom Era... [560 AD plus] Britian, Europe, North/S America Founded by Christians 1905 Nobel Prizes. Over 90% of winners ID as Jews or Christians So what [what hope, what substance] has atheism actually provided? Bar misery under Stalin, Mao, Lennin and other Marxists and Trotcky-ists [slaughtering their own peasants]- C. Hitchens boasted of the latter, ie, being a communist. He couldnt even get a 2nd class degree. Still smoked with a throat tumour

Some of them, particularly the fellow behind Alex to the right, seems totally flaccid.

Is he open to debating felons?

Not sure what could be gained from "debating" with a mendacious propagandist and pathological liar like D'Souza.

​@@judoyodan😂😂😂

Waffle D'Souza? 😂😂

Is the perpetual Man-Child not in jail? I could of sworn he was.

would love to see it too, kindly tag if you find it...

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

Was it though? It's basically: Let's ignore all the arguments for God's existence, and instead focus on psychology.

@@Scynthescizor His point was that psychology seems to be the main argument for religion.

@@Scynthescizor yikes. take the first part of your statement, end with political agenda, and you have exactly what he speaks clearly about with the conversion story he elucidates here. then the very clearly goes through several arguments which apparently went over your head, one of which would be the suffering built into design, then the history and very nature of suppression built into belief, etc etc. maybe listen with less bias my guy. as your claim is pretty cringe tbf

@@MattFitzgerald-it2zp Right, which is incredibly stupid and intellectually dishonest.

@@DanielBoonelight ... I didn't say Alex made no arguments. I said he addressed none of the arguments that theologians/philosophers make for God's existence.

Except he's more nice! heheh

@@kencreten7308 He's a big fan of Hitchens, but also does a great critique of him in a youtube video, you can learn from your mentors without putting them beyond criticism ..

A lot of things are far out of humanity's reach yet we're all so convinced about the truth of reality. Meditation, self reflection and deep thought are probably the easiest paths to 'god' at the moment. Personally, I don't think god is that far away at all :)

@@Krubus Right on. I fully agree my friend. Be blessed.

It seems to me that the fact we do not expect to see what we do, if there is a God, is exactly what we might expect to see, if there's a God which tells us: “My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the Lord. “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.” ‭Isaiah 55:8-9 NLT‬

@@aaronbroughton-janes667 You have a point there bro. An Infinite Being will always be beyond our full understanding.

Alex is far, far more logical than Hitchens.

Might be, I meant more style of speech, presence and charisma. Which you either have or don't have. And this guy has it.@@PrestonJacobstheSweetrobin

he's got that Hitchens-coolness 😎 (the Christopher that is, not the other one 😂)

He will be better than Hitchens. I looking forward to this!

Hitchens with much more class and composure.

how well*

What is great about this fight? I understand Alex is obviously a son of the revolution, but still

​@@LotterywinnerifyFor over two thousand years now authoritarian religion (Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism and whoever I've forgotten are not) has strangled the evolution of the human mind and society as a whole leaving us so backwards and so demented that we pretend that we've advanced yet religious zealots are no different to the same individuals who'd bash each others brains out with a rock in bronze age middle east because their views about the talking magical moonwalking baby of Mary the clearly not a virgin woman didn't match their own. That's why the fight is awesome because like anything in life there becomes a time where holding onto the blanket and keeping the nightlight on only weakens you because authoritarian religion does not offer real truth, real development and real personal accountability for the empowerment of the self it offers escape denials and balme shifting All in the pursuit of personal and selfish comfort.

lol the fight towards what ? and when is it won ?

@@cuzins101 Once delusional children realise that a sky dweller doesn't run their life.

@@Paulstrickland01 ok then what?

Evolution is brutal. Agreed. A mind forged purely from the furnace of evolution finding it repugnant. How on earth does that make any jot of sense?

He's a maggot buddy 🤣

Hes dumb, a fool says in his heart there is no god

He spoke such eloquent BS🤗😆

@@ERS2fast4U , BS to those unequipped to offer any substantial rebuttal...

What reason is there to expect nonbelievers to take the existence of God seriously if you grant that there's no real reason to believe in Him prior to a direct personal encounter?

Paul's so called conversion on the road to Damascus is a fiction created by the author of Acts. How do I know? Paul himself writes nothing about it. If such a monumental event actually happened, Paul would wax lyrical about it in his letters, and he doesn't.

@@markfultonorgArgument from silence.

