@@sadderwhiskeymannClips may be the way to go. I watched the whole thing and Dinesh grows increasingly frustrating to listen to. Basically every point of conversation follows roughly the same formula- Dinesh poses a question or brings something up which he feels is important. Alex then points out some contradiction or problem with Dineshs assertion or question. Dinesh tries to hand wave the problem away without explaining how he’s doing it. Alex then hammers him on the point. Dinesh then asks to change the topic and/or complains that Alex is hammering him and says whatever that thing is just isn’t important. That’s tough to listen to even in chunks but watching it play out over and over again just looks ridiculous.
@@sadderwhiskeymann lol yeah that’s a good way to get a comment pulled. And yeah, that’s fair but at points he’s pretty aggressively dismissive of biblical problems. At one point he claims he’s being “cross examined on the [extermination] of the Amalakites”. At another point when confronted with the contradictory birth accounts of Mathew and Luke and asked which one he thinks is true he throws his hands up and exclaims “Who the heck cares??”. His answer to basically every criticism leveled against the Old Testament is that Jesus came and began the process of revelation and that because of this the New Testament abrogates the Old Testament. This is really what Dinesh wants to get to because he seems to view this point as something of a “home base” and that once he gets there all criticisms against the Old Testament are no longer valid. But in order to do that he needs to get passed the problem created by the fact that Jesus himself preached the Old Testament, so if the prophecies and laws of the Old Testament are to be ignored due to revelation, then that actually strips Jesus of his divine mandate, so Dinesh needs to have it both ways to get where he feels he’s in the clear.
Shows how wrong he was. I read the Bible almost twice cover to cover and I used to be an atheist. I am sure he was wrong on quite a lot of other things.
Wow twice for a book you live by? I've read books by Kant dozens of times and his philosophy doesnt govern my whole life. Maybe trying reading it closer. @@HS-zk5nn
I am a Christian, not a fan of dinesh. But Alex is interrupting his points alot. And moving from topic to topic rather fast. I myself (a slow thinker) on dinesh would be difficult to follow. Not necessarily proved Alex or dinesh is correct. Sorry what is main topic before Alex interruption? And switching conversation to "why are distancing urself to yahweh?"
@@Jocky8807the reason for these interruptions is because dinesh is trying to sneak premises in that he thinks Alex won’t catch. That’s why he’s being called out. It’s not like Alex is sitting there and diverting the conversation, he’s making sure that dinesh doesn’t try and sneak anything that he is very clearly trying to sneak through.
@@theonlyjoe_ Oh okk. I am not sure what dinesh sneak into. Also no good. But all interruption are no good. And Alex really fast, I am an English as second language often could not catching up his points..... And make me forgot about the main point discussions. 🙏
I was annoyed that he did not let him answer, though. He did not seem confused by the answer but was about to explain, in his eyes, it is justified. Alex seems to be more focused on "winning" the exchange than actually exchanging
The Bible isn't defendable, so the tactic is to make the discussion about anything else. In this instance, they seem to have elected 'oh he's interrupting.'
@@WhoThisMonkeylong time no see lol. Your statement 'The Bible isn't defendable" assumes your conclusion in the very statement itself, you do know this right? It's called begging the question. It's a logical fallacy. So before I could defend it against your claim, I would need you to present your argument as to why it isn't defendable. Please explain your argument first before we could start the discussion.
@@Wildxgiyu It isn't begging the question. It's a fact, that the Bible is not defendable. The debates been had, and lost, many many many times. I'm not interested in pressing a replay button, I'd much rather actually carry on past that well worn out topic. It isn't a fault of mine that people are still stuck on it, it's a fault of theirs. I have no memory of you by the way, just another ignorant theist in an ocean of ignorant theists, I don't really care if this antagonises or upsets you, I'm apathetic to the feelings of irrational people. They simply cause too much harm to society for me to pander to them. The only option for you to take, is to disregard Christianity for the silly nonsense it is, but you won't, because intellectual honesty isn't a trait you value.
@@WhoThisMonkey You say you'd like to move on to other topics other than about whether the Bible is defendable, but before we go to any other topics, the issue of whether the Bible is defendable or not must first be settled. So please, present your argument. Why is the Bible indefensible? The way you speak reminds me of an angsty child. Not very rational, my dude.
