"Yahweh Is Acting Like a Tribal War God!" Heated Old Testament Debate 

@Bluuuud you certainly need to do some work on your logic and reconsider your moral compass, for what you spout here is really appallingly stupid

I'd like to watch it but OH MY GOODNESS Dinesh just completely derps out here in this small 10 minute clip. Just this 10 minutes felt like 30.

How else could tribal people understand God if not in a tribal way? Humans can only relate new information to things we already know. If you think the Bible condones or even promotes any evil, you are assuming you can tell the difference. Dont assume that.

These theist talk about god like it is infallible, but after reading the Bible, how could you believe it was written by a god, or under the influence of god? It doesn't take much to be a better human than their god. Why should I be impressed?

From the bible: eating shrimp or wearing linen and wool together was forbidden. Even in the New Covenant, "slave's obey your Master's." Christian's are taught to "become slave's to god." The bible never stopped condoning slavery.

According to atheist religion which rejects personal responsibility and accountability, Why was it not evil when atheist mao did away with 70 million people in the name of atheist religion?

Dinesh is a bop

@@Truthseeker11158😭😭😭😭

*"Ultimate Goal of humanity is Collective ownership of Dinesh" **___** Karl Marx*

Ouch. Superb

I first saw Alex on Rationality rules years ago. The boy hath becometh a man.

Literally yes

Look at all you proud papa's 😂😂😂😂

You said it mate! I remember commenting on one of his very early RU-vid videos saying he will be the next Hitchens

somebody who discards the pretense of being a truth seeker and just affirms your worldview?

O for Christopher's sake. I have seldom heard such an incoherent debate. Obviously, because Alex asks yes or no questions and Kanesh? Dinesh?( My brain has nearly dissolved) is talking...in a way that I often can't even follow. What I DO understand, though, is the fact, that he's talking a lot without giving an actual answer- just as Alex says about the bible 😂😂😂

The bible is a fairytale, disavow falsehood and come to the one true religion, Islam!

@@Ammar88ist Islam ☪️ is an even bigger fairytale. It’s merely Christianity 2.0.

needs to let his opponent answer the questions though- rather than assuming he's already right, and carrying on to his next point.

​@@mikev4621 Indeed. Alex could hold back just a bit. One of the things that made Hitch so appealing was that he knew how to be patient and while he was being patient you could see sometimes in his face that he had a reply and was simply waiting.

@@Amanita._.Verosa._. And he had that right from the start of his career.I like Alex though

Alex was right. The god bible started with 1 person, into 1 family, into 1 race, into 1 nation, into everyone else. And it is okay. Because anyone could join the tribe by accepting the allegiance to yahweh. And, to become a chosen people was much more burdensome than not. So it was a privilege, but also a burden. Not the other way around.

@@mikev4621 Alex is 25. When he will be 40, he will have the maturity of the people he's being compared to and will be an absolute legend.

I didnt watch but a few minutes. Neither one is interested in knowledge, just in being right. That's why I rarely watch debates. It's not an efficient way to learn.

​@@langreeves6419Imagine thinking that 'being right' is not essential to discovering knowledge. What wild JordanPetersonian drivel.

Yeah.. Ganesh will do that to any sane person

@@langreeves6419 Whilst they are having a debate, i dont think its reasonable to then conclude that neither is interested in learning. And sometimes being right is motivation to learning and is often the basis for a lot of scientists. I would actually argue that Alex is. I havent watched enough of the other guy, but the little i have seen would indicate otherwise.

When he used the “Christians abolished slavery” argument I’d have probably lost it tbh. So many issues with that claim.

I'm sure that all the money flowing in from the credulous masses helps him cope too.

It’s not just this debate. His entire body of work is this bad. He’s a grifter who wouldn’t know truth or moral decency if it bit him.

The way D’Souza keeps on coming back for more is impressive I guess but also embarrassing. He got into a Twitter exchange about Southern American political history with an actual historian a few years ago that was an intellectual massacre, but he just kept on going for weeks as if utterly unaware how outclassed he was.

He’s not even a good grifter

"his own utter lack of self-awareness" Are you really that stupid? He know exactly what he is doing, he know he is a liar exploiting faith to get easy money.

@riff... YOU can't guarantee anything. Put a sock in it.

@@nickgoldring1446 no, I can

He’s a grifter only doing it for the money and fame

@@riffhammeron You must have voted for Obama's third term. Ends November 5th.

@@nickgoldring1446 What does that have to do with D'Souza getting his ass embarrassingly kicked?

Atheist citing something someone never said, no wonder you never have enough evidence. "basically".

@CJFCarlsson LOL enough evidence for what, to not believe in your specific flying spaghetti monster? Might want to check your burden of proof.

@@a.p.2019 It makes a lot of sense that a person who is made of pasta thinks lols is an argument. No. I am not going to tell you you can do better than that. There is NO burden of proof in telling you not to lie, soil yourselves, murder and steal.

