Alex O'Connor asks why, if not a delusion, God allows violence & the eradication of species (5/8)
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 06. 2024
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
SUPPORT the Oxford Union ► oxford-union.org/supportus
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
Alex O'Connor speaks in proposition of the motion that This House believes that God is a delusion. Mr O'Connor is the host of the CosmicSkeptic podcast and CZcams channel and the author of a blog in the same name.
He asks why God would create species only for them to be made extinct and why a God would permit such cruelty and violence carried out in its name.
This is the fifth speech of eight.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
The Oxford Union is deeply grateful and encouraged by the messages of support in response to our determination to uphold free speech. During our 200 year history, many have tried to shut us down. As the effects of self-imposed censorship on university campuses, social media and the arts show no signs of dissipating, the importance of upholding free speech remains as critical today as it did when we were founded in 1823. Your support is critical in enabling The Oxford Union to continue its mission without interruption and without interference. You can support the Oxford Union here: oxford-union.org/supportus
This point (in reply to Ayaan Hersi Ali's conversion) about his inability to adopt Christianity because of its existential convenience resonates with me deeply. I was, earlier this year, convinced to become a Christian based upon a pragmatic argument which focuses on the pre-mortem benefits; religious people tend to be happier, healthier, have more stable relationships, are more charitable, etc. And because my study of the philosophy of religion had convinced me that theism is at least possibly true, I allowed myself to take the famed "leap of faith."
However, recently I went to a Bible study full of Christians who sincerely believed in the truth of their religion and, for lack of a better way to describe it, they made me feel like an atheist. They prayed with sincerity, I prayed with a wince; they read scripture with reverence, I with a raised eyebrow; etc. It suddenly dawned on me that pragmatism about faith misunderstands what religion, especially the Christian religion, is about: belief. Christians are people who believe Christianity is true, and I discovered you can't be a Christian by hoping it's true, or acting as if it's true for the pragmatic benefits of doing so.
I'm forced, regretfully, to admit I'm an atheist.
Because theyre not pretending or cosplaying. They had real experiences backed up with real answers to real prayers. Perhaps you shouldnt put the cart before the horse. Pray to God and ask him if he is real, to show you.
I sympathise (noting your experiences): can members of the Bible study group factually evidence the claims of Christian belief? I doubt it (and - at the risk of being reductive - the traditional arguments for the existence of God are vulnerable on a number of bases). All that is left then is a Kiekegaardian "leap of faith" (which may or may not be based on a subjective experience of the . It is worth reflecting that the Nicene and (before that) Apostolic creeds in Greek use language closer to "trust" - (literally) we "trust" that there is one God ... .. etc. The Latin translation of the Nicene Creed uses "credo/credimus": (literally) "I/we give our hearts to" the proposition that ... Not knowledge as such, but a commitment, a leap into the irrational. Personally, I am agnostic (I come from a Catholic background) and no longer attend church services, but I would argue that the criterion is less about a commitment to a fact/set of factual propositions, but more about living in hope/putting into practice Christian virtues (so St Matthew 25). Finally, the concept of God has itself hardly remained stable (nor has Christian belief been stable - the dogmata of the early church developed profoundly in its first three centuries and of course the church has split over doctrine (and liturgy) at several points in the second millennium of its history).
The Trinity is absurd anyway. See if the idea of ONE (where one really means one and not 'N' in 1) God appeals, or resonates. Be humble. And seek.
@@arifabdWell oneness based removing 3 daughters of an Arabic chief of gods is absurd because he's not one at all
@@DanieBen-qg2bm What you wrote is gibberish. Perhaps learn more on the subject ?
The wedding party in the background is really disappointed with the Best man's speech.
Hahahaha One even took the bow tie off couldn’t breathe
Under rated comment! 😂
He needs to write a book already
Yeah like he kinda like you know needs to write like a book already.
Why? He’s not saying anything original
@@michaelh13 You need to read a book called Steal Like An Artist.
@@smith6907 Have you read it? The book emphasises creating new thing via inspiration from predecessors, but a majority of Alex's arguments are verbatim copied from the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, he's literally adding nothing new
@@michaelh13 You really don't know Alex all too well considering he considers Dawkins and Hitchens to be some of the worst public atheist speakers. Or are they the only atheist speakers you can name?
Alex, you blow me away with this video. I’ve watch many of your videos. And I’m still stunned by this exquisite, ah, thing. I’ve run out of words. Seriously. Your argument covers so much ground in so few words. However you were educated, you should be full of gratitude. Whatever skills you developed on your own should make you proud. Honestly. I’m struggling to explain how impressed I am. That was effin’ amazing. Excuse my crudeness.
Its quite ironic that ALEX o'CONnor never questions his own faith in what he believes... a call to be disingenuous and fervently attack believers and live a life revolving around attacking God? Gods people? Design of Science? Math, Reasoning? Why would it have to be created in a way we could understand it to choose to be curious about it? Alex bumps around as a bright crayon with a dull outlook that is similar to a hater of God to deny his creator. He lives in a world were you are with him or against him if you question ALEX THE OCONNOR... so his followers, like the ones who follow JESUS, Alex wants them to put their faith in his Unbelief belief of a intolerant hate filled belief system that says he doesn't believe. That is the real delusion.. and ALEX is preaching to follow this. CHOICE TO DO GOOD AND FOLLOW GOD, OR CHOICE TO IGNORE AND BE DISOBEDIENT AND BE LIKE ALEX AND GO TO HELL even if you dont believe.. AS AN ATHEIST MYSELF... I PICK TO FOLLOW ALEX FOR HE WILL HELP THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD BY DISOWNING GOD and JUMPING ON OUR ATHEIST BAND WAGON OF FAITH AND NON FAITH OR WHATEVER... ENSURING PEOPLE GIVE UP HOPE FOR A DRUG OF HATE AGAINST GOD AND WHAT GOD? OR HATE AGAINST HIS BELIEVERS... YAY! WE WILL GET WHAT WE DESERVE. EVEN IF WE DONT THINK WE WILL.
Why are you particularly impressed? Alex is, by his own argument in this video, simply a product of evolutionary forces over which neither he nor anyone else had any control. He should not take credit for any of it. He was lucky to be born in a time and place where he could receive historically good medical care, food, shelter, and education... again, none of which is of his doing, and all of which was also the result of humans responding to their evolutionary programmed mandates to spread the genetic material as efficiently as possible.
If anyone is to be thanked, it should be that meteor that collided with that comet 5 billion years ago that sent the material for life on a collision course with Earth. Without that, according to Alex, none of this would ever have happened.
Sometimes swearing is the appropriate, best response. After all, they're designed to convey a certain level of meaning and expression in as few words as possible.
Fact of the matter remains.. if God was real, it wouldnt rely on our belief.
You're assuming your interpretation of what is real constitutes as the universal objective blueprint of "real". You might not believe in god, but you act like god :P
We don’t only rely on belief tho, we rely on logic, common sense and facts. The signs of God’s exist is his creation, the Quran his message and the prophet his messenger. I look at the world God created and I read his Quran and I think to myself that it’s impossible that the Quran is from anyone else than God himself.
Atheism is the stupidest thing ever, I swear.
@@Hafsa8660amen!
@@Hafsa8660 circular reasoning
On the contrary, everything we think we know with the possible exception of Descartes 'Cogito ergo sum' relies on our beliefs. We can't know the ultimate reality, we can merely know that what we perceive and construct a model we believe to be true about the real world based on those perceptions.
So there you have a contra argument, do you even have an argument to substantiate your opposing claim?
I was raised an athiest, and after many years......remain one. Thanks Alex.
You are lucky to be raised Atheist. Religion is toxic.
No your not! But you have gotten better at lying! How foolish!
Alex, stop confusing God with religion. It's like confusing meteorology with the newspaper weather forecast.
@@teeken8850 'foolish', yes, but not him, you.
@@teeken8850 YOU'RE*
This comments thread is interesting. It illustrates Alex's point of "What would you expect the world to look like if there was a god?" In this thread, good people are describing how faith changed their life for the better. Others describe how faith damaged them. This randomness is better explained by god being a human construct then by there actually being a god.
I never had such a decision point. I was born a skeptic and the god concept never seemed rational to me, as far back as I can remember. However, my wife was raised in an intensely religious environment which she found extremely damaging and her deconversion was liberating. For others, faith is liberating and life changing for the better. This random effectiveness of faith is much better explained by what humans attach to faith then by the actual efficacy of faith.