Thank you very much, Alex. It is so wonderfull to listen to a true intellectual guy who is able to find the «spot on» arguments, and who is able to dig right down to what the whole thing is about.
Every time I’ve ever argued with my fundamentalist father about the brutality of the Old Testament he uses the same tactic as Danesh. “Oh, the Old Testament doesn’t matter because Jesus came and made it ok.” It’s nice to see Alex challenge this mentality so succinctly. I can only hope to one day possess such a quick wit and rigorous intellect.
Tell your dad that gawd is the SAME yesterday, today and forever. Therefore (especially if you believe in the trinity) it was jeebus the bloodthirsty maniac of the OT 👹
@@sadderwhiskeymann, Seriously! Either Jesus was always there, and was wholly, not partly, involved in every divine command to enslave, rape, and murder. I also, admittedly, don't know if Jesus ever directly said/addressed all the "Father's" previous acts, claiming they were justified. Jesus, clearly, handled it all differently (minus the table flipping), yet, was there the whole time? I gotta see that character arc, when do those chapters come out?!
@@Iwillreply I can't remember chapter/verses etc but I do remember that jeebus said that he did NOT come to change the law (the OT) but to add to it. And he also said that anyone who change a letter or a dot of the OT will win a ticket to hell 🔥 So...there's that...
To fully acknowledge the atrocities committed by your God, recognize their horror, but still have the cognitive dissonance to convince yourself that he’s good is impressive. Must be peaceful to live so ignorantly and be okay with it.
@@anormal-3d and you should be, but even if the Bible were true and it wasn’t as flawed as it is, that simply means their God is unworthy of being praised. The God of the Bible, especially the OT, is impressively despicable. Vain, conceited, genocidal, petty, the list goes on. As someone who previously dedicated the majority of their life to Christianity, it’s insane how much the believer is willing to overlook under the guise of “his ways are better than mine” and the excuse of historical context.
@@joshuafleckenstein351 man!!true bro. I aslo grew up in a Christian house hold and truly believed in the bible for like14 years! But as I kept growing it was just painfully obvious this GOD'S cruel in the bible And also God loves us yet he sends us to hell and then he feels some kind of grief? What kind of illogical entity does this? And Christians call this "UNCONDITIONAL LOVE",while the bible revolves around conditions. I also recommend you a book called "CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD" very fascinating book I would say.(you would really hope that such a God exists)
_"To argue with a man who has renounced the use & authority of reason, & whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."_ [Thomas Paine]
Stop, O people, that I may give you rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.” (Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra, (Vol. 9, p. 90
@@Egooist. it depends on who your asking,,,,,if your asking islam then the list is big,,,,,,if your asking a brainwashed atheist he will say everything means is nothing and nothing means everything...........
@@riskybiscuits688 tbh the bible makes more sense to me once I learned that the jewish faith was originally polytheistic and was retconned into monotheism, meaning all these stories were originally about different gods, and combining them all into one character just makes him seem schizophrenic.
Alex cut him off when he was trying to explain why he said “Yahweh.” He was saying that there was a movement within the Bible itself….then he was cut off.
Most people don’t even know what that is. Honestly I can’t believe it’s not more popular. It is completely impossible to reconcile the character of the god in the Old Testament with that of Jesus, or at least the character that modern Christians ascribe to Jesus.
@justsomeguy859 It's not more popular because 99% of Christians are completely inconsistent with their logical assessment of their own religion. When ones have tried to actually think through how it COULD work out, eg: Marcionism and Arianism, they get branded as heretics and kicked out of the club. If you were to use a Socratic method on the average Christian to find out what they "really" believe then it would be all over the place and completely out of touch with anything their specific branch may have as dogma.
@@justsomeguy859If only the neoplatonists would’ve won out in the 3rd century I truly believe western culture would’ve progressed hundreds of years faster than happened under the tyranny of Christian hegemony.
@@justsomeguy859 Macrionism/Valentinianism/Sethianism are the only verisons of Christianity I can take serious. Jewish history and the New Testament are irreconsible.