@@CJFCarlsson Idrc about this argument as I'm just watching it to learn how to debate better but i dont think atheists or who your arguing against disagrees with not murdering, and you might not see it this way but others could you view this as saying atheists (or agnostics) have no moral system which is utterly dehumanising no matter what beliefs you have

@@ducksdog9996 Sounds like you believe persons without morals or who have deficient morals are in some way not human, by your use of the word "dehumanising". It is a point. It would make it a lot harder for them to live in civilised society, as proven by psychopats as individual cases or by communists when it comes to how to run a whole society without morals. There is lots of deflection going on here. They are very human. It is as natural to lie as it is to be truthful, as natural to pretend as it is to be genuine.

Did he? I thought they were just grabbing their books.

lol

It was predictable after the immense lack of eye contact, which was very strange to watch.

You're reading Dinesh "rejecting a handshake" into both of them awkwardly leaning over to pick up some stuff. Persecution complex.

@@bevgroves8062 Right? Dinesh kept trying to work the audience and looked away from the person he was supposedly talking to. He looked scared or embarassed, he knew he was getting destroyed lol.

The atheist guy doesn't believe there is an objective truth. He was asked by Suboor Ahmad of r*pe was objectively wrong. These are not debates, but gotcha soundbites. So aaking him if he believes that the victims of the h-man of Germany who are probably his new sponsors, does he believe that there is truth and justice for them or if they are particle, stardust with the h-man? That soundbite would've sealed it. Also he uses western current taboos as a benchmark for morality without without establishing it to be truth. But how could he, since there is no truth to him ever.

If everyone became atheist vs if everyone rejected atheism, won't the matter become the same from the perspective of the atheist once you become equal in non-existence with whoemever you quarreled with anyway? Thus truth was nkt the objective, as it never exusted. Rather it was out restlessness from the nihilism of atheusm, or to be a menace, or preserving a desire, an addiction etc. Atheists are polytheists. They believe atoms and gravity are the creators of this world.

According to the Baal cycle Yahweh's name was changed to Yam. And Yam is the brother of Baal. Yam means sea and could've been the fourth son of Noah عليه السلام who drowned as a disbeliever. His name was Yam. So they probably called the sea after him. Even the bible makes Yahweh inferior to El as you'll see the quote from Norman Cohn. El or il just means God. Just like we say God in english today, then when we speak in english with you, and we say: God created the world. We mean Allah. Likewise the early Muslims understood El or Il to mean God and thus Allah. Important note. Just as christians say God has a son, then likewise the ancients said that El or il (God) had offspring. They made angels or jinn as the offspring of God before christianity did it with a man. After the romans were overwhelmed by christianity, then they replaced that old paganism of ascribing angels or jinn as offspring to God with a man (Jesus عليه السلام). The arabs left Ishmael's عليه السلام religion but preserved some forms of it like circumcision and Hajj, but mixed it with paganism that they got from Syria, from the Amalekites whom a man named 'Amr bin Luhay al-Khuza'i brought with him. And those pagans believed that the angels were the offspring of Allah ﷻ to be worshipped, seeking intercession with them in order to get rain. That was the religion of the old pagans. They sought rain, had some of Noah's عليه السلام religion left in them, but innovated angelic worship (Syria, Mesopotamia) or ancestral worship (Egypt). All of that was beautified for them by the jinn. The jinn are the gods of the pagans. They lived on earth before mankind and despise mankind for replacing them as vicegerents of earth. The race of the devils is not fallen angels, but jinns. Every idol has a female jinniyyah along with it. The point being, just like christians claim God has an offspring, then the claim of the ancients who innovated polytheism into the religion of Adam and Noah عليهما السلام, seeking rain by taking angels as intercessors with God, and then the jinn duping those people into making themselves out to be angels, is what happened. Thus it will be hard for people to understand how the Children of Israel who deviated immediately after Solomon عليه السلام and adopted the gods of their neighbours until Allah ﷻ sent Assyrians, then Babylonians upon them. Then they got a second chance and the son of Mary عليه السلام was sent as an example for them, but they denied, so Allah ﷻ saved and raised him, and from their denial christianity emerged, and because of that it was the romans turn to deal with them. Then the offspring of Harun (Aaron) عليه السلام sought refuge from that persecution, read their books for hope and sought the final Prophet ﷺ to defeat the pagans with him. And that is how and why they ended up in Madinah. Banu Nadhir and Banu Quraizah who lived in Madinah with the Prophet ﷺ are the offspring of Harun (Aaron). Allah ﷻ made sure that the most learned of Bani Israa'il met His final Prophet ﷺ. They always threatened their Arab neighbours with: "Soon a Prophet will be sent, and we will end you with him like 'Aad and 'Iraam (ancient Arab tribes) were dealt with." So the Arabs of Madinah (Al-Ansaar - the Helpers) said: "This is the one whom they were threatening us with, so let us follow him before them." And thus while the Prophet ﷺ was being persecuted by his people (the Quraish of Makkah), he sought refuge with all the tribes who came for Hajj, none of them accepted him except those who lived in Madinah with the jews because of their knowledge about him due to the jews who were threatening them with his emergence. And thus Allah's ﷻ Perfect Decree, that the abode of Hijrah (emigration) became Madinah at the same time as the Da'wah is shifting from inviting pagans who denied the Afterlife and Resurrection, to the Ahlul Kitaab (people of the book - jews and christians) in order to establish the Hujjah (proof) against the Bani Israa'il, that Nubuwwah (Prophethood) has ended for them and is now with the other line of Abraham's عليه السلام offspring. They denied the Prophet ﷺ and warred against him, even brought the pagans of Arabia against him similar to how they are gathering you (Nato) against us today, until the Muslims had to dig trenches lest the huge army spoils Madinah. They were defeated, and the very prophecy and victory that they sought with the Prophet ﷺ against their enemies was instead given to the Muslims. In less than 30 years, the Muslims conquered the east and the west. And thus the jews still await that victory that they never received, hence why they say that their messiah is not coming for spiritual reasons, but for political reasons. But since there is no Prophet after Muhammad ﷺ, they seek it with the Dajjal (one eye false messiah). And they have prepared the way for his coming through hollywood with superhumans and the one eye symbols. His emergence is near. No one will be able to believe in Islam when he appears due to the huge Fitnah (trial) and supernatural doubts that he will come with. Whatever is holding you back from Islam today, are small potatoes in comparison to his Fitan (trials). They always inclined to shirk (polytheism), the calf, adopted their neighbours ways and ended up with this Yahweh. Even the name Israel is evidence that El, meaning God - Allah ﷻ is the God. Yahweh is a jinn. 'Ikrimah رحمه الله said: جَبْرَ، وَمِيكَ، وَسَرَافِ عَبْدٌ. إِيلْ اللَّهُ. "Each of the words: Jabra, and Mika, Saraaf means slave, and (the word) Il (El) means Allah."[¹] [Sahih al-Bukhari » Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an » The Header of the Chapter (6) "Whoever is an enemy to Jibril (Gabriel)..." (V.2:97)] ______ [¹] Thus Jibreel (Gabriel), Mika'eel (Michael), and Israfeel (Sarafil) each means Allah's slave. Johannes C. De Moor says: "Who is this god Yw who would take over Baal's mountain with help of his father El? _In my opinion, he is none other than YHWH._ Formerly, I rejected this identification, like most of my esteemed colleagues. _But in view of a number of new data I have revised my opinion on this issue..."_ [Congress Volume, Paris 1992: by John Adney Emerton p. 220] Norman Cohn mentions how scholars suspected that the Ugaritic Yaw might be the prototype for Yahweh: "It is becoming ever more difficult to say with any confidence when, where and how the Israelites first came to know the god Yahweh. It may be that, as Exodus says, he was originally a Midianite god, introduced into the land of Canaan by immigrants from Egypt; or he may have started as a minor member of the Canaanite pantheon... _Originally El was the supreme god for Israelites as he had always been for Canaanites._ Even if one discounts the pronouncement of El in the Baal cycle: _'The name of my son is Yaw'_ - the import of which is still being debated - one cannot ignore a passage in the Bible which shows Yahweh as subordinate to El. Deuteronomy 32:8 tells how when El Elyon, i.e., El the Most High, parcelled out the nations between his sons, Yahweh received Israel as his portion." [p.131-132. "Yahweh and the Jerusalem Monarchy." Norman Cohn. Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come, The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith. New Haven and London. Yale University Press. 1993]