Yours is the most sensible comment on this thread. Thank you!
You do realize you can categorize this randomness into two categories right?
Faith positives and negatives.
Two.
Not haphazardly random distribution of debris in space, which chaos theory would absolutely wreck.
But aligned into two columns that present some semblance of order.
I would argue this orderly randomness is better explained by the existence of God
The result is better explained by their attachment to truth and untruth.
Truly, I don't understand what you are saying. What are faith positives and negatives? What is orderly randomness? Do you mean a rules-based randomness as in a simulation program that utilizes RNGs?
Apart from any agreement or disagreement with his discourse, what a delight it is to hear eloquent and reasoned views and to mull them over in patient and rational ways. Sadly, there is so little appetite for such intellectual process in our modern world.
I suspect that there is precisely as much appetite for such discussions in the present day as there has been at any given point in history, at least any point during or after the Enlightenment. The difference is that those who are openly and unabashedly uninterested are far more visible to those who are than they once were, thus creating the impression that our age is somehow uniquely anti-intellectual.
Both in content and delivery one of the best talks I’ve heard from Alex O'Connor.
The talk is OKAY but methodologically flawed. Characterising God, or his non-existance, through human behaviour and errors, is like characterising humans by describing ants or octopuses.
@@tomangochapati But isn't humans supposed to been made in Gods image? Ants and octopuses are not made in humans image.
@@PatrikWesterlund definitely. But free choice means we can act both ways. That's what Christianity is all about. Since sin entered, we at times tend to do wrong, but we act on free will. A Saviour came to the rescue to turn this around. But we are no robots, we have freedom of choice which is a wonderful gift from a non-tyrannical God. And there will be an end to all this pain and cruelty. This is not the final stage yet. In my view.
@@tomangochapati i funny hilarious that in the same breath religists can describe gods attributes, immaterial etc and then two seconds later say "you can't understand god, your mind is too small" you talk tripe mate, all the time it's drivel.
@@PatrikWesterlund if i'm made in god's image he can't hear, can't see straight, his teeth are falling out and he can't hit the toilet.
i cant believe how far alex has come, so amazing
98% of all species have gone extinct, but positive evolution is working. Lol
Atheists say the most ridiculous things.
Please explain
@@Shikuesi
If 98% of species are extinct.
We’ve lost genetic information.
We aren’t gaining any.
@@Shikuesi He has his own CZcams channel as a baby philosophist.
@@cutienerdgirldoes he have a PhD?
The spirit of Hitchens lives on in Alex
Alex is a far better arguer than Hitchens.
there's no such thing as spirits
@@SenorCinemawhere is your evidence that there is no spirit
@@DanieBen-qg2bm where is there evidence of spirits existing?
Agreed but he's a far cry from being as charismatic as Hitchens@@princemishkin1601
I can see Hitchens in Alex. If Hitchens were more polite and philosophically sophisticated, then he would be like Alex.
Alex doesnt have his charisma tho and so would never be as popular. Hitchens also had a much wider breadth of knowledge. This is a scripted talk. Hitchens could hold his own without prep in any debate. Sorry but alex doesnt compare despite being more philosophically consistent or whatever.
@@xsuploader
Give Alex a bit of time. He is only in his 20's. We watch most of Hitchens religious stuff when he was in his late 40's and 50's. Alex will get there, with tactful bravado and style. 😉
@@xsuploader With all due respect, Hitchens is all thorns no fruit. If you remove all his insults and jokes, sarcasm and mockery, misdirection and deconstruction, what do you have?
He debated to debate. To win the debate was his agenda and nothing else.
stephen woodford of rationality rules gave a speech to a room full of theists the other day that is also well worth watching, one of the best atheist addresses in a long time.
would you mind providing some more information as to where I might find this video?
Link pls!
@@gunarsrepse232On his channel; the latest upload.
@@gunarsrepse232 It’s on the rationality rules channel and called What hope do atheists have?
@@jonzo_ czcams.com/video/xgdLmfhRne0/video.htmlsi=C9S5DNHsGOh1GFD6
Great speech. I have seen some people claiming its method was flawed and, don't get me wrong, I can see why. But I think it is worth pointing that, when trying to prove the inexistence of God, many debates fall on that boring argument about atheists not having any burden of proof, as it is not possible to prove inexistences in this sense. Alternatively, Alex's speech, while not methodically proving the inexistence of God, presents many scenarios that question the both the "racional" character of religious belief and its coherence as an explanation of reality. That is what makes it a great speech, in my view.
I anal me, I da pinheiro
This was the closest ive ever seen someone come to sounding exactly like Christopher Hitchens. If only Peter wasnt so adamant in having a sibling rivalry against his brother
Peter Hitchens doesn't like Alex O'Connor, actually.
He sounds like a copycat.
@@kevinoshea4416 that's incorrect, he ACTIVELY DISLIKES him
@@fixpontt😂😂
Its quite ironic that ALEX o'CONnor never questions his own faith in what he believes... a call to be disingenuous and fervently attack believers and live a life revolving around attacking God? Gods people? Design of Science? Math, Reasoning? Why would it have to be created in a way we could understand it to choose to be curious about it? Alex bumps around as a bright crayon with a dull outlook that is similar to a hater of God to deny his creator. He lives in a world were you are with him or against him if you question ALEX THE OCONNOR... so his followers, like the ones who follow JESUS, Alex wants them to put their faith in his Unbelief belief of a intolerant hate filled belief system that says he doesn't believe. That is the real delusion.. and ALEX is preaching to follow this. CHOICE TO DO GOOD AND FOLLOW GOD, OR CHOICE TO IGNORE AND BE DISOBEDIENT AND BE LIKE ALEX AND GO TO HELL even if you dont believe.. AS AN ATHEIST MYSELF... I PICK TO FOLLOW ALEX FOR HE WILL HELP THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD BY DISOWNING GOD and JUMPING ON OUR ATHEIST BAND WAGON OF FAITH AND NON FAITH OR WHATEVER... ENSURING PEOPLE GIVE UP HOPE FOR A DRUG OF HATE AGAINST GOD AND WHAT GOD? OR HATE AGAINST HIS BELIEVERS... YAY! WE WILL GET WHAT WE DESERVE. EVEN IF WE DONT THINK WE WILL. Perhaps we can even use the bible as ATHIEST to turn peole away from it and destroy peoples eternal salvation from pain of this earth. ITS a war for souls and SINCE we serve ALEX OCOONNOR and SATAN, we should get spots as preachers and bishops to use our athiest ideas and sow doubt by writng books and help encorage hate against churches. the more we can manipulste the christians the more people we can have join athiesm and satan and we can see them join us. Believe in dawkins dennet and ALEX OCONNOR over some savior who may protect you from hell. we serve the true great deciever and beautiful one. ALEX is a great guy!
"It's truly valuable for religious individuals to acknowledge atheism, not as something to be feared or instantly rejected, but as a different perspective on life and existence. Atheism, in its essence, prompts us to question and reflect upon our beliefs, challenging us to delve deeper into our worldview. Understanding atheism doesn't necessarily mean adopting it, but rather embracing the opportunity to critically examine our own faith and principles. The coexistence of differing beliefs encourages open dialogue and nurtures mutual understanding, enriching our quest for meaning and truth."
christianity questing f0r truth ?
The coexistence of differing beliefs encourages open dialogue and nurtures mutual understanding, enriching our quest for meaning and truth."
is n0t christian d0ctrine
christianity is cIaiming it has the t0taI and c0mpIete truth
"The coexistence of differing beliefs"
is entireIy hampered by said reIigi0ns cIaims that they aI0ne have the c0rrect g0d
I really like those statements. But who are you quoting from?
Respectfully...
damn that was very well delivered
A testament to what time and effort can produce.
Same thought! The fact that Alex is just a few years elder to me really makes me think about how I might improve my articulation skills. He's good!
@@chilledoutorange4269 rationality rules delivered one of the best addresses i've ever heard recently to a bunch of theists, well worth a look.
@@chilledoutorange4269Reading, listening to speeches, practice, thats all.
It was moronic
Alex never fails to impress me.
That means you haven’t watched videos where he is absolutely shown to be extremely stupid
@@TinyFord1Got any reference?
Trust me bro@@WurstelFestchen
@@TinyFord1no response is crazy 😭🫸🫷
What a great and highly intelligent speaker. His views are honest and true. Great content and presentation. 🇦🇺 😊
The problem with the argument is the assumption that God wants the physical well-being and survival of humans and animals above all else. The Bible never says that. God's purposes for us may very well be beyond mere survival and physical well-being.
