Is the Bible TRUE? | Alex O'Connor vs. Dinesh D'Souza | Debate Teacher Reacts

Hey friends, got an explosive debate for you. It's Atheist vs. Christian -- Alex O'Connor (i.e. Cosmic Skeptic) vs. Dinesh D'Souza. They go to toe-to-toe on whether or not the Bible is true. Who bested the other in terms of argument and skill? Let's find out!

[malgrosskreuz]

When Dinesh replied to Alex with “Who the heck cares?” I was like “Dude that’s the last thing you wanna say in a debate!!”

[Chablar]

Nate you should get in touch with Alex, im sure he'd be up for a conversation.

[Arthetraveler]

Don't know why D'souza was even up for this debate. This isn't his camp he's just a believer. Alex has made a career about being a skeptic and an atheist. It's like a math savant picking a fight with a painter about theoretical math

[maskedwarrior]

I think you missed Alex's point at around the 49:40 minute mark. I don't think Alex ever said or implied that the metaphysical things in the bible are made up. Just that we don't have any supporting evidence.
He also never once implied that there is or isn't a god, nor his arguments come from a point of view where that assumption is made. He's been that careful.

[brucewayne]

I suspect Dinesh did not take Alex seriously.

[lies_worth_believing]

"You can't keep moving the goalposts, especially when you miss" was a great line.

[BackToOrthodoxy]

Dinesh was horrific in this debate. Alex demolished him. I am a believer saying this lol

[michaelsilverstein]

The idea that you could be somehow surprised Alex O'Connor accepts historically mundane facts while questioning miracles is confusing. The scale of the claim indicates the burden of proof required.

[zendaiowl]

I was disappointed at Dinesh inability to answer Alex's questions at face value, it seemed like he wanted to steer the conversation rather than reaching truth. I hope you can give his questions more justice

[freegenerate]

49:35 I don't understand what is false about what Alex said here: "For the Christian it matters when the history gets it wrong, but for the atheist it doesn't matter when the history gets it right". This is obviously true, if they are arguing about the "truth" of the Bible, and there are historically inaccurate details, that is a big blow to the Christian because it makes the narratives unreliable and untrustworthy. The fact that there are mundane historically accurate details does not imply much about the other, more important details that aren't corroborated. You seem to allude to this too when you say that the Bible as we have it would be exactly the same whether God exists or not, implying that the historical details in the Bible are irrelevant. 2000 years from now, it should be completely irrelevant to the question of whether Spiderman exists that the city of New York exists and is described in very accurate detail in the Spiderman comics. If a Spidermanian in 2000 years pulls a D'Souza and filibusters about all the archaeological evidence of New York and the places/events described in the comics to bolster the existence of Spiderman, do you think it would be inappropriate to push back on that the way Alex does here?

[factsfromfiction]

The fact this video doesn’t show the part of the debate that outlines that God ordained genocide is pretty telling.

[MartialNico]

"O'Connor seems to have no problem with the Bible for regular events, but does have issues with miraculous events. That just shows his presuppositions!"

What?! Not only does this not follow, this is exáctly the way you *should* approach any document. I'm sorry, but for a debate teacher, I'd expect some solid logic. You seem concerned only with "winning the debate", rather than using debates as a tool to get to the truth. That's exáctly the problem with apologists, they're not honest in their approach.

[rafaelallenblock]

56:56 oh man how embarrassing: You believe that the 'gotcha' is that an atheist does NOT believe in magic? Are you saying you are wrong for coming at Superman Comics with a presupposition that superheroes are fictional and that is the only reason to disbelieve in a space alien from Krypton living in Gotham City? Good lord, this is so embarrassing.

[chrisgray]

You are wrong to paint Alex as coming at the bible as a strong atheist. He comes at it as open and unbiased as I could imagine possible. More so than I have ever seen from any atheist AND christian

[Spadfa]

It's a bit painful to watch D'souza fumble about trying to deal with questions that he's obviously not equipped to answer. It would have been better for him to admit ignorance and move on, or better yet, let a more qualified person do the apologetic work and stick to political topics.

[AAA-qryy]

Dinesh was never equipped to do Bible apologetics. He has always rejected it’s historicity to this degree. He is not a theologian but a political and cultural commentator. Now you see why that wishy washy view of the Bible doesn’t hold up under logical scrutiny. His defense has always been to throw out the parts he finds difficult rather than have faith and find the real answer.

Dinesh only did better against emotional sophists like hitchens because they never had a strong grasp on logic and philosophy, as atheists are often too bereft of it to see the incoherence of their naturalistic worldview.

Alex knows logic too well to let Dinesh get away with his inconsistent view of the Bible.

[chadgross]

I am glad to see you are doing this one Nate! I was most disappointed with D'Souza's performance.

[cathyharrop]

5:50: Pardon Mr Debate Teacher, Alex came ready to debate the question, starting by wisely asking which kind of truth Dinesh would want to defend, and for which books, as Alex wisely noted that the Bible is a compendium of different genres collected over centuries of writing by different authors with different theological intentions.

Dinesh unwisely didn't study the issue and unwisely seemed to think his ignorance was a defense.

Alex was ready for any truth defense an apologist might employ, to the exclusion of the "It's this kind of truth for verse A when I make this theological point and that kind of truth when I make that theological point." Which you will wisely admit is an invalidation of the apologists whole argument when employed.

[nshore]

As a believer I got second hand embarrassment at D'Souza's performance. He had numerous opportunities to easily press O'Conner and refute his objections yet didn’t take them.

[Bradchacha]

😂😂 Alex's stares make me laugh...That stare means "Take this more seriously friend."
I love Alex and I enjoy how receptive he is during such dialogues.
Thanks Nate for another educative video
Subscribe guys