Allah سبحانه وتعالى said, وَجَعَلُوا بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ الْجِنَّةِ نَسَبًا ۚ وَلَقَدْ عَلِمَتِ الْجِنَّةُ إِنَّهُمْ لَمُحْضَرُونَ And they have invented a kinship (pantheon of offspring) between Him and the jinn, but the jinn know well that they have indeed to appear (before Him) (i.e. they will be called to account). سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ Glorified be Allah! (He is free) from what (falsehood) they attribute unto Him! [As-Saffaat 37:158-159] وَجَعَلُوا لِلَّهِ شُرَكَاءَ الْجِنَّ وَخَلَقَهُمْ ۖ وَخَرَقُوا لَهُ بَنِينَ وَبَنَاتٍ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ And they make the jinn as partners in worship with Allah, though He has created them (the jinn); and they attribute falsely without knowledge sons and daughters to Him. Be He Glorified and Exalted above all that (falsehood) they attribute to Him. بَدِيعُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۖ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ تَكُن لَّهُ صَاحِبَةٌ ۖ وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ ۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have children when He has no wife? He created all things and He is the All-Knower of everything. [Al-An'aam 6:100-101] That is why Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was sent with the Qur'an. The jews deviated and became magicians due to their greed for this life, even seeking immortality. And in their magic religion and its offshoots (western secret soceity sects) they worship the jinn believing them to be angels. An example of that is the magician and kaahin (oracle) of Elizabeth the first. John Dee sought the formula of gold for her by way of alchemy and invoked (worshipped) "angels" when some jinn devils answered him and gave him a new script that he calls angelic script. Those jinn told him and his friend Edward Kelley to switch wives i.e. commit adultery, and that only then will they get the formula from them. The wives told them that these were devils and not angels that they were communicating with. But they didn't listen. Once they did the act, the jinn left and betrayed them. And their lives were ruined after that. Thus to make you catch up and understand what the matter is really about, our 'Aqidah (Creed) is Surah Al-Ikhlaas, the 112th Surah of the Qur'an. That Allah ﷻ is One, has no equal, begets not, nor was Allah ﷻ begotten. And also Ayat Al-Kursi 255th Ayah of Surah Al-Baqarah, that the angels cannot intercede for anyone without Allah's ﷻ permission. To not take angels, Prophets, saints as lords to be invoked, but to be a Pure Monotheist and to not say that you will turn to dust and vanish into non-existence. The christian calls you to ascribe offspring and partners to God while the atheist calls you to despair and believe that you'll vanish into non-existence with whomever you quarreled with, thus making this life and world existing with falsehood, injustice, vain and indifference. Truth never existed to them, and thus they were just being restless menace when it didn't matter if anyone was an atheist once they become equal in non-existence with whoever agreed or disagreed with them. And that could happen at anytime, so why waste your few moments of existence trying to convince others of falsehood when truth never existed to you? Preserving lusts, desires, addictions is the reason.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

The French abolished s lavery in 1848. The British outlawed it in 1807.