Not just that, but he also gives meaning to suffering, which, from his perspective, has no meaning.
All well and good, but if nobody can intuit god's motivations for anything, it's unclear why any particular religious claim ought to be more compelling than another.
@@shassett79 I don't see the point. god knows better then us it's just matter of which religion is consistent.
@@shassett79 that's understandable. As with anything, when confronted with many options, it is best to choose the one that better aligns with evidence. Just don't be too hasty to discard off all religions at once based on incorrect assumptions or poor arguments. That is like choosing blindly.
@@user-vl5bb6bn8w Do you imagine the moral teachings of christianity to be consistent?
Way to go Alex. I'm relieved that an articulate and intelligent young man has "risen" to fill Hitch's wellies.
My only alarm is that he has the appearance, speech and restrained mannerisms of John Cleese.
I'm sorry to say, and I love Alex, but he is not anywhere near Hitchens in style and demenour. He is his own self. Which is good.
Do you guys not realize that all of Hitchens’s arguments against God were nothing but sophism?
Alex made a video on the topic.
Most if not all atheist arguments are the same. Dawkins, Shermer, Harris, Barker, et. al.
I’m glad that Ayaan has taken her departure. I listened to Shermer’s appeal to lure her back. He was willing to make candid admissions I’ve never heard these guys make previously.
Christopher Hitchens was a sophist, and was appalling toward women. Therefore, I must desecrate his memory by calling him a doosh bag.
So. Sophism. So, who can you point me to giving clear evidence of God's reality? And please, by "evidence" I don't mean philosophical arguments ala Cosmological arguments. And what about Alex? More sophism?@@samdg1234
@@samdg1234
Ayaan was after a comforter and something to 'battle' her previous life. Not after religious truth, as it were. Her choice and still a brave woman..
He presents himself very well here. I agree with the crowd. A bit of Hitchens. May he inspire more. 👍
Good job Alex! Delivering a great speech while looking fly 😀
Its quite ironic that ALEX o'CONnor never questions his own faith in what he believes... a call to be disingenuous and fervently attack believers and live a life revolving around attacking God? Gods people? Design of Science? Math, Reasoning? Why would it have to be created in a way we could understand it to choose to be curious about it? Alex bumps around as a bright crayon with a dull outlook that is similar to a hater of God to deny his creator. He lives in a world were you are with him or against him if you question ALEX THE OCONNOR... so his followers, like the ones who follow JESUS, Alex wants them to put their faith in his Unbelief belief of a intolerant hate filled belief system that says he doesn't believe. That is the real delusion.. and ALEX is preaching to follow this. CHOICE TO DO GOOD AND FOLLOW GOD, OR CHOICE TO IGNORE AND BE DISOBEDIENT AND BE LIKE ALEX AND GO TO HELL even if you dont believe.. AS AN ATHEIST MYSELF... I PICK TO FOLLOW ALEX FOR HE WILL HELP THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD BY DISOWNING GOD and JUMPING ON OUR ATHEIST BAND WAGON OF FAITH AND NON FAITH OR WHATEVER... ENSURING PEOPLE GIVE UP HOPE FOR A DRUG OF HATE AGAINST GOD AND WHAT GOD? OR HATE AGAINST HIS BELIEVERS... YAY! WE WILL GET WHAT WE DESERVE. EVEN IF WE DONT THINK WE WILL.
I saw a a lion eating deer alive from backside, it can't be a loving God's creation.
Well, unless the Lion really loves ass?
Haha I’ve my mind my up so long ago about this topic. That all religion and belief systems are bollocks. But it’s so commendable to see someone articulate this in such an eloquent and bulletproof way.
He hasn’t convinced me. Maybe it’s because I’m not gullible.
@@rafd3593 or because you’ve already also made up your mind, just about something else 🤷♂️ , and that’s totally fine. There’s a non-zero probability that whatever anyone believes is true 🫡.
This guy speaks so beautifully it is very hard to disagree.
That’s not a good reason to credit the content of his speech. The argument he makes is.
@@frankteunissen6118 worked for Hitler
Yessss Alex 😆😆 that’s mah boii!! Elegantly spoken as always 🔥
Extremely well said. I think there will be many who agree with every single word expressed in this argument.
6:28 is such a good line
Compare this presentation to any of the endless blathering ones by John Lennox in this same forum or anywhere else for that matter. Simple, precise, cohesive, reasoned, compelling and illustrative Vs endless droning and spinning about "The Logos"...... Just excellent Alex.
He's an excellent speaker.
I got sober from an 8 year long drug addiction in January of 2022, and moved into a Christian sober living house for 1 year. While I was there I witnessed many men completely turn their lives around, and it all appeared to be due to adopting Christianity. Men who spent 20+ years in jail for bank robberies and assault, terribly dark stories. I was an atihest during my entire 1 year stay. It was not until about 3 months after leaving that I began to get really deep into Carl Jungs work, along with reading a few Dostoevsky novels, that I had a thought which almost brought me to my knees. "Either everything is as if the body and blood of Christ, or nothing is. If everything is, then the limitless potential for goodness is so vast that is it beyond me. If nothing is as if the body and blood of Christ, then nothing matters, and I mayaswell return to my addiction."
But there is the important nuance, everything is AS IF the body and blood of Christ. I am not a biblical fundamentalist, and I do not belive that the scriptures are intended to be understood in a literal manner. The way I understand it is that, when the sacred stories, the symbols, and all that they stand for are turned outward, they become superstition; but, when turned inward, they become wisdom.
So, do I belive Christ was born of a virgin? No, of course not; but, inwardly, it is the only thing that makes sense. The redemptive figure in ones life must be born of a virgin, that is, of one parent; this part of the mind which gives rise to the birth of new life is feminine in its nature (Jungian theory of Eros), and the order that is called forth by the redeemer is masculine, represented in Christ (theory of Logos being symbolic of masculinity). After receiving "a message from the heavens," symbolically illustrated in the annunciation, where the archangel Gabriel comes down to announce to Mary that she will give birth to the Messiah, she then becomes pregnant and eventually gives birth. The story of the annunciation is symbolic of the religous experience; how an experience of ineffable wholeness that "comes from above," or "comes from the angels," can be potent enough to give rise to the creation of a new redemptive figure in ones life.
Sorry if I'm rambling here, I'm commenting on mobile. Sometimes I even find it hard to call myself a Christian. I often feel very alienated from my Christian friends, as they are all wholeheartedly living in the Christian myth, while I am not. Although, I still pray, I still go to mass and read the scriptures, because the psychological reality of Christ is what I seek, not the corporeal reality of Christ. "Physical" is not the only criterion of truth, there are psychological, immaterial truths, too.
I wish more religonists were not literalists... that it the only thing that will save religion.
Watch Joey Carbstrong
I don’t think people honestly care about the belief. People are concerned when the claim is the belief describes reality and the only evidence turns out not to be about whether the belief is true but if the belief has utility.
I think religion can assist people in ways that they can find themselves & encourage moral consideration
But agnostic makes the most logical sense to me
Yes religion can sometimes help people.
But so can a sports club
Alex is slowly but surely becoming the Hitchens of our times
Yes, the rhetorical mimicry is uncanny. Even down to his gestural language.
@@will-ellingtonNot to mention his literary references to the likes of Evelyn Waugh
That's not the compliment you expect it to be. Unless you didn't mean it as such.
@@blackwiddowflainfrost6705Obviously he meant it as a compliment, as any rational person would.
I am new to faith like many others... and it's hard not to feel like a bit of an imposter at times, as I compare myself to others that know all the scriptures, speak with conviction and appear more devout. However, I have felt myself pulling closer towards God through reading and prayer, however silly I felt about it initially. I recently read the book Imitations of Christ, and it approaches faith in a more pragmatic way, despite it being so old... at the end of the day, everyone is human and we should never compare ourselves to others. Faith is not performative, because our relationship with God is personal. We will always be tested, we may find times it's easy to believe, and other times find it hard. Faith is simply something that takes work like anything else of value. I honestly don't know what I believe about things so beyond me... but I have found that shedding my ego a bit, and however illogical, giving meaning to my suffering is a transcending feeling that fills a void in my heart.