@@Theophanic93 The name "Luke" only appeared in the late 2nd century. No one knows who "he" ie "Luke" was. "He" may have been the same author who wrote the gospel now called "Luke," but that means little , as we don't know who "he" was. All explanations about the real identity of "Luke" are nothing more than guesswork from the church fathers, including the idea "he" was a companion of Paul. The only thing we can say with any certainty about "Luke" is that "he" borrowed heavily from "Mark" ( who's identity we also don't know.) Please read Galatians 1;11-24. The KJV version is probably the most honest. There is no road to Damascus, no vision of Jesus, no blinding of Paul. Instead we get a Christ revealed to Paul by "God", who "revealed his son in me, " by which Paul probably means he interpreted scripture ( ie the Jewish scripture) so as to create the Christ. This section also reveals Paul's total lack of interest in the remaining disciples and family ( in particular James, Jesus' brother) of a possibly once living flesh and blood Jesus. Hence the entirely fabricated nature of the supposedly cordial relationship between Paul and disciples of Jesus is revealed in Paul's own writing. If one looks at the original writings of Paul it becomes quite clear that the original disciples and followers of Jesus (the Nazarene sect) quite clearly hated Paul's guts, as they were philosophically and religiously opposed to him. The antagonism and conflict of religious ideas jumps out at you from Paul's writing. The author of Acts tried to paper over their differences. I can provide more evidence for this if you are interested.

@@nicrosilmind Yeah, but if a Jesus' ghost appeared to you, blinded you for a few days and asked you to follow him, you would want to tell the world about it. Paul somehow forgot to do this, even though he was desperate to promote his own version of religion. This undoubtably meant the whole road to Damascus scenario was made up by somebody else ie the author of Acts.

The guy beside him is on his phone. Lol

I've been watching since I'm an old man. And now I'm even older ! Respectfully

It really is! I started watching when I was a young teenager, and I always assumed Alex was 20-something man. Imagine my surprise when, 2 years before I myself went to college, Alex announced he was going to uni! And now I’m a full blown tax paying adult and Alex has only continued to grow and mature as a rhetorician and philosopher

Don't forget Rochard Dawkins.

​@@bengeurden1272Dr. Dawkins is a scum who supported Nazirael 🤢🤢

I like how you said "faith needs room for doubt and skepticism". I'm a Christian believer but I'm struggling with some doubts. So I appreciate your honesty. I need to ponder your words. Respectfully...

It is hard to understand how a loving God would create so much suffering. I asked Him about it, and he told me that there was nothing to fear because we are God , and after we die , we'll be God again. The ego is an illusion. Suffering is a necessary part of this simulation to juxtapose love. We're here as God's tentacles to feel and experience it all so he can learn through us. I still find it hard not to fear suffering, but I'm not as concerned about death anymore.

@@johnbrzykcy3076 why would you struggle when god is personal?

@@isupportthecurrentthing.1514 so you're saying that suffering is fine cos it's all in his plan> so i cause as much suffering as i possibly can cos, well it's okay by god, it will lead to a greater good. see how daft your religion is? there is no god.

@@isupportthecurrentthing.1514God created the possibility to sin just how a woman creates the possibility for her child to sin when she gives birth to him, but He didn’t create it. We created it. Also how are we God? We are not God, straight up

1. True. But I guess even theists conflate those two, so this error is easy to make! 2. Of course apologists claim that evidence is everywhere. But if you press them to present said evidence, they either fail, refuse to give concrete examples, or come up with their own definition of evidence, usually the kind a respectable sceptic will deny. And at some point you know all the responses that just repeat themself, so you gonna draw the line and stick with your definition AND conclusion, despite what others say.

​@@DundGDo you not know philosophy? You're asking physical evidence of the metaphysical. Could you tell me that laws exist using your logic?

What does 'Spiritual' mean?

2) And they would be right in my opinion. You can be not convinced by their arguments, but as long as they present some evidences, I think this definition of faith should not be used. Not to say that you can’t believe in sth if there are no evidences, but i don’t think it is inherently woven into faith.

@@DundG But there are two dictionary definitions for faith, and neither of them are "belief without evidence". The first definition is "complete trust or confidence in someone or something", and everyone has faith of some type. The second definition is "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." But lack of proof does not mean lack of evidence, just a lack of overwhelmingly convincing evidence, although I have a feeling that God could fully reveal himself to a skeptic and the skeptic would still not be convinced.

Intelligence begets existential suffering and cruelty

​@KayosHybrid if intelligence serves the purpose of survival, why does it beget actions conflicting that goal

@@pawelstemplinski3837 it occurs concurrently with extant survival - if you have enough calories free to think and wonder and be bored, you aren't simply surviving anymore

Tha's an extremely bad comparison as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are terrible thinkers

@@Insane_ForJesus Shame they manage to trump more or less every speaker with logic like asking do they believe a man called Noah lived till 950 years old.