Actually the haitian revolution was what started the end of slavery. They freed themselves in 1804

@@addmin5487 Haiti freed themselves in 1804, and then a year later in 1805 they invaded the Dominican Republic, conquered it, and took many of the POW's back to Haiti as s laves...That's not starting the end of s lavery.

@@ChrisR395 can you pls link me information about this. I can't find it on the internet and i'd like to find out more.

@@addmin5487 This site doesn't allow links to be posted, they get deleted. Just look up '1805 Haiti inv*sion Dominican Republic' (without the *, of course)

Alex is growing, but 5 years ago he could handle this situation with ease aswell.

@@dirkmorasYeah, that’s what I was thinking. Alex is young, but he’s been annihilating this kind of stuff for years.

Dsouzas such a well practiced old fraud.

thats what she said

It feels like the good intellectuals always seem to come out AFTER the grifters and snakes already poisoned the well. I've been seeing an uptick in more centered critical thinking intellectuals.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RHSl_3-aLPI.html

Why would he even have to come down to correct his father's mistakes if his father truly was perfect to begin with?? If the older gospels aren't reliable, then neither are the new ones, simple as that. Also, the newer gospels weren't written until decades after Jesus had left. Not a single eyewitness account of his resurrection to date.

@@Forrest1989this is a great point. The New Testament is a complete contradiction to the old

@@Forrest1989 Jesus was an OG Teacher who developed and improved upon the Theology of the Old Testament.

@@johnimusic12 he had nothing to do with the old testament, because Yahweh was derived from the storm god Enlil. Yeshua was a wandering monk who studied in Egypt. He had no connections with Yahweh.

brilliant

You have chosen well!

I follow DarkMatter2525.

I guarantee you he’s less reliable and far less good than the fictional or non fictional God of the Bible.. JR Tolkien couldn’t craft a better finished product.. your tribe doesn’t even have a book that could convert 50,000 people into it.. Christianity is the largest religion in the world.. have we won yet? By many metrics? Even Dawkins prefers Christianity..

Cringe

Why is faith necessary if humans are perfect?

We're at the point where we need apologists for apologists

Dinesh has always been dmbr than a stump. He just appeals to people even dmbr.

Leviticus 24:44-46: Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellows ruthlessly.

Ganesh D’ Sousaphone (childish I know) is such a pseudo-intellectual. Kant & Hegel, you poseur. Felon and fascist enabler. Fie ! Feh !

When he's not telling lies about a magic diety he's telling lies for his tangerine diety his film 2000jackasses was pulled by its distributor for lies 🤡

@BluuuudSo you would agree that the Bible is not applicable to the modern world, then?

He certainly doesn’t love nonbelievers nor gay people.

Contradictions not contradicting is a divine trait apparently

He certainly favoured one son over others to the determinant of Able and Joseph. Doesn’t sound like God stands for equality .

God doesn’t love everyone equally, there’s literally a verse of God saying He hates someone. It’s just a poor reading of the Bible.

Yes, but he loves the Israelites more equally.

Yeah it was always brute force with Hitchens, just overwhelming his opponents with rhetoric and rationale. Alex is more of a surgical striker. It's interesting to watch. Unfortunately for Dinesh, he is an intelligent person, but every debate he has ever been in has him on the defensive and on his heels. It's hard to come out on top being on the defensive.

I agree. Alex speaks really well but can you imagine if he could speak like Christopher? Alex's intellect and knowledge of religion but with Christopher's rhetoric

😂😂😂😂😂

😂😂😂😂

I avoided this because of the way denesh bull doses ,bull chits and babbles . But Alex did a rather good job ,it is sad this grifter has got away with this for so long .

@@odinallfarther6038 It's true. I feel like he diminished in popularity since the pandemic, but he was fairly prominent during Trump's presidency. I forgot how annoying he was, massive grifter indeed.

@@kingsanom1 He was treated as a "respectable" conservative commenter in the media back in the 90s and early 2000s, but when Obama got elected he seemed intent on building up a profitable following among the dumber portions of American conservatism with the whole "o no Obama is a racist black man and socialist who will ruin America" stuff, and since that hurt what credibility he had, he decided to double down defending the good name of Trump, etc.

He was basically answering the questions without even understanding the whole question. Just an illiterate tryna be intellectual

That's what Dinesh does in any debate or discussion format he finds himself in. Genuinely pathetic grifter.

To be fair, when has Dinesh D'souza not embarrassed himself?

Always has , always does , always will.