Why do you think your path isn't filled with the same delusions of those whose gods you reject as false? And why do you think that spending a lot of time thinking and practicing religious methodologies doesn't lead to well-established methods of engendering belief? Literally, the same types of things you're doing, the same feelings you're having have been had by billions of people whose gods you know to be lies. So if religious "feelings" lead them to false beliefs, what besides hubris allows you to believe that you're walking a path any different than theirs? Because you're doing "religion" better? Because their religious texts are lies, and yours aren't? Funny... they believe that about you too.
The truth is this kind of cognitive dissonance is buried deep within their biases and minds and ways of thinking. It's honestly sickening and I feel such immense empathy for them, even though I know it really doesn't matter. The truth is that most people just don't care about the value of logic and evidence. Even though they use it for every other belief. They will simply digest your logical argument, grounded in reality, and then tell themselves in their mind that they're supposed to be winning the argument, and the possibility of being wrong becomes so insanely frightening to them. And then they cowardly take offense to your questioning of their faulty reasoning, as if that's suddenly become a crime or something. Why be so sensitive? Wouldn't they question the "evidence" of a flat-earther? What about a different religion?
I'm not afraid to be wrong. I've been wrong about things before, we all have. My beliefs aren't perfect. But for many religious people, this just isn't allowed to be the case. The truth is that due to our massively improved quality of life, understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, and the scope of the universe; something as illogical and baseless as religious theism looks absolutely silly in current society, and they know it. They know it intuitively. They know it the way they have utter conviction that Brahma didn't create the world and that Alexander the Great was not a demigod son of Zeus. Even though the same evidence exists for all three.
To be honest, it's just amusing to me at this point lol. cheers.
@@zoomingby It's a fair point! My path may very well be false! I suppose that's entirely the point... to believe in spite of what your eyes can see. I'm not arrogant enough to assume I am correct in anything... for lack of a better word, I would say it's probably a bit closer to the concept of manifestation, whereby participation is the mechanism in which it has revealed itself to me. I know religions are full of taboo and contradictions, which make the discussions and criticisms of it unnecessarily defensive and passionate. The collective wisdom within texts have been filtered over the years, and I don't think the 'true meaning' of any religious text can ever be perfectly distilled, which means I don't think it's ever possible to "religion" better than anyone else. I find value in what people say about these complex topics, but I would not trust any mind but my own to interpret what I find to be true... and while everyone might arrive at different ends in the realm of religions, at the end of the day all we have is our internal compass which hopefully directs us toward what is good and true. There is so much more that connects us between religions than what divides us. I've known so many people that have switched faiths entirely because they know in their hearts what is true, despite whatever a book, or priest had told them... and that change is a reflection of what resonated within them. What resonates within us is enough. Christ resonates with me, and that is enough... that may change some day. I need to follow this resonance further to find out.
@@TheCalendarClub So you don't care if what you believe is actually true, or grounded in reality, you basically care about whether it "works" for you (leads to good feelings, spirituality, kinship, etc)?
@@zoomingby I do care if what I believe is true.. I just have a very real apprehension speaking about my belief in absolutes. When we use the word 'true', we generally think of that word as it pertains to facts... and in that regard you are correct, I don't think I'm interested in truth as a tangible concept grounded in reality. I think of 'truth' more in a biblical or metaphorical sense of what leads you towards the Divine, the sublime, goodness etc. In a way, I don't think the concept of belief as we are discussing it, even functions the same way in the face of grounded reality. I think religion is fulfilling because there isn't any proof, (if that makes sense). Crude analogy, but it's similar to trust. Sure you could look through your partners emails, and text history to know for sure if they're cheating on you... but we don't because believing in someone, gives the relationship meaning. Trust is something that you enact in a very real way, to give the concept of trust it's actual meaning in spite of reality.
I don't fully understand the mechanisms of spirituality, but after all is said and done, I would hope lived in such a way to maximize meaning in all things around me.
While I do feel that, in general, following my internal compass does lead to good feelings, kinship etc... I don't know if that's necessarily what is motivating me. It's more a sense of duty, or obligation to some day be the type of person capable of spreading 'good' in others. I don't think existence, humanity, the world etc are really about "me", despite that being all I literally know, haha. It feels more about passing the torch... that's what my compass is telling me. I appreciate the questions!
Where can I find the rest of this debate? I'm hooked.
Imagine having Alex and Hitchens in the same debate
What a clever and wise young man Alex is.
Prove god doesn’t exist.
@@ohrenishii88 what are you talking about
@@makswisniewski4031 what the fuck are you talking about?
@@ohrenishii88 look im christian too but to say prove god doesnt exist is the most stupid argument you can make.
@ohrenishii2916 why so aggressive I thought you Christians were loving
“Fear ALL prophets ... and those prepared to die for the ‘truth’, for as a rule they make many others die with them, often before them, most times instead of them!”
UMBERTO ECO
If everyone has free will then everyone is accountable for their own decisions.
@@blackwiddowflainfrost6705 Of course they are!
Bravo
The Alex / Ed Feser utube discussion is good and Feser does introduce a few thoughts on precision in his dialogue.
Alex is with his arguments on another much higher level than anyone else.
Actually as old as they can be...and attractive only for those without adequate background.
Ask him to bring a decent vegan debater to his podcast to discuss the ethics of animal rights and you'll have a good belly laugh looking back at your comment.
Actually I would say quite low status of argument
@@Matt6X shhh, let the guy think all of what alex says is brand new and has only been thought of by alex.
@@garretts431 Since when did Christian defenders place a lot of value on something being brand new? By that metric the Bible is thousands of years out of date.
Alex in a tux, very nice!
It’s horrifying to hear people claim God gives us value, and yet many of us die in the most disrespectful and gruesome ways. Why a god would give us complex bodies, only to refuse to protect said bodies from harm is beyond me.
Guess I watched too many insane clips on Twitter.
Its quite ironic that ALEX o'CONnor never questions his own faith in what he believes... a call to be disingenuous and fervently attack believers and live a life revolving around attacking God? Gods people? Design of Science? Math, Reasoning? Why would it have to be created in a way we could understand it to choose to be curious about it? Alex bumps around as a bright crayon with a dull outlook that is similar to a hater of God to deny his creator. He lives in a world were you are with him or against him if you question ALEX THE OCONNOR... so his followers, like the ones who follow JESUS, Alex wants them to put their faith in his Unbelief belief of a intolerant hate filled belief system that says he doesn't believe. That is the real delusion.. and ALEX is preaching to follow this. CHOICE TO DO GOOD AND FOLLOW GOD, OR CHOICE TO IGNORE AND BE DISOBEDIENT AND BE LIKE ALEX AND GO TO HELL even if you dont believe.. AS AN ATHEIST MYSELF... I PICK TO FOLLOW ALEX FOR HE WILL HELP THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD BY DISOWNING GOD and JUMPING ON OUR ATHEIST BAND WAGON OF FAITH AND NON FAITH OR WHATEVER... ENSURING PEOPLE GIVE UP HOPE FOR A DRUG OF HATE AGAINST GOD AND WHAT GOD? OR HATE AGAINST HIS BELIEVERS... YAY! WE WILL GET WHAT WE DESERVE. EVEN IF WE DONT THINK WE WILL. Perhaps we can even use the bible as ATHIEST to turn peole away from it and destroy peoples eternal salvation from pain of this earth. ITS a war for souls and SINCE we serve ALEX OCOONNOR and SATAN, we should get spots as preachers and bishops to use our athiest ideas and sow doubt by writng books and help encorage hate against churches. the more we can manipulste the christians the more people we can have join athiesm and satan and we can see them join us. Believe in dawkins dennet and ALEX OCONNOR over some savior who may protect you from hell. we serve the true great deciever and beautiful one. ALEX is a great guy!
Interesting whenever people attempt to discredit the existence of God, they frequently refer to some type of "evil". If the argument, the existence of evil, is a proof of the lack of God, then what does the existence of "good" in the world prove? That God does exist. The existence of evil must be accompanied by a belief in the existence of good. If there is no good, there is no standard by which evil can be judged. The argument from evil is a very poor argument because it can be turned around like I just showed.
According to Christian theology, you would see that death is not the end, gruesome or not. Even the Son of God himself has suffered a gruesome death. If you read the first chapter, God has meant for man to live in a perfect world forever. However, man, using the free will God gave him, had disobeyed the only thing that God told him not to do, and that is where all the death and suffering came from. It really makes sense whether you believe or not.
@@dadofgio It does makes sense or doesn’t make sense? There are so many holes in Christian theology.