"That's not what Jesus thought." - Alex O'Connor 2024 This is the point Apologists do not want to acknowledge: The God of the Old Teatament & The God of the New Testament are 1 & the same, Begotten not Made, so Yahweh & Jesus are the same God. That makes Yahweh's atrocities Jesus' 'crimes' too. Edited 4 Spelling
Great logic. I hadn't really thought of that. Yahweh = Jesus Thanks (If the non-biblical doctrine of the Trinity is true. The mainstream current understanding of the Trinity was decided by the Church hundreds of years after the last books of the New Testament were written.)
@@fpcoleman57 the son is the one speaking to moses and the prophets he is the angel of the Lord the one wrestling with Jacob and in the burning furnace with the Shadrach Meshach and Abednego "one like the Son of God" Noone sees the Father at any, the only begotton who is in the bosom of the Father has decleared him The trinity is absolutely biblical and all throughout the old testament and on almost every other page in Genesis and Exodus especially
@@Justin-tk1wr You are giving me just conjecture and later theological interpretations. Proves nothing. Personally, I don't accept that Yahweh is Jesus, nor do I accept that the tribal god of the Old Testament is, in fact, the same as the God of the New Testament. The only place where the doctrine of the Trinity could be defended is in John's Gospel which is hardly surprising considering how late it was written. The absence of anything demonstrating this doctrine in the earlier Gospels or in Paul's letters is quite strange if it is so important. Also going to 1 John 5 doesn't help because the words supporting the doctrine of the Trinity are not in the earliest Greek manuscripts and only appeared in the Latin translation of Jerome and then later in the 3rd edition of Erasmus' translation when a Greek translation was produced to support it. Deep down he knew that it was false but, of course, in those days they couldn't forensically examine the paper and the ink. The great reformer, Martin Luther didn't accept it and his German translation didn't contain it until after his death. Unfortunately Tyndale's translation, the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the 1611 Authorised Version which is commonly known as the King James Version are all based on Erasmus' 3rd edition of the Greek New Testament which, itself, in time, became known as the Received Text (or the Textus Receptus). The 1769 version of the KJV, which we are all familiar with perpetuates this translation. Yes, I have studied this subject in some depth.
@@fpcoleman57 Notice how I didnt prove the trinity using the new testament or the gospel of John but went straight to genesis and exodus. If you are genuinely interested in the topic and dont want to just restate your position 20 times, theres a lecture Jay Dyer did recently going over both Genesis and Exodus once again. Its called "The Trinity in the Old Testament Part 1: Genesis & Exodus -Jay Dyer (Half)" starts about 8 minutes in because it was a livestream. God bless.
@@Justin-tk1wr Sorry, not convinced. Your friend Jay Dyer, like all apologists, starts with a belief and then looks for evidence to back it up. It is well known among real Biblical scholars that the early inhabitants of the whole of the "fertile crescent" were polytheists. His inability to accept that the Bible has contradictions is also to be expected. His reading into the text things that aren't there is not what I would expect from an objective scholar. Talking about types of Jesus throughout the Old Testament may convince a midweek Bible study class or a congregation on a Sunday of what they already believe to be true but it won't convince a skeptic. Undue dependence on later interpretations of the extant original text, including using the Septuagint, is not helpful. His throat clearing and constant fidgeting, especially with his glasses is extremely distracting. I also hope that he paid the copyright holder for the use of the James Bond theme music.
Fulfill in this context means to go back to the original purpose as Jesus acknowledges that some of the old laws that were originally meant to protect humans and make them live peacefully together were taken too literally and seriously and lost their actual purpose. As Jesus says that shabbat and law are there for the human and not the human for them
When you're indoctrinated into it, trying to defend it requires hypocrisy, but the fact that he stammers and pauses at times might imply that some of these Q's are getting through. Hopefully, he'll go home and in the process of trying to find a reason to justify these things, he'll eventually realize he just can't and there really is no reason to believe any of this. I remember going through the same process. Arguing it, trying to defend it and eventually realizing you can't and there's no proof that there is a god.
They never defend the book, thay defend their cherry picked reading of it. That's that Hitchens taugh me, and i still think its the fundamental problem with modern religious movements. They know the book does not work as a moral document if you acually read it from front to end, its not moral preaching worthy of modern societys. Its not useless, but not good enough.
Stop, O people, that I may give you rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.” (Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra, (Vol. 9, p. 90
The Good Book is fairly easy to defend. It does work as a moral document. It certainly has better morals than modern societies. And yes, I have read it from cover to cover.