@@Razoredge581 How is a grifter? What do you even mean when you use this word? Genuinely confused

Well, then you need to rewatch Dinesh v Hitchens debates 😉 but I understand the sentiment

As @generic1337gamer says, you don't have to look hard. I was expecting him to be destroyed as he goes well over his level in debate. Dinesh v Hitchen Dinesh v Dillahunty Dinesh v Anyone who's not extreme ideologue. But what's interesting is the following debaters use very different styles to achieve the same result. Hitchen's charisma is a hard force to handle. Live a lot of RU-vid debators Dinesh wins arguments against ill prepared, poorly experienced young students in controlled environments. He is well practised and practise and preparedness can often win over substance.

@bojackharkness, He was also exposed as an adulterer. Nothing unlawful, just a Christian tradition: "Jesus forgives, on beforehand" 🙂

I like the term "excusigist" as coined by Mr. Deity.

Excusegist

Exactly! Listening to him gives me a head ache.

Indeed, they are deplorable.

They’re trying! 😅

The funny part about that is God doesn't consider any human being "good" We're all filthy sinners who deserve punishment apparently

​@@crazyprayingmantis5596 come one the dude sent his son ... 😂😂

​@@steefvanburen7985 His son clearly loves us so much that he let millions of children starving to death in Africa 🥰

This guy destroyed himself. Alex didn't have to do much.

Dinesh is the weakest marinara sauce there is. Alex's strength here is how politely he disassembled him. So as to not make his perspective look bad.

​@@darren.mcauliffe Still his merit, don't shit on other's work

@@gabrielamaral978 I didn’t say he didn’t do anything, just that it was made easy for him.

@@darren.mcauliffe yeah, but you attributed more demerit from the guy than merit from Alex

Amen! I wouldn't want someone like Dinesh anywhere near a classroom ful of kids!

Ive heard many Christians tell me I shouldn't read it at all and instead should have an priest explain it to me.

Christians can't agree on the meaning of the Bible, even among their co-religionists. If the only basis for Biblicsl "truth" was "A Christian says its true", then that's just opened the door to an endless morass of arguments that Christians can't settle about the many many Bible versions. Plus a whole lot of other arguments besides that!

Is this Dinesh guy Christian?

@@mokshit7620yep, an Indian American Christian.

@@dantex8983 intresting because his first name "Dinesh" is a sanskrit name meaning "Lord of the day or the sun God in hinduism". Quite blasphemous for a Christian and is pagan too.

The gentle eviscerator is my new band name.

Da book make da sounds me like hear, good to me ear

Not really. If I want to understand a language, then I'd try to understand from people who already spoke it

@Luckyland2014 not the same. You don't understand something from folks who already are invested in it being true or useful

A "Christian book" that originated in the Middle East, originally written in Hebrew and Greek, that favors one specific ethnic group (Israelites) who are Jews, not christian🙄🙄 #MakeItMakeSense

No, Paul in the Holy Bible once said man can only comprehend the things of God through the spirit of God. For example, God's NOT fine with the oppression of anyone, contrary to what Alex asserted, but God allows those who insist upon the natural consequences of their actions and choices. God allows this against his repeated commandments and warnings, and his sending his Son Jesus to save the world from mistakes when they repent.

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them." -Jesus, apparently

Amen. Dinesh has mixed water with wine and pours out weakness.

I know Alex really likes to strawman.

​@@xymos7807can you provide any examples? 😊

To be fair Dinesh is a grifter, not a theist. He's too lazy and inept to get a real job, kinda like Peterson. His siblings are probably neuroscientists.

@@robweis9Ah of course questioning a theists sincerity that’s not a tired cliche from atheists.

​@@justchilling704 Oh, you sweet summer child. Go read the guy's wikipedia page and some of his trash. I dare you to not get to the conclussion that he's a dishonest failure of a human being. I honestly dare you. 20$.

@@justchilling704 You don't wanna go there, trust me. One of the most common tropes amongst theists is saying that atheists know God exists but they just wanna keep sinning, or that there's plenty of evidence for God but the atheist's heart is unwilling to accept them. Theists do that way more than atheists.

​@@robweis9Just partly right and quite hasty. Before becoming famous, Peterson was (still is too) a very knowlegeable pyschologist and university professor. Definitely real occupations. He's a an expert in those matters, but is an absolute buffoon when it comes to theist apologetics.

Yes. Because since the beginning there was one law that a bit difficult to omit. Love thy neighbor as yourself. Even if you own a slaves, and then treated them with love. It was actually come out quite okay. 🙏

​@@Jocky8807huh?????😂

Well, Christians don't own God, any more than any other religions do. The Christian ideas of God made some improvements over the ideas about God in the Old Testament, or in the surrounding area. Our concepts of who and what God is, continue to grow and develop, despite what a "holy scripture" may say. Now we have a new text that provides a boatload of additional information about God, in Part I of The Urantia Book.

@@maximus3159don’t try. They’re brain dead.

A slave isnt your neighbour. Theyre your slave. ​@@Jocky8807

That old man is too arrogant and condescending to maintain eye contact with his opponent. He just wants to belittle Alex and buy over the audience by replying directly to them. It is very similar to how Amber Heard kept looking at the jury when answering the attorneys' questions.

I think that's because of being raised by indian customs where it's considered rude to have eye contact with someone else for prolonged periods of time.