@@dadofgio You do realize, do you not, that the silly story of Adam and Eve in the Bible paints "God" as a cruel, calculating, evil being? He's supposedly all knowing, so he creates man and sets us an entrapment scenario in which he KNOWS man will fall for the trap, only to punish him for doing so. He creates man both fallible and curious, he puts temptation into the garden, then allows a tempter to exacerbate the situation.
Why would god not want humans to know the difference between good and evil in the first place? And since they hadn't eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil up to that point, how could they know that disobeying god was evil? They literally did not know right from wrong. And as for the other tree - the tree of eternal life - why put that there, when originally Adam and Eve were meant to live eternally? What purpose would it serve? And why would god not want humans to eat its fruit, when they were already eternal?
The story, like everything in the Bible, is ridiculous, illogical and just basically stupid. Just a bunch of silly, bizarre fables made up by primitive, superstitious people.
If your car breaks down due to misuse do you Blame the manufacturer? Maintenance your car properly? Or Deny the manufacturer exists?
If the car breaks down because of misuse then it’s the fault of the person who misused it. Obviously. If it’s inherently faulty, regardless of how it’s used, it’s the manufacturers fault.
What was the point of these questions? Is a car like the universe? Is a car manufacturer like an all-powerful deity?!
I love that he sounds like Christopher Hitchens
Yeah when he said the word “invigilator” to describe God he sounded exactly the same
This is so good
Great to see another strong warrior for truth. The good Hichens brother would approve, if he were still here.
This lad is a gifted speaker.
If someone tells you they are in love, they dont begin with arguments for the existence of love.
Love is already mutually understood by most people, so why would it be called into question?
@@jandptv5954 Mutual understanding and truth are not the same thing.
@@fletcherchristian6522 okay. Is it true that love exists?
@@jandptv5954 Based on Alex's opening argument... No. That's the point. It's a subjective feeling that cannot be objectively verified or proven. Therefore he isn't justified in believing it exists. If someone told Alex that they loved him, and he said... 'prove it.' How could they? They couldn't.
@@fletcherchristian6522 you missed the point. He’s not denying that love exists, or that any feeling can’t be proven to be true. He’s saying that it can’t be used as a means to prove the existence of a being. If he was saying what YOU claim he’s saying no one would be listening to him.
I have always loved listening to Alex, such a clarity of thoughts and precise to the point.
We are a group of ex-muslims/atheists (technically agnostics) who challenge the fundamental issues within Islam but mostly taking a philosophical bend to it and only citing scriptures in support of our arguments only if needed. It is indeed the case that Islam is yet to go through the same phase that Christianity has gone through in past couple of centuries. Time is neigh that someone dealt with it in Islam from a subcontinental perspective.
Does your group have a channel on CZcams? I'm a Christian believer but I've been slowly learning about Islam. What "fundamental issues" do you consider in your arguments against Islam?
When I profess my beliefs regarding Jesus to Muslims, I'm bombarded with criticism, judgemental attitudes, and many verses from the Quran. I understand the reasoning why Muslims quote the Quran to me, but their specific references to the Quran are not beneficial for me. Islam doesn't provide me with the basic knowledge of why God Himself had to send a revelation to a Muhammad, the last prophet. And it seems like the Quran repeatedly negates the foundational beliefs within Christianity.
Maybe I'm just not receptive to the beliefs of Islam? I respect Muslims. I'm somewhat open-minded to listen and learn. But I'm not convinced that the Quran was indeed given by God ( Allah ).
Respectfully. From Florida..
@@johnbrzykcy3076 It is simple, god, in his majesty. does not show himself to his creation yet. He wont and has made us in a way that makes sure we never can see god in our flesh form. In the quran, in surah 7 and verse 143. it is said:"When Moses came at the appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he asked, “My Lord! Reveal Yourself to me so I may see You.” Allah answered, “You cannot see Me! But look at the mountain. If it remains firm in its place, only then will you see Me.” When his Lord appeared to the mountain, He levelled it to dust and Moses collapsed unconscious. When he recovered, he cried, “Glory be to You! I turn to You in repentance and I am the first of the believers.” It is impossible for us to see him. And it is not in his glory to come down as a man and sacrfice himself just so that he can forgive his sin. We as children are sinless. When we reach the age of puperty only then can we be help accountable for our problems. That is one of the reasons that allah reveiled some verses of th quran through the noble angel d'jibreel. And not all verses were revealed through the noble angel d'jibreel. such as the last 10 ten verses of surah al Baqara. These verses were reveiled when our prophet Mohammad peace be upon him was brought up to a place above the seven heavens to a place no angel nor man has ever gone to. Here Allah subahan watta alla reveiled the last 10 verses of surah al Baqara himself.
No need to say "technically agnostics," because atheist only means that you do not believe in a god. If you don't believe that there is a god, whether or not you 'know he doesn't exist,' you are atheist.
He took 10 minutes to say “the problem of evil”, an argument that had been answered hundreds of years ago.
@@loganmueller8791 You are right, I just wanted to clarify that one is a response to a belief claim and the other is a response to a knowledge claim.
Alex, your eloquence is breathtaking
This young man is going to peak early with all the blandishments and fawning heaped on him.
Someone who doesn't believe in God will always find time to question Him.
People who don't believe in God still live in a world with people who do and they are often impacted by things that these people do that are based on their religious beliefs.
That’s the arrogance of atheists
Brilliant. It got me thinking that religion as a whole needs a replacement speaker, but then I asked myself to what end because science asks all the same questions that religion does but gives answers that are demonstrable and backed up with evidence.
Science doesn’t even attempt to answer religious questions.
@@scottm4975
You mean questions like:
How was the universe created?
Why do we have consciousness?
Where do we fit in the cosmos?
Why are we here?
Science does awnser those.
Just FYI.
@@E.J.Crunkleton nope. I don’t mean that. I mean what is right and wrong. Also if you think science answers the origin of the universe and why humans/life exist you haven’t gone deep enough. Seems like a lot of you atheists just haven’t thought deep enough on these things. Please tell me how science explains the origin of the universe without using untested theories that rely on “faith”?
@@scottm4975
You were not aware that we observe the red shift in the universe nor that our most powerful telescopes can observe back to plank time?
If you are intrigued, there is an entire academic field called astronomy that focuses on things we can observe and test to be true.
Unlike supernatural claims from the bronze age.
@@scottm4975
You mean morally right and wrong?
That's literally the easiest question to answer.
Well that was GOOD!
Alex last objection concerning the appalling treatment of believers by believers through history ‘in the name of Jesus’ - for me this is just no difficulty at all. It was Jesus who commands us to love our enemies and pray for those who hurt you’, (Matthew 5:44) and “do not repay evil with evil” (Romans 12:17). Jesus said, ‘by their fruit you will know them.’ So when the so-called church or church leader commits atrocities in Jesus name we know it is simply evil at work.
Unfortunately we inherited a religion where people believe God writes books. And what is more certain people can interpret it for you!
All religious texts are humans searching for their origins, including the most ridiculous, primordial soup turned into humans via random mutations lmao.
Terrific speech, Alex. I admire Hirsi Ali for her honest reason for becoming a Christian. Including that secular version of the culture in her life will reveal many more political opportunities and allow her to create a following. Imagine taking the best ethical parts of all religions, mythology and ideologies then merging them into a unified system of possible behavior-with examples and cross references. I would enjoy reading something like that and realize that most people follow tenets and traditions handed down throughout the ages, irrespective of their origins.
There's nothing that the best of religions can provide that can't be achieved through reason. Every pragmatic (non-batshit crazy) religious tenet can be derived from critical thought. We don't need lies spun up as truth to aid the process. Besides, there's already such a thing that relies on no fairytales or magical sky men: secular humanism.
Why would you need the religions for that? Take the best examples of human behaviour and create a system of ethics that needs no background irrationality or appeals to the supernatural?
@@paulrawlinson8653 They need religion for that because they've all been sold that religion is an essential part of life, perhaps the most essential part. It's now a primal part of their operating system. To no small extent because it's been beaten into their heads that ever deviating from this belief system will end in eternal torment. Well played, religion. Well played.
if she has god's ear can she tell him that he can't kill people just cos they disagree with him, we have rights.
@@zoomingby Indeed, if these parts are ethical then religion is not needed for them to be good. If they help society then that is all the motivation to incorporate it we need
There is no heir apparent to Hitch, but if anyone holds a candle, it's Alex.