@@Insane_ForJesus Lol

@@NeilMartin98 they're pretty decent on religion but uh- they have some bad takes, like Richard Dawkins saying he "respects Peterson's fight for freedom of speech" in Canada. Which references Peterson's transphobic bullshit

Hopes he becomes the opossition on gender ideology too.

Me too, it's going to be amazing reading his books, watching his debates.

Why? He's not a philosopher at all. He's just another material realist, we have had these guys for a while and they just don't work. He's great at scientific reason, but he is not a philosopher by a mile, mostly because he refuses to acknowledge anything post-Kantian.

No he wont🙂

*atheists

Yep. I think that's inevitable. Amazing.

Right but how do you explain the nature of reality without the Loch Ness monster? Hmm? Answer me that “atheist” /sarcasm

​@@jonathan4189lochness was jesus's dog

Life requires the existence of perfectly tuned laws of physics over billions of years to make life and an enviroment for that same life to evolve in for another billion(s) years finely tuning genetic code to create humans. We can say basically 1 of 2 things, it was all RANDOM steps that worked systematically and created intelligent life without wanting or there was a supreme intelligent force that intended to use forces to create the universe we know otherwise no intelligent design would be seen on such a scale.

@@Dan16673my god it all makes sense now. The Merovingians, area 51, the arctic circle, all of it! 🤯

@@texmexspmthat Intelligence would be completely indistinguishable from the natural process you just described.

Nah he’s pretty chill and well composed

Yes, like all the great nihilists, impressive in their complete wrong branch of the tree. I wasted 20 years trying to get Dawkins to see the light, and now we have another. This time, I am not going to waste my time, secret knowledge is just that. Protected.

@@newtonbelieveddo you do stand up 😂

@@newtonbelieved Sure.

i'm gay too

​@@bobbyg309it's not that kinda party fruity tooty.

Which is hilarious considering Hitchens debating style/oratory is probably the only thing Alex respects about Christopher anymore lmao.

Don't forget Richard Dawkins.

It reminded you? It is practically a carbon copy of Hitchens. Plagiarism almost

Paul Harvey 1965 speech "If I were the Devil" is more impressive.

Proof is in the pudding, eg theists founded modern science; theists take over 90 pc of Nobel Prizes; no atheist has discovered Universal Laws - if so who? the greatest thinkers, mathematicians and philosophers in Ancient Greece sought after one God, as have the geniuses that came after them - eg Issac Newton, Francis Bacon, Galileo... Atheists have zero/nothing of their own, no orginal starting point - their world view of everything, espec. God, comes thru the lens that theists have provided, since the time dot. No evidence for ANY atheist civilization, ever existed. Belief in God/s, the supernatural, the unknown, the creator of all, is the status quo

Holy shit ur smart as hell dude! U should be up there instead of him tbh.

@@secretbiggguy7355 I wish I could say the same about you. Go read about arguments from incredulity and come back.

@@beni4366 New Atheists are fools; Dawkins ran away 3 times from the worlds accepted expert on philophy, theist, Dr William Lane Craig; Dawkins is a fake atheist [says he ''cant be sure there is no God''].... somehow 'New Agnostics'' doesnt have the same ring to it, lacks a ring on the cashier tills ... does not enlighten, capture the minds of Generation Z religion haters

I would say Douglas Murray is presently the closest public intellectual we have to a Christopher Hitchens. Alex is closer to being a William F Buckley type figure. (And I don't say that in insult or denigration lol)

I've noticed that people don't make observations based on rational reasons, but make observations based on personal reasons and then justify them later on.

I have been thinking this recently. It seems like people's decisions are made intuitively, or through emotions, or through authority... and all evidence is secondary as justification to rationalize that belief. Like no one is given all the evidence that say (as an example most people would argee on) the earth is a globe -- and then after that they make up their mind what they believe.

Assalamualaikum, Hassan :)

@@thegrunbeld6876 wa alaykum Assalam

Fine and well spoken but utterly wrong. The fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom. thanks

​@@joman388I fear Jehovah as much as I fear Zeus or Sauron.

@@antondovydaitis2261 I assure you ,your lack of fear will only be temporary.The evidence is overwhelming for the God of the bible. thanks

@@joman388.I am sure there as much evidence for Jehovah as there is for Vishnu. And I am pretty sure you don't believe that Vishnu is real. Really, if you weren't so absorbed with fantasy, you might actually be able to do some good.