Stop, O people, that I may give you rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.” (Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra, (Vol. 9, p. 90
I don’t understand how religious people can willingly ignore all the horrific and ridiculous things in their holy book and cherry pick only the bits they like and live by them. Its lunacy.
That's exactly what I did when I was a Christian! For example, when I was a believer, I don't remember reading past Exodus 20, Deuteronomy, or Judges. We never studied or heard sermons on the "difficult" passages. It was mostly the Gospels or Paul.
That is my go to verse when talking to any Christian. Its basically saying that you are not following gods laws unless you are following exodus. But Christians have to cherry pick and ignore so much of the bible or else they would be thrown in prison because those laws are barbaric.
If you read the whole chapter you'll see that Jesus was referring to the commands that he gave in that context . The commands Jesus gave are the fulfillment of the law, not the abolishment of it. But this does mean that some commands governing the Jews as a nation no longer applied to Christians as a worldwide religion
@@Will_92”.. abolish the law OR prophets…” Jesus is not talking about commands he just gave. He’s clearly talking about Mosaic law. Otherwise why mention prophets? lol. More coping from Christians.
I bet Dinesh crashed his car on the way home from this debate because he kept trying to win the argument with a card board cut-out of Alex sitting in his passenger seat.... 🤣🤣🤣
Alex catching Dinesh on his sneakily sudden use of "Yahweh" was impressive. He was completely right that it was an attempt to distance "God" from "Yahweh" in a manipulative way.
That would have been the anonymous author of the Gospel according to "John" Not sure that being anonymous equates to being famous, however. Oh, did you actually think that JESUS said that? Oh, you sweet summer child LOL
Thanks for holding this slime ball to account. Dinesh is so annoying and frustrating. You and Hitch have been the best at shutting him down and embarrassing him 👏 cheers to that!
Dinesh is definitely on top for one of the greasiest weasels of all christian appologists. This was so satisfying to watch i find myself going back to it again and again
False Interpretation is the work of the charlatan or the uneducated. Isn't it ironic, that the more thorough the study of the bible, the more the lean towards agnosticism or atheism.
(A)Gnosticism is dealing with the (lack of) knowability of "God(s)" & (a)theism with the (lack of) belief in "God(s)". So the question is: _Are you a(n) (a)gnostic (a)theist?_
The only thing Dinesh was prepared for was his appearance fee. His opening speech was a mess and it was telling that he wanted Alex to go first. He needed something to argue against despite being for the proposition.
I love how you are able to discuss. You are civilized, you don't scream, you don't get angry and you answer arguments sharp and clear instead of just repeating arguments of the Ideology you identify with. I think these are the marks of a real truth seeker. No wonder you discovered mysticism.
But Dinesh, what YOU are missing is the fact that Yahweh is SUMERIAN Storm God... one out of a pantheon of dozens! And he did not choose the Jews; the Jews chose him!
Excellent work here Alex ! I remember the Priest in Catholic School would tell us to respectfully downplay any unsavoury references to bad things "apparently ordered " by God - and simply concentrate on the New Testament ! We were all uncomfortable with this but had Alex been in my class in school - well that would have been interesting !
I honestly don't understand why Alex would want to discuss religion with an expert on politics and why Dinesh would discuss the Bible when her clearly is not an expert on it.
I think Dinesh underestimated Alex. He is over 60 years of age and Alex is still in his early 20s. Alex, though, has a degree from Oxford University in Theology and Dinesh only has a BA in English. Also, just like Christopher Hitchens, Alex has a very sharp mind and can process information quickly. Whereas someone like myself would fumble around even though I know a lot, Alex responds immediately.
There's so much going on in what Alex said. 1st, "I've come to fulfill the prophets not condemn them" was inserted by early Christian fathers to make it appear that the man Christians call Jesus is God. He never, ever referred to himself this way. 2nd, "heaven & earth shall not.... until these words are fulfilled". He was talking about spiritual truths which he was teaching to the Jews. Spiritual truths that will never change because they are embedded in us, the human species. Jesus was a learned scholar & had intuitive & profound spiritual knowledge which he tried to impart to an audience that was ignorant ( lacking knowledge) & could not grasp it. He was trying to convince them that what he said was the truth. Sometimes, what he said is an answer in relation to what someone said or asked before he spoke. Problem is that it was not written down . All we have is Jesus' response which can be quite ambiguous. 3rd, the God of the OT was different from the God of the NT because God is a human construct & as civilization advanced in the Levant, the concept of God evolved. The raging & vitriolic God of the OT sanctioned the land grabs that all the tribes at that time were engaged for one reason or another; whether it was grazing land, water rights, fertile valleys for crops or hills & mountains for mineral mining. This suggests that God is man's alter ego.