Alex is far better at engaging in good faith than hitchens ever was. Hitches was just a sweet talker with an intermediate understanding of philosophy
When are we seeing Joey Carbstrong's Oxford debate
@@alekhinesgun9997Anyone who takes philosophy of religion seriously knows that while Hitchens may have been a great personality figure and an influencial face of new athiesm, he isnt a serious philosopher by any means. Athiest/Agnostic philosophers such as Graham Oppy, JL Mackie, Joe Shmid, and many more are only known by their written works as they arent super popular in media, however they are far more engaging with complex arguments for gods existence than hitchens.
Alex is definitely more informed aswell as he as interviewed a few of those I mentioned (as well as serious religious philosophers).
@@alekhinesgun9997 Hitchens was one of the greatest orators of our time (I'll remind you that there are 8 billion competitors for that title). And one of the most bold. Trivialize him as you might.
@@rewrewrewrewr2674 Agreed. As far as I can see from the youtube sphere, Alex is the most willing to engage with all perspectives and do everything to not strawman his opposition. Tough to come by nowadays and he's been consistent like this for a while and has matured more and more as the years go on whereas most do the opposite and trivialize other perspectives as the years go. Not to mention he doesn't play teams and will call a spade a spade no matter who it is. Great speaker and a better philosopher, stoked to see his impact in the future.
Its quite rare to see a better articulation of an argument
Brilliant young man!
I'm a firm believer of a nuanced, detailed, and expressive use of language as part of a speech or an argument. His speech is good. It is intellectually honest and is well crafted at its core. Yet, in my opinion, it suffers from that all too common inefficient use of language that we so often bump into in academia. Pinker has a great speech about it somewhere on CZcams, even if this doesn't quite reach as bad of a territory as Pinker's examles in his speech do.
In that (having seen so many comments here referring to him) O'Connor really differs from Hitchens, who's use of language was creative and playful but always very efficient and, in the end, direct. Even where he crafted his sentences and paragraphs with linguistic and intellectual care, his speeches always had full focus on delivering something you can immediately grasp. With this speaker here, a bit too much gets lost in the linguistic acrobatics/detours that serve little purpose.
Agreed, he is very talented but has some way to go as a communicator, still.
My mother's conversion story from atheist to Christian is that when she saw her newborn (me, actually!), she felt it was a miracle, and for her that was a proof of God's existence. While I am deeply flattered, today I am no longer a believer myself. And I remember saying to my mother when I was still a pre-school child that the story about the Fall and the idea of original sin were totally wrong. And when she told me that Jesus saved humanity, I responded: "No, he didn't save us, but he showed us the way". I still wonder where I got my strong opinions from.
i had a hang nail today and i take that as proof that satan is real. 🤣
Evolution back the claim of original sin! We are animals after all.. and if you want to whiteness rape, murder torture etc. etc just go into the animal kingdom. It’s all right there😅(1 example is Gorillas; if the alpha male suspects the child is not his, he will murder the child and sometimes eat it). Our very close relative.
Maybe you don’t think eating children is sinful! Well I do, regardless if there is a God or not🤔🫣
I'm sure you got your strong opinions from a divine power, God. Really no other rational explanations possible... cough (culture, education, social mimicry, logic...) cough cough.
@@aerka0s760 As I said, I'm no believer ;)
@@HarryNicNicholas At least it is metaphorically true!
Is there a link to watch the entire debate as a single video?
This is too complex and I am lost. I think I need religion to guide me ...
I’m a non-denominational theist but find Alex a pleasure to listen to. I do wonder, though, why he devotes so much time to atheism in a country and on a continent where most people are already atheist or headed in the direction of atheism.
I for one appreciate his dedication and commentary on the subject. Here in America the religious grip is strong, although waning as time goes on. Listening to him helps me better phrase and explain to those around me regarding the God dilemma (existence/non-existence, etc).
It's unfortunately quite hard to argue for something like that in a country with strong religious beliefs. ie any middle eastern country.
@@sugarcubeofsalt8645 Not so in, for instance, Turkey, Lebanon or Israel
@@heartfeltteaching Idk about Lebanon but turkey and Israel are quite secular.
@@sugarcubeofsalt8645 You said “any middle eastern country.” Those are countries in the Middle East.
This guy is excellent
Good question. And a smart move to refer to Job. As a christian I too wonder what is the reason for animal suffering and what is it like. It is evident that enimals take their injuries way lighter than humans, but they still do feel pain. So is it about feeling of pain, or is it about perception of suffering?
Good job Alex
damn.. the style of speech is so much like christopher Hithcens
Sounds like a copycat.
That's a very mean thing to say to Alex
ya, arrogant and british.
@@tylerpedersen9836Maybe but his arguments are actually different. He’s analysed Hitchens arguments before, and distinguished himself from him philosophically. But I can see how some wouldn’t see this.
Bravo and well done Alex! You have done us proud and rational materialism shines once again over superstitious nincompoopery!
I'm not picking sides but its highly unlikely you're as rational as you think you are mate.
Rationality is just as much as a belief than a belief in God.
@@JeDxDeVu You're not picking sides but I see five crosses in your pfp
LOL nothing more irrational than a materialist caring about evil/suffering, morals and goodness.
@@John1633. A "materialist caring about evil/suffering, morals and goodness" would be far more sincere and believable than someone who claims their caring about those issues is dictated by a god or holy book and is obedient out of a desire for the claim of rewards or to avoid the punishment they were told awaits them in an eternal afterlife no one can demonstrate actually exists in the first place. Of course there's the flip side; a materialist has no god or holy book to invoke in order to excuse inflicting harm or suffering on others, like the example given in this video of burning 3 bishops because they followed a different denomination, and a materialist actually has vested concern for the future of our descendants and the world they will inherit as they hold no belief that a deity will soon return to rescue the True Believers from this reality and send billions of infidels to eternal torture. Doesn't leave you in a very good position to whine about irrationality, particularly given the passage you invoke in your channel name.
Just because a group of people who claimed to know the true faith were instigators of violence and death doesn’t necessarily mean what they believed is false.
There is a difference between faith and LIVING the faith.
Christian faith without the fruits of the faith is not true faith.
Look to the true practitioners of the faith, that is, the saints, if you want a legitimate representation of the faith, not some ill-willed “Catholics” who tyranized non-believers by imposing the faith with threat of torture and death.
I really like how you said "There is a difference between faith and LIVING the faith". I agree with you although I personally struggle with the concept of "faith" as seen through the eyes of Jesus Himself.
Your statement regarding faith actually convicts me because I don't feel like I'm "living the faith" as a good example to others.
God bless. From Florida USA
I am still a admirer of Ayan Ali. She is a brave woman who has escaped the horror of a religion that is still to be reformed, or to have a better relationship with the modern world and knowledge.
When I read her article I was also surprised by the lack even of an argument from self revelation, but rather she mantained that culturally and ethically christianity was more of "her thing". Seemed to me that she was arguing that being a A La Carte Christian was better than being an atheist because the judeo-christian way of life was responsible for the western culture. Well, as the Hitch always said, if one is going to cope with the best it has to cope with the worst. The Enlightnment and the Scientific Revolution ocurred DESPITE religion and could very much sentence someone to excomunication, prison, abuse and death for more than a century. Also it could (in the case of my home country) destroy countless human lives and cultures with a flick of a wrist and some gunpowder in the most egregious manner.
So yes, I am an atheist, and a minority in my country. I know there are countries in the "western world" in wich atheism or agnosticism are the majority thinking.
The way things are going here I may well someday have to seek asylum from these so ethical and tolerant christians.
This boy will be a great thinker. He has single-handedly rejuvenated the dead New Atheist Movement.
Regrettably, I think that's right.
Very true. The new atheist movement lacked the philosophical sophistication of 20th century atheists like Sobel and Rowe. Nice to see reasonable atheism come back to life! I'm optimistic about the future when it comes to freedom of religion
@@chantjelly6773
I am bored with new atheism stuff too and I'm an agnostic atheist. However, I still think it is good and valuable overall.
@@cachinnation448 dont worry , extreme centrists will soon be along to label him militant.
@@wet-readI am an agnostic but I am sure there is no creator no fcking religion matters..
In a ridiculous world where we can’t just say, “god is BS”, and we move on to work actual progress, here we have a guy like Alex doing all the heavy lifting combating BS which is religion.
…religion is an ongoing cancer of humanity, always evolving, always menacing, and drag down our progress as a species.
You said it’s always dragging us down. I’m assuming the always applies to all the things mentioned afterwards.
Can you show me examples of how religion has “always” dragged us down?
To add onto this what about the progress we made as humans under religious rule? Do we just ignore that?