@@antondovydaitis2261You apparently are so absorbed in your fantasy that you dont know there is no such thing as good,without God. Good for you.thanks

Personally, I've always been partial to the Lasagna Flying Monster -- it better sticks to the ribs.

your new idol to bow down before, your man-god who will be immortal

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

he is

Whoa, that's a good question! I'd have to think about it, but surely greater minds than ours have theorised on that one? What are your thoughts on that? So....Could the question be accurately rephrased as: why do some people have faith when other don't? ie is there a psychological or scientific (biological?) explanation? And how does religious belief survive when it is so irrational? Why doesn't logical thought counteract it? I mean, you've only got to look at some of the comments here to get an idea of how people think on both sides. IMO, faith is the suspension of logical thought. One can't exist where the other one is. So having faith, at best, results in cognitive dissonance, or believing in a whole host of things that are irrational. When those things get reasonably challenged, you get all kind of toxic behaviour because there really isn't a rational defence. Is there any biological cause for that? I don't know. I think people have primal motives for clinging to religious beliefs: fear of death; tragedy and heartache and the comfort they find in god; it's easier to live by prescribed rules; their upbringing (eg: fearing and shaming, brainwashing)...The list could go on.

Right ok, but why doesn't the concept transfer to far more compelling odds such as believing one's going to win the lotto? The competition exists, it's definitely happening and anyone can buy a ticket. However, I've never heard anyone, myself included saying "I'm on for a few million this weekend, In fact I've just resigned!" What about the acceptance of "trusting God's will"? When it comes to cognitive dissonance, as you say conflicting ideas cannot exist in tandem but, now I'm not going to use the terms rational/ irrational any further as unfortunately they don't serve the discussion well enough, but how can I have a faith in God and also in say Sherlock Holmes? haha Do we have to accept that regardless of definition or academia, faith seems to be a kind "dark matter/dark energy" ( the irony of those terms is not lost on me here btw) making up 95% of let's say, a universe that we simply don't understand?I dont mean literally of course. Does that make any sense? I have a faith in God/God's will that ok here's one... can logic exist without the existence of the illogical, why does one have to render the other useless? @@lauraj8429

@@YoungTowser Interesting. I don't think the odds of winning the lottery are compelling - I don't do the lottery, because as much as I'd love to win it, the odds are so slim, it's not worth playing / hoping. So not only would I not resign because I'm playing the lottery, I wouldn't play it in the first place. Well, conflicting ideas DO exist in tandem. That's why you have scientists who understand that creationism can't be true, but they hold their religious beliefs separately, in a different box, if you will. If it's a matter of deciding to believe rather than being an atheist, due to the fact that none of us really know - well that's a personal decision, I guess? Personally, I feel more at ease rejecting the notion of god and accepting there are things I don't understand. Less cognitive dissonance = less confusion. Forgive me if any of your points went over my head... But, can logic exist without the existence of the illogical? Yes. Believing in something illogical doesn't mean everything logical that you DO believe in becomes automatically useless.

'I meant compared to a atheist's view towards the existence of God@@lauraj8429

Give him 10 years and he'll be ready to write that book I think. He's incredibly well studied but there's a lot of growing still to be done. (And I don't say that to denigrate him. He's a very intelligent young man. )

There's a need for a replacement Horseman. Alex would do well. I would very much like to see such four fine gentlemen together in a room talking for two hours, it's been 14 years. Edit: a bit more, the talk was in 2007.

@@johmyh14 I'd like to see that too

Alex is actually polite and not disingenuous and cedes points to the opposite side when he knows he argued wrongly. Dawkins and Hitchens are just known more for their disingenuity and sophistry. Alex is much better than them. Harris is incapable of defending his secular humanism and faceplants whenever he asserts flourishing is good without proving it.

All of them God deniers, all going to hell

Oh dear! Surely he’s not that bad?!

So you believe Heaven is not a Utopia because that would be worse than this universe?

​@@exiledfrommyself no, not in the way people commonly think of a utopia. For a human, having everything at hand without any effort, for infinity, would be nothing but torture

One random collection of atoms bumping into other atoms ultimately leading another collection of atoms to release and cause pleasure in another collection of atoms, making that collection proud to be part of a category of collections of atoms with limited difference from a pile of horse excrement or an ant colony. How ironic. It’s almost like you’re saying that logic, eloquence, and most of all humanity, are somehow “good.” Interested to hear how that works with your worldview.

@@HaydenPianoCovers it's simple it also makes me feel lucky. Makes me feel lucky to know that I was born human( the most capable animal on earth). But also, the fact that I was born in the 90s and I get to experience the 2020s relatively young.