@@playerone3018there are a thousand religions made in man's image like the old testament and there are a few that spread the gospel of Jesus like Buddhism for example which are actually preaching truth and love.
I watched that debate, it bounced back and forth between incredibly satisfying and incredibly frustrating, depending on who was talking. As for who, lets just say one of the participants should be really proud of how well he did, and the other is D'Souza
"You're completely missing it" "You don't understand" "There's context" EVERY TIME a theist gets confronted with stuff in their storybook they don't like...
Fantastic. Alex is really articulate and I believe he can take on all the religious figureheads with ease except ISLAM. If Alex reverts to Islam, he would be unstoppable Da’ee😂 - May Allah guide him to Islam
This is the only debate I've ever seen that made me laugh the entire way through. It genuinely felt like a long take from the Office, or an extended SNL sketch. It just feels... bizarre, in a very special way that makes you wonder how a loving God could ever put Dinesh on stage opposite Alex
And this is the man who is now being sued for, and admits to using 'faulty' information in his film, 2000 mules, which has been removed from distribution along with the book of the same name..............
To be honest just let the poor man talk. Sometimes silence allows people to come to the same conclusion when they go through it. If you interrupt him you are not going to convince him.
Alex says he is against slavery, but he keeps owning people in these debates
😂😂
No, he's just ignorant.
@@martinploughboy988he has shut down so many,golden
@@martinploughboy988 No, he's just not gullible!
@@nigeltrigger4499 He's incredibly gullible. It's the nature of Atheism to be gullible.
This conversation was unbearable to watch. Props to Alex for managing to hold through
I thought it was hilarious. Fingers crossed for round two
I have only watched snippets of it, but I am genuinely amused 😂
@@sadderwhiskeymannClips may be the way to go. I watched the whole thing and Dinesh grows increasingly frustrating to listen to. Basically every point of conversation follows roughly the same formula-
Dinesh poses a question or brings something up which he feels is important. Alex then points out some contradiction or problem with Dineshs assertion or question. Dinesh tries to hand wave the problem away without explaining how he’s doing it. Alex then hammers him on the point. Dinesh then asks to change the topic and/or complains that Alex is hammering him and says whatever that thing is just isn’t important.
That’s tough to listen to even in chunks but watching it play out over and over again just looks ridiculous.
@@popperpoppler4569 in defense of Dinesh, from what I've seen, he doesn't attack in anger or something. He acts more like been r@ped 🤣
@@sadderwhiskeymann lol yeah that’s a good way to get a comment pulled.
And yeah, that’s fair but at points he’s pretty aggressively dismissive of biblical problems. At one point he claims he’s being “cross examined on the [extermination] of the Amalakites”. At another point when confronted with the contradictory birth accounts of Mathew and Luke and asked which one he thinks is true he throws his hands up and exclaims “Who the heck cares??”. His answer to basically every criticism leveled against the Old Testament is that Jesus came and began the process of revelation and that because of this the New Testament abrogates the Old Testament. This is really what Dinesh wants to get to because he seems to view this point as something of a “home base” and that once he gets there all criticisms against the Old Testament are no longer valid. But in order to do that he needs to get passed the problem created by the fact that Jesus himself preached the Old Testament, so if the prophecies and laws of the Old Testament are to be ignored due to revelation, then that actually strips Jesus of his divine mandate, so Dinesh needs to have it both ways to get where he feels he’s in the clear.
Speaking of horrific massacres - I think we just witnessed one.
legit
In Gaza, right?