In the full debate, he goes further, and delivers his opening statement (after Alex's) standing, facing the audience. The curious explanation he offers for this is that Alex's British accent somehow gives him an inbuilt advantage in the discussion, which he appears to think can be overcome or mitigated by wandering around the stage and gesticulating. This is "preacher mode" presentation, not one suited to a one-on-one discussion. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UMKkX8qRHsw.html 23:08

Yes I noticed that too. Does seem to indicate simmering

@@tiarabite He manifests no such reticence in his debate with Matt Dillahunty: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mEM1AhlH9eI.html What *might* in an odd way be related to his Indian upbringing is that he feels intimidated by Alex's British accent, something he says more or less straight out at the start of his opening speech in the full debate: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UMKkX8qRHsw.html 23:08

Leviticus 19:34 > The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. Exodus 22:21 > Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. Deuteronomy 10:19 > And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt. Leviticus 23:22 > When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 24:17-18 > Do not deprive the foreigner or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this. Deuteronomy 24:19 > When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

@@ts8960so then how do you reconcile these passages with the passages explicitly endorsing slavery? I’d really like to know. As from what I’ve read it seems as though this is just mentioning sojourners in your land, and is not talking about slavery in the slightest. When discussing slavery it specifically mentions “from the heathen around you” and other such statements, clearly condoning the taking of slaves after war/conflict

​@spidermonkey7280 There are no passages that explicitly endorse slavery man unless one reads Roman Empire era slavery or the triangular slavery back into the OT where they don't exist.

@@signposts6189 then what are your thoughts on Exodus 21? How does that not explicitly endorse slavery? It provides rules for it ffs

@@spidermonkey7280 It doesn't. Exodus 21 provides rules for contracted/covenanted servants, not slaves.

Marcion, an admirer, and perhaps a disciple of Saint Paul, said just that - the god of the New Testament is most certainly not the god of the Old Testament. The more Christians cling onto this monotheism belief, the more they will get embarrassed by the likes of Alex.

I've never seen Alex perk up like that. Like a hungry little spider with a wiggling web.

​@@pmaitrasm "Paul" was a pseudonym and character based on the concept of a Roman censor. It was one of several fictions created by the Alexandrian satirist--also sometimes called by his other fiction alias "Josephus--who masterminded the gospel campaign, organized the rewriting of Jewish history, and banned Jews from discussing their own constitutional narratives in any way not authorized by Rome. "Jesus" is a literary puppet in whose mouth is put the words of not only "Josephus" but Titus as well, the gospels satirizing his war campaign in Judea.

@@booksquid856, Yes, Josephus Flavius is Joseph bar Mathea who is Joseph of Aramathea. Titus Flavius Vespasianus is the Father (about to become God) and his son Titus Cæsar Vespasianus is the Son of Man (about to become Son of God).

Classic good cop, bad cop routine

Where does the story tell you it's morally righteous to murder and how to do it?

​@@signposts6189The OLD testament is full of this, have you read it?

@@kareemnj6248 I have read the OT. But you didn't answer my question. Be specific instead of vaguely talking about how the is allegedly full of this.

@@signposts6189 Deuteronomy 20:16 Deuteronomy 13:6-10 Joshua 6:17 Joshua 6:21 Samuel 15:3 Judges 14:19 Numbers 31:17-18 Psalms 137:9 Samuel 12:13-18 (God allows a baby to be born only to kill it for the fathers simple sin) Leviticus 20:27 Leviticus 21:9 (this one is not a metaphor for gods wrath, an actual punishment that was pursued even by Christians) Deuteronomy 17:12 Deuteronomy 17:2-5 Matthew 10:34 Ezekiel 35:7-9 Be quiet 🤣

@@kareemnj6248 None of these passages tell you it's morally righteous to murder and how to do it. Take 2 Samuel 12:13-18. How does it teach that it is morally righteous to murder and how to do it?

The crazy thing is that after THOUSANDS of years of Christians thinking slavery is great, when they finally do have dissenters- in a time “completely coincidentally conciding with the enlightenment”- they go “THAT WAS THE PLAN THE WHOLE TIME THE TRUTH WAS IN THE BIBLE”… like I’m pretty sure it wasn’t that clear for the past thousand years lmao

Can you show from the Hebrew language that the Bible definitively supports slavery? Bc every atheist that says this sh1t reads the Bible like a fundamentalists, and thinks that idk Dr. Josh Bowen or other clearly hostile scholars are infallible.

You can add "communicating clearly and unambiguously" to the long list of the things their omnigod can't do.

The Good Book is not pro-slavery dude. It never has been. Besides, why do you think slavery is wrong anyway?

@@signposts6189 it absolutely is pro slavery in various scriptures. No amount of denial will ever make that untrue. Slavery is wrong because it’s a cruel and harmful thing to do to another person. If you need the creator of the universe to spell that out for you, then maybe you’re just not a good person.

Sometimes there were ad hominems, but mostly it was the no true scottsman fallacy.

Exactly! ❤👍

According to DD's logic, being gayy is only acceptabIe when old menn are attackinng boys.

That is technically what Christianity is. The New Testament is written about the New Covenant and the Old Testament is written about the Old Covenant. Although that also contradicts Jesus's statement that he didn't come to remove the law but to fulfill the law.