Seems like your looking at things in terms of binary. I agree religion is harmful. However, to put it all under one umbrella seems a bit harsh.
You can just say that, no one, not even is stopping you.
As much as Christianity for example makes my brain hurt with the stupidity that is presented I can’t deny it has helped many people find comfort even if it is in delusion, is that worth nothing? And those who have turned their lives around with the story of Jesus, there are people who have done terrible things who have truly changed under the flag of Christianity. I think people can change without religion of course but the ones that did need religion needed religion.
The test that was previously mentioned in the previous point falls within the framework of worshiping God Almighty. Worship inevitably does not mean merely performing the obligatory duties of prayer, fasting, and zakat...etc., but it also means living life in all its details, and populating the Earth, in accordance with the commands of God Almighty and in order to gain His satisfaction.
A person's worship of God Almighty, and his adherence to His commands and prohibitions in all matters of his life, provides a person with a virtuous and good life, in which he stays away from evil, reprehensible things, and evils. He does not lie, does not hypocrite, does not bear false witness, does not backbite, does not spy, does not issue fatwas without knowledge, and does not commit injustice. He does not steal, does not usury, does not exploit people, does not commit adultery, does not use alcohol or drugs, does not kill, does not assault anyone, does not favor anyone at the expense of what is right...etc. All of this would make life upright and noble.
God Almighty says: "And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me (56) I do not desire from them any provision, nor do I desire that they should be fed (57) Indeed, Allah is the Provider, the Possessor of all-powerful power. Tin (58) Surat Al-Dhariyat.
And God Almighty says: “Say, ‘Indeed, my Lord has guided me to a straight path, a right religion, the religion of Abraham, upright. And he was not of the polytheists.’” (161) Say, “Indeed, my prayer and my rituals and My life and my death belong to God, Lord of the Worlds (162) Surah Al-An’am.
And God Almighty said: “And when your Lord said to the angels, ‘Indeed, I will place a caliph on earth.’ They said, ‘Will You place therein someone who will spread corruption therein and shed blood? And we glorify your praise. And We sanctify you. He said, “Indeed, I know what you do not know.” (30) Surah Al-Baqarah.
Because he gave us free will to choose.
As a Christian believer, I wish I had the scholarly reasoning of Alex. For a young scholar, he has excellent intellectual ability.
However I think life itself points to a correlation between the heart and the mind. Of course it could be a survival mechanism. But it could be much more !
So I simply hope to be remain open-minded but respectful. If God planned and created mankind, then the Cosmos itself cannot be a delusion !
Respectfully from Florida USA..
He has a university degree but afaik he’s not a scholar. He’s a professional debater and podcaster.
It's funny how those who are wise turn to be atheists, maybe it's an answer to the prayer of Jesus.
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
Not everyone can transcend the body through music and art if it avoids the spiritual dimension. Most of Shakespeare has it as does great art as they are infused with religion so when you leave it the result can be a feeling of meaningless isolation, a nihilism that results in cultural obsessions that lead nowhere.
Methodological flaw alert! The argument uses human errors and frailities to prove that religion is wrong (fair enough) hence, as a consequence?, God cannot exist or be a good being (unfair).
Should God always intervene to prevent wrongs, human beings would accuse him of robotic, mechanistic leadership. Now, as he doesn't always intervene, we accuse him of non-existance or unkindness ...
There is much discussion about this subject, so many believing in an individual experience being the prove of a supernatural being. I stay away from any kind of belief in a supernatural being because of one realization! The realization that people do the most cruel atrocities believing their supernatural being and attached dogmas are above any other people’s belief or dogma. The world itself, as it seems to me, is just as it appears more fantastic, amazing, weird, absurd and beautiful then any religion ever could imagine… this alone is enough for me to be just so curious, interested and full of love for this our universe and it’s existence.
👍
To paraphrase Voltaire ... those who can make people believe absurdities, can make those same people commit atrocities.
Very articulate. Maybe I've missed it, but to what does the atheist attribute evil? And what is the solution, if there is one? And why does the existence of God necessarily require Him to intervene to disallow violence or the eradication of a species? That would be a god of our own opinions, not a sovereign God. Psalm 115.3 "Our God is in heaven; He does what He pleases."
IMO We’d all be better off a little more overtly agnostic, less certain, and seeking to learn, grow, and make meaning.
Open to God? Sure!
Open to no God? Also, yes.
Open to “God” being something wildly different than the life-long inputs making up one’s current perspective? Again yes.
Open to the potential reality that “God,” as we think we know “God,” may not exist, and we must make meaning without this certainty, anyways? Big big yes.
We’re all more uncertain on these things than anyone seems to be willing to admit. People on either side have the potential to meet in the reality of uncertainty and find joy in the discovery process of life & pursuing meaning together.
🤷🏻♀️🤝
I think meaning is created not discovered. I believe this because most humans agree that love is a virtue. Yet, love can only be achieved by two humans working together. There's a famous quote that says "The product is more than the sum of its parts." Perhaps that refers to our personalities being the additional bonus to our physical bodies. Maybe it means establishing other intangibles like trust.
@@TryingtoTellYou I like the way you put that. That’s why mostly used the phrase “make meaning.”
I think we’re all on the same page that the belief needs justification.
Truth (the claim corresponds to reality) is a justification we all agree on.
Utility (the claims interaction with reality) is a justification we all used to agree on and that is where the divide is today.
Is the God belief worth perusing because it’s useful to your life? It’s a tool like any other tool if you take utility as a justification.
It's not because it is useful but because it's natural and rational. It's completely normal to ask yourself why do we exist, what should we do with ourselves, what is the point, who put me on this planet and why? What more justification you need? These are normal questions, every human encounters. And it is natural to answer them with statements of belief since we cannot know the real truth.
@@antun88
“Because it’s natural and rational”
I see the claim but what you said to back it up relies on me taking your word for it. If you’re saying there is no way to determine whether those beliefs correspond to reality then they’re not true bringing us back to the utility.
@@HIIIBEAR I'm just saying it's natural to ask yourself even though you cannot get an answer. If you suddenly woke up on an island, you would immediately ask yourself why am I here, who put me here. Then an atheist would pop up and say, well, we cannot rationally know or prove anything, so there is no point in thinking about it, or believing in anything that seems plausible to you. Or you can, but that's only because it makes you feel better, and is useful to you for your life on the island.
Obviously we're not all on the same page that belief needs justification. People believe in religion for some of the stupidest reasons imaginable. I have no idea what you're talking about: it's demonstrably false.
@@antun88 again, it doesn’t matter if the belief is true? You’re not at all concerned if the belief describes reality?
Christian here. Alex is looking sharp!
Couldn’t help hearing Hitchens in his manner, that’s a compliment, but in answer to the question, “on atheism what would you expect to find?” The answer is, I wouldn’t expect to find anything because I wouldn’t expect to exist. But I do exist and am persuaded we all exist. On Atheism there would be no goid, no evil, no you and no me, no anything at all.
Yes, as Alex stated, when religion is in power, it acts desperately as if it were powerless. That's because it is.
Always feel a bit sorry for Alex. He seems to desperately want to believe in something transcendent and, like any spurned lover, feels indignant and spiteful at the thing he craves when it doesn't instantly make its presence felt. Actually this is true for all atheists, it's the rage against God as the other Hitchens would say, and rather than being a rage based on all the sufferings in the world, it's really a rage that God isn't theirs to command at their will and do their bidding. And that's precisely why they miss mark and never understand what God really is.
they can't seem to make their minds up, is god the almighty who can't lose or will my pal satan beat the crap out of him, tune in for another thrilling episode of "the needy and insecure"
@@zootsoot2006 Well I am glad you have such a healthy romance with God, given that you can't kiss, hold or touch him lol.
thats why all of western society was founded on the back of and has benefited from Christendom.
@@zootsoot2006 Your argument is both invalid and idiotic and an example of the typical false claims believers love to mindlessly repeat like trained parrots. You want to believe that atheists hate god and want to sin, which is why they stop believing, but that is the most idiotic argument believers can make.
First, let's use an analogy to highlight the stupidity of that oft-repeated claim. Let's say I want to rob a bank. But I know the law says that's illegal and that if I do so, the prosecutor will charge me with a crime and send me to jail. But I really just want to rob the bank, so I say: "Well, I just don't believe in the prosecutor anymore! Now I can go rob the bank!". It's a ridiculous, impossible, and idiotic claim you make. One cannot simply choose to not believe in something you know is real. Atheists know god is not real because there is no evidence of any god and because the very concept is utterly illogical.