We tell such stories because we live in such a world. Our narrative structures say nothing about the origins of the cosmos. The problem arises because of the omnipotence and omnibenevolence claims of many Christians. If God lack either attribute, then the universe would make sense as we observe it, but with both, their narratives fall apart in the face of scrutiny.

@@Rogstin that's a classic question that has been answered ad nauseam. The Christian story is that God created the world good, gave man the responsibility to do either good or bad, and then when man rebelled, God cursed the entire world as punishment for that sin, and thus all pain and suffering and death are perfectly just results of this rebellion. That's why we say "thank God!" when somebody survives an accident. A skeptic would say "If God were real, that accident would never have happened!", but a rational person would respond, "God had no obligation to prevent that accident in the first place, and yet here I am still alive." That's essentially what "grace" means in the Scriptures. An undeserved gift. So this falling apart in the face of scrutiny exists nowhere but in your imagination.

@@juilianbautista4067 _that's a classic question that has been answered ad nauseam._ And the answer is? If God made everything, He made it knowing everything. There is no justice in punishing the world for our rebellion, and there is no rebellion because God wanted it to happen. What justice is there in cursing Man when he did not yet know good and evil? The narratives are great examples of explaining the world when you don't know much about it. They aren't that great the more you do learn. God doesn't save people in accidents, safety equipment does. To suggest otherwise is disgusting. Why them and not them? Mysterious ways bullshit.

​@@juilianbautista4067The issue is that there is no evidence for a god , not proof , but no evidence period , it is 100% make believe and has not produced ONE thing of value For example the bible offers nothing on agriculture , metallurgy, finance , medication etc. If the book were based on anything other than fairy tales , and this goes to all religions, then you would imagine the system that god laid out to offer one material or procedural truth on anything of importance to humans You can sit back and say well god likes to be coy , great so why should we construct our societies based on his arbitrary and vague nature ? If god isn't in the business of picking sides , interacting with humanity , getting his hands dirty in the fields why should any human ever care about this coy frightened god ? And if you are coming from an abrahamic tradition , why was god so involved in tribal genocide and policies of individual towns and cities in the past , but not today I think the most egregious error in following a god , is they didn't come onto the scene when humanity did , they came much much much much later , so whether it is Islam or xianity or Buddhism , I have ancestors that predate all of these gods , so those ancestors of mine are all being punished or deprived of the correct spirituality because god didn't bother to show up ? No , I value my family WAY more than any weak sauce god claim from a dusty old book

@@Rogstin God knowing everything does not preclude removing the responsibility of people from them. Foreknowledge does not magically get everyone off the hook. "What justice is there in cursing Man when he did not yet know good and evil?" >> If you're referencing the story in the garden, it isn't that man knew nothing of right and wrong. Clearly Adam had to know that it was wrong to rebel against God since God told him not to do it. "Knowing good and evil" as it was stated in the original Hebrew means more like "deciding what is good and evil" or "experiencing good and evil" rather than "having intellectual knowledge of good and evil". The punishment was given precisely because Adam knew what good and evil were, and yet decided he would follow himself rather than his Maker. "The narratives are great examples of explaining the world when you don't know much about it." >> Pretending you know about the world doesn't magically make you rational for rejecting the story of creation. Evolution was invented by Darwin because he didn't know much about the cell and the complexity of the genetic code. The more you know about it the more implausible Darwinism becomes. See how that works? What you just said isn't even an argument. It's a non-claim. It says nothing about the veracity of the story. It only gives speculations about motives you know nothing about. "God doesn't save people in accidents, safety equipment does. To suggest otherwise is disgusting. Why them and not them? Mysterious ways bullshit." >> See, this isn't a rational comment but rather an emotional one. Maybe quit pretending you're smart and acknowledge you actually hate God. God gave man the knowledge of building safety equipment, so, checkmate. Maybe next time, try not to rely on objective standards of morality and the transcendent laws of logic, both of which are supernatural and immaterial, before you argue against the very foundation of both, which is God.

That’s what I thought

He’s both, an agnostic atheist

Advaita Vedanta is indeed an interesting approach, but I suspect Mr O'Connor would think his arguments apply to that belief also. But who cares what O'Connor and his sophistic ilk think? Thou art that!

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

haha his accent is astonishing

Those aren't examples of meta-ethical positions. But go off on your strange diatribe!@@FilipinaVegana

​@@FilipinaVeganai consider radical feminist righteous, does that makes me objectively immoral?

​@@FilipinaVeganaSho me bobs and vegana