@@epmcgee That's why Christians rather pick the things they like and ignore the others, or don't compare certain parts to not encounter the inconsistencies of this book. There are some good ideas in Christianity, but this damn book in it's totality is now rather a problem for those who want to use it to gain a following or maintain this group. That's why they pick the verses and hand wave away the fact that this book describes their deity as a being we today consider horrendously immoral.

​@@DundGi agree that christians tend to be inconsistent with their Bibllical observances... but i don't see how its just as inconsistent of the anti-thiests who cherrypick the worst parts of the Bible to portary YHWH... while, when you _actually_ read it, their "terrible" God seems to be quite concerned for the welfare of widows, orphans and foreigners...promotes mercy, honesty, fairness and justice... so how does that make YHWH worse than, say, Odin... any other Canannite or Phoenician diety?

When being a non-Christian means loss of property or death, weird that only Christians were building all the bridges... but seriously, Dinesh is only off by at least 2500 years on the whole "lets not keep slaves" idea. His tiny, deceptive worldview is plainly there for all to see.

....and yet today, Gregor Mendel is still the father of genetics while Darwin failed in his ideas of genetic inheritance. ​@ButConsiderThis

​@@1969cmpHow did Darwin fail in his ideas of genetic inheritance?

@@DaviLacerda-d9v He believed in unlimited change. However, Mendel understood that changes are limited within 'kinds' or particular groups. For example, dogs will always remain as dogs.

@@1969cmpIsn't that the point? Mendel being religious doesn't change the science. His faith may have influenced his work, but not his findings.

I think deconstructing the flaws inherent in theology is great, but actually disregarding the merits of monotheistic ethnics as a whole is quite braindead since many of these values still influenced the overall zeitgeist.

@@IbnRushd-mv3fpI don't need a deity to behave 🤡

Jesus slaves!

We're all slaves to something Id rather it be to a God then whatever the world has to offer

@@t2nexx561 nah, that’s just your slave mentality being projected on everyone else because you can’t imagine otherwise

On point. Maybe it's because this "god" fella doesn't exist after all? lmao

Amazing analogy!

Love this analogy, simple to understand

I think this is an interesting analogy, but it oversimplifies the situation a little too much. For example, it isn't secular thinking (in the analogy, her friends from kindergarten) that leads to the questioning of slavery. Slavery is not in line with most of the Bible's moral teaching, and those who called for the abolition of slavery were predominantly Christian (William Wilberforce, John Newton). So it's not like we're "suddenly told that it was wrong all along". The main point of the analogy still stands, though. I don't know how to reconcile the condonement of slavery in the OT with the other Biblical moral teaching that would reject it.

@@benjoshuayip2520 Would a better analogy be if the father kept cooking super healthy food for the daughter but at the same time telling her that eating sweets is absolutely okay and she can eat as much as she wants?

Wow, what a good quote. I really ought to read that book, now I'm interested.

Didn't expect to see Benatar

Oh as long as he can portrait himself as a winner after, and get paid to debate and the flock throws money at him, he can make himself a clown, he doesn't nor need to care.

Dogmatists never learn. That’s what makes them dogmatists.

He's an ex-con desperate for relevancy.

He gets paid to further his right wing religious theocracy, go figure

Socrates would be proud with his way of debating.

@@MinosML You mean he is good at interrupting

​@@smackyay they had 5 mins, when someone isn't engaging with what you're saying and not responding to your point I think interruption is a nice touch 👍

@@spiralsausage In that case let the guy waffle on, and the viewers will work out who's right.

@@spiralsausage Sure in a conversation you use interruption all the time. But Alex is not only interrupting throughout the clip whenever Dinesh is talking, he is also overloading the conversations with Dinesh with questions - and then he is interrupting him. You should watch the video again. It is very obvious. That is a particular nasty debate tactic very similar to a "gish gallop" and seems like Alex is trying to just "win the debate" rather than have a fruitful conversation. I know Alex is capable of having a normal debate with people he disagrees with strongly, e.g. Ben Shapiro, so I am going to accuse him of purposefully doing dumb shit for the views here. Also.. I don't support Dinesh in any way.

well put

Isn't that just most Theists though? 🤷

He did. "Let my people go..." (Exodus 5:1).😉

@@signposts6189 Err .. not Jesus, and God wasn't bothered about slavery, only the maltreatment of "His people," except it's not historical. It never happened.

@@RustyWalker And where does He tell His people to enslave the Egyptians like they enslaved them for four hundred years if what He cared about was only the maltreatment of His people?‭ Never mind the fact that the almighty told His people in Deuteronomy 23:7 (NLT‬) the following about how to treat those brutal enslaving Egyptians;👇👇👇 “DO NOT DETEST the Edomites or THE EGYPTIANS, because the Edomites are your relatives and YOU LIVED AS FOREIGNERS AMONG THE EGYPTIANS."

​@@RustyWalker because he formed a covenant with them.

@@Hoe-numan5 File under "Fiction"

a couple of dozen, tops

I thought it was in 1929. What year was this ban articulated and where?

*"Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you-although if you can gain your freedom, do so."* - Saint Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. It is not an outright condemnation, I agree, but it wishes for slaves to be free.