Second, how can someone be angry at or hate a fictional character? Saying atheists hate god is like saying we hate Superman or that we're angry with the Tooth Fairy. Gods are not real, so atheists cannot be angry at them.
You're a typical religionist - arrogant to the core and believing you know what others feel and think, all the while making a fool of yourself for the world to witness. Religions rots the mind, and you are just another perfect example of that truth.
My word he is clever
I'm a bit confused on Alex's point on suffering because doesn't the Bible say in the beginning that the world was good and we were to only eat plants but the only reason suffering Exist is because it deviated from God's plan?
If it was like the garden of Eden then we would be eating and living happily together with animals off of plants. The suffering entered the world through sin right...... But of course if you don't believe that biblical narrative then of course the Bible doesn't make sense.
And I know people will just say that God could have made a plan Where there was no suffering at all And I absolutely think that it's possible in theory to at least physically have no suffering but I think if we did that mentally our suffering would be unimaginable because I think we have to take free will out of the equation When it comes to anything we want to be perfect because naturally we just aren't perfect and have corrupted hearts from the sin that affected us from the beginning.
I don't want heaven to be full of a bunch of snide assholes too So it makes sense that he would want to develop our character through certain trials. Maybe the trials would Not need to involve any sort of physical suffering if men had free will and ultimately uncorruptible good hearts.
There's A lot of stuff to understand in the Bible and a lot of things that we will just never understand and have to leave up to God until he explains it to us when we are in heaven tho
I do wish there were somewhere out there where Hitch was smiling at this. Kudos Alex.
I bet he speaks like this in front of the mirror.
Gotta practice
Odd that Alex refers to 'species' as if it's a conscious entity that would object to its extinction.
Odder still that he appeals to the unfairness of a species going extinct when he doesn't believe in any intrinsic meaning, morality or value system that would uphold this objection.
Yes! spot on! He is an animal who's life is the result of a meaningless, unguided process, and who's sole purpose is reproduction and survival, yet that animal has a mind that cares about eradication of species or of evil, and issue of goodness, virtue and morals. Truly ironic.
He could claim that he's most 'modelling' the outrage that believers should feel.
But even then, a 'species' is not a sentient being. It's just a category so if God allows one or another to go extinct and replaces it with a more beautiful one then what of it?
I'll be doing a talk on this topic on my Pathfinding channel soon.
Head over there by clicking on my name and subscribe to get updates when the videos are up.
I'm currently working on a critique of William Lane Craig's Molinism philosophy.
@@John1633.
He's an ex vegan... He's going to be a moron for a little bit longer at least
great argumentation Alex, the Union suits you ;)
1 Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
These arguments have been made decades ago. I like how nowadays someone watches George Carlin and then they somehow feel like they are gonna blow everybody's mind if they repeat the literal skit. I wonder if someone actually comes up with their own thoughts anymore.
Perhaps the lowest point in his well delivered rhetoric was claiming faith is belief without evidence. Stupid claim to make and only an anti-religious zealot would not cringe at it. I doubt Alex actually believes that statement himself but it sounded good to his followers I'm sure. The strongest point he made, imo, was religious violence.
But first he claimed Christianity had a long history of religious violence which isn't true. Violence between Christians existed for a limited time and can largely be attributed to the connection of church and state. Both church leaders being led astray from New Testament teachings by political power and civil leaders moving into church positions, people who would equate heterodoxy with being a traitor to the state, explain much if not all violence in Christian history. Certainly, an honest look at the New Testament and the Quran would admit one advocates violence against those who disagree and the other gives no room for it.
And while God could put us all in straight-jackets and lock us in various padded rooms, this would hardly be benevolent or good. If learning, wisdom, and growth are the best thing for us then suffering simply cannot be the great evil that atheists and "agnostics" say it is. I didn't find anything else he said particularly challenging but I've already written an overly long response.
Sorry to bother but I’m really curious what your definition of faith if it isn’t “belief in the absence of evidence” also I’d love you to expand on your point that the bible ‘isn’t responsible at all in cases that many would consider biblically motivated violence’ (of course if that’s a straw man please let me know)
"Belief without evidence" is the dictionary definition of faith
Lol so calling faith what it is is considered something only a zealot anti religious bigot would say 😂😂 cope harder bro , that's what faith literally is.
He made a clear point. Arguments are not evidence. The arguments are meant to describe reality. How do we determine they actually describe reality?
Only a ‘religious zealot’ would actually believe any of the nonsense you just spouted. I mean seriously I’ve seen some stupid arguments in my time but come on 😂
love you to converse with Stephen Fry
Enjoyable listen indeed. Mr O'Connor could be a Hitchen reborn, in my opinion, without the smoke and alcohol of course.
as a brit, he should read chesterton and be humbled
You are not much of a critical thinker…are you ?
This is a tiring and dull argument. The more he persists in it the harder his head gets. He is like a petulant, recalcitrant child who refuses to come out of his dark corner. He has a dark aura that is almost visable. Listening to this at double speed is not fast enough for me to avoid a crushing boredom.
I will look forward to being enlightened and captivated by your scintillating counter-argument when you are invited to speak at the Oxford Union.
>"He has a dark aura"
Lol omg
@@JeffBedrick ya because universities today are something to be proud of. they're woke cesspools full of spineless cowards pushing secular humanism nonsense.
The guy in Alex's right was feeling it all the way through.
I think Alex is very sincere in his belief, though I very much disagree with his points. It was interesting how people in the comments are saying how true and right he is because they hold the same beliefs. But I also find it interesting the way we use the word TRUE. What is TRUTH? If truth is whatever I define it to be, then I can make truth into whatever I want it to look like. This is what people are doing today with the gender debate (redefining truth). Now I do understand people who would say well at least that TRUTH is more observable, after all we can study biology and see that there is male and female, yet there are many (in growing numbers) who would deny that truth even though it is plainly evident.
Truth is not created by us, we make our attempts to observe it, sometimes wrongly. For example, science has constantly changed its position on, origins, evolution, and many other points over the last couple of hundred years. There are still many points that science cannot come close to explaining, origins of matter, origins of life, origins of intelligence.... Instead we try to put our twist on what truth is, or what it SHOULD be if there IS a God.
Now if there is a God, which I believe there is, then He would be all knowing, all powerful, and creator. Can I assume in that case (as I am not all knowing, or all powerful or creator) that I know better how God should have designed the world than He does? That I better understand morality or God and evil than God does? I think Alex is assuming when he is looking at the old testament that God is not real because if He was, and if He was good that He would not design things the way He did. That He would not have allowed evil or the ability to be evil into His creation. I believe this is a very real thought that Alex is struggling with, and I appreciate his open attitude in discussing this. On one hand Alex's reads about God being love, and on the other he looks at the old testament and see God's commands to Israel to wipe out nations...
We could approach this response in several ways. The first way I would like to reply is talking about choice. If God just makes everyone always do the right thing, the moral thing, the best thing all the time, then we are his puppets. There is not thought or self motivation, there is only us being moved on a huge board like toy chess pieces. God designed us in a much more complex way than that. He designed us in His image which I believe one of the points is that He designed us able to make choices. Unlike God, we are able to make right and wrong choices, which is interesting. What is God's plan or purpose for creation anyway? He does not need us, He does not get bored... I believe it is because He wants us His creation to know Him, to see his attributes. His attributes include many that could not be easily seen without His allowance of sin. For examples, Mercy, Grace, Forgiveness, unconditional love... So if sin helps us to see these wonderful attributes, and sin also gives us the opportunity to emulate those attributes in our lives does sin not also have its purpose?
Finally that would bring about the moral question. Ok, sin may have a purpose, but is it good or right to allow sin as a God who is supposed to bet perfect and sinless? First of all, God does not sin and he does not make us sin, but he did allow the choice. The choice between good and evil seems to be a prerequisite as a choice between good and another equally good would be no choice it would be a cop out. But it is immoral? I don't know that I can answer that clearly, but my reply would come in two points. 1. He is not sinning himself, so it is not wrong for Him. This is an important point as giving someone an option is not immoral in any way. 2. Who are we to question God? If an ant were to look up at Alex and question his reasoning and purposes, Alex would not change His thoughts or ideas just because the ant questioned them. Just because we are the most intelligent created beings, does not mean that we have any level of reasonable intelligence compared to the creator God.
The Bible says every knee shall bow, and ever tongue will confess the glory of God. It will happen, know while we are alive, or after death. But we will all bow in the end. God bless.