Exodus 21:16 "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

@@Bornstella "Stealing" would be the unlawful taking of someone, not saying anything about the lawful taking of someone.

@@pmaitrasm Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

​@@pmaitrasmBy that logic, the below sentence from the same passage means Paul wished marriage were abolished: "Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife."

Yes, I agree. IT is post facto rationalization. Most prophesies also come true because they were written after the fact.

@Bluuuud, Atheists never claim their propositions are the word of god. So yes, they are man made.

The system was necessary in the ANE given that they were going to take land and prisons didn't exist it's preposterous to say they attempted to retroactively justify that no one would have seen it as something wrong this is an ignorant analysis.

@@autisticphaglosophy7128 how do you know there were no prisons?

@@mikev4621 Read any book on ancient Bedouin civilizations it simply wasn't a thing even when they did start becoming a thing they were simply holding places for death or slavery.

I think he improves on Hitchens, Alex listens carefully and tends to prefer the socratic and gentle way of making his opponents fall by making them paint themselves into a corner. Sometimes Alex can’t stand bullshit though and goes into beast mode 😂. Hitchens arguments were actually not very solid and he relied a bit too much on his accent and ways with words. If you look at the Craig vs Hitchens debate it becomes obvious.

​​@@krumbergifyBut Hitchens was charismatic, hilarious, and brutal. It's not just how one makes arguments that makes them beloved. Alex can never be Hitchens

😂😂😂 What his god deems good for the Amalakites is also good for him.

But the almighty never did.😉

​@@signposts6189colonisers gave us this book. I know it's hard to come to terms with the true horrific nature of it and there's no need to give up belief in a God altogether - but to keep defending Exodus like you do is just utter denial at this point

@@spiralsausage There's nothing for me to come terms with the Good Book. It's fairly straightforward. It tells the human story warts and all quite well. The human condition is still no different today. But what are you all apoplectic about with the fascinating book of Exodus?

As per usual with reIigion, instructions uncIear. Switched godds.

@@signposts6189 Deuteronomy 20:10-16 sums it up perfectly. "10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. 16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes." Lies, slavery and genocide are hard-baked into the Judaic/Zionist ideology. And it is noteworthy that _their_ 'Charter' predates the Hamas Charter by more than a thousand years.

Cos its true. The current view of race is fundamentally different now to back then. Racially israelites weren't really distinguishable from other Middle eastern people's. The context of the conversation was about how other local tribes were viewed. Our racial constructs of white, Black, Middle Eastern etc are inventions of the 1900s

i mean modern as in post-age of exploration, sure. racism as we understand it in modern contexts is only about 600ish years old. by some interpretations that can be modern, compared against the larger scale of human civilization (about 12000 years)

​@@alexfahnestalk7469He knew exactly what alex meant. And the point was to mean someone who's not part of your group, be it race, tribe, clan or whatever. Dinesh just dishonestly wanted to deflect the point.

@@alexfahnestalk7469understood racism in terms of our modern conception, of course not, but neither would people 100 years ago, or 10 for that matter, have the context of the concept today. But I think that's entirely besides the point. At any point, just by our nature alone, have humans distrusted and discriminated against "the other". This applies doubly so to people of different race/ ethnicity.

​@alexfahnestalk7469 Tell that to the ancient Indians. In India, the class system there is so entrenched and discriminate, one might call it racism. In fact, one of the many ways you can tell the classes apart is by how dark their skin is. The darker the skin, the lower class you are and so the lower your social standing is.

I mean it’s pretty clear to me, he’s trying to sell that he’s the victim here, and he refuses to make eye contact because he’s a coward

He thinks of winning the people by faith in Christ. Martyrdom, if I may call it that. Alex, just need simple reasonings and demands them from the dumbass.

Honestly, that's a respectable point. It doesn't go far, but it works where it works

It was started by Muslims.

It's very similar to what they do for their God. God gets credit for anything good that happens but suffering, evil and tragedy are all supposedly caused by sin or the devil. God creates hell and decides who goes there and then is supposed to be given credit for offering "salvation" from the thing he's threatening to do to us.

The trans-Atlantic slave masters did not use the Biblical laws, such as setting the slaves free on the 7th year, so it wasn't Biblical slavery. Another thing hidden from media is that the slaves were criminals, they deserved hard labour.

It would look good on Dr. James Whites' resume to debate Alex, but not vice versa - (echoes of Prof Dawkins)

It would be really interesting yeah, if I’m not mistaken James is a Calvinist and Alex is a determinist, which creates some interesting common ground and also wildly different beliefs about God

Alex is sort of an atheist/agnostic Calvinist. Insane how much he has in common with James White

@@jacobbowers7137 Best person to answer that is Alex himself......................

Fair comment.

You might be right, but this mean that the Christianity of the Church is actually a masked cult of Jahweh or Yehova. They hacked the true meaning of Christ's message and they turned into a cult in which there is GOD and SINNER, HEAVEN and HELL, DAMNATION and SALVATION. Plus, religions, especially Abrahamic ones, completely ignore modern science discoveries and modern society. People should live and think exactly according to their principles and especially to their dogmas. I am no longer religious. It's been years since I have last prayed. But I do ask myself many questions.

You can make up bs but a text which says do slavery this way could only be corrigible if someone would say yep this shits bad

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.