@@----f for a person watching an atheist channel, you dont know j shit about skepticism if you believe theres a massacre in Gaza
in the name of yahweh (again)
In the old video game I played, you would have heard "Headshot!" over that scene, followed by "Rampage" and a few others. 😂😂😂
(Unreal Tournament)
_"Atheism is what happens when you read the Bible. Christianity is what happens when someone else reads it for you."_ [Bertrand Russel]
Shows how wrong he was. I read the Bible almost twice cover to cover and I used to be an atheist. I am sure he was wrong on quite a lot of other things.
@HS-zk5nn so you have no issue with your god committing mass genocide including children
Wow twice for a book you live by? I've read books by Kant dozens of times and his philosophy doesnt govern my whole life. Maybe trying reading it closer. @@HS-zk5nn
@@HS-zk5nn Did you learn anything beyond banal & barbaric reading these ancient fairy tales (twice)?!
Can you tell us what you read in the bible that proved to you it was true?@@HS-zk5nn
Dinesh clearly hasn't met anyone like Alex before.
Alexi is one of the best? Name his best point
@@HS-zk5nn Are you mad bc Dinesh lost?
@@einienj3281 no how could he when he was not allowed to finish his thoughts and kept being interrupted
Uh, checkout his debates with Christopher Hitchens. He got totally annihilated. So bad that I can't believe he still does this.
@@HS-zk5nn You should watch the entire thing. Dinesh did it all the time. He said a lot without saying anything.
This dude got owned so hard that this debate should be age restricted
This was horror beyond measures for Dinesh and his fans
40 + at leaast
😄😄
I am a Christian, not a fan of dinesh.
But Alex is interrupting his points alot. And moving from topic to topic rather fast. I myself (a slow thinker) on dinesh would be difficult to follow.
Not necessarily proved Alex or dinesh is correct.
Sorry what is main topic before Alex interruption?
And switching conversation to "why are distancing urself to yahweh?"
@@Jocky8807the reason for these interruptions is because dinesh is trying to sneak premises in that he thinks Alex won’t catch. That’s why he’s being called out. It’s not like Alex is sitting there and diverting the conversation, he’s making sure that dinesh doesn’t try and sneak anything that he is very clearly trying to sneak through.
@@theonlyjoe_
Oh okk. I am not sure what dinesh sneak into. Also no good.
But all interruption are no good.
And Alex really fast, I am an English as second language often could not catching up his points.....
And make me forgot about the main point discussions. 🙏
When he asked why are you saying Yahweh instead of God.... That shit cut deep !!
A Bíblia traz os seguintes nomes de DEUS: Yahweh, Adonai, Elohin, Jeová, El Shadai.
I was annoyed that he did not let him answer, though. He did not seem confused by the answer but was about to explain, in his eyes, it is justified.
Alex seems to be more focused on "winning" the exchange than actually exchanging
Why did he call God "Yahweh"?
Everybody knows God's name is Harold: "Our Father who art in heaven, Harold be thy name."
It's in the first sentence. 😋
The problem with defending the bible is the bible.
It's like listening to someone defend a flat earth - each solution creates another problem.
The Bible isn't defendable, so the tactic is to make the discussion about anything else.
In this instance, they seem to have elected 'oh he's interrupting.'
@@WhoThisMonkeylong time no see lol. Your statement 'The Bible isn't defendable" assumes your conclusion in the very statement itself, you do know this right? It's called begging the question. It's a logical fallacy. So before I could defend it against your claim, I would need you to present your argument as to why it isn't defendable. Please explain your argument first before we could start the discussion.
@@Wildxgiyu
It isn't begging the question.
It's a fact, that the Bible is not defendable.
The debates been had, and lost, many many many times.
I'm not interested in pressing a replay button, I'd much rather actually carry on past that well worn out topic.
It isn't a fault of mine that people are still stuck on it, it's a fault of theirs.
I have no memory of you by the way, just another ignorant theist in an ocean of ignorant theists, I don't really care if this antagonises or upsets you, I'm apathetic to the feelings of irrational people.
They simply cause too much harm to society for me to pander to them.
The only option for you to take, is to disregard Christianity for the silly nonsense it is, but you won't, because intellectual honesty isn't a trait you value.
@@WhoThisMonkey You say you'd like to move on to other topics other than about whether the Bible is defendable, but before we go to any other topics, the issue of whether the Bible is defendable or not must first be settled.
So please, present your argument. Why is the Bible indefensible?
The way you speak reminds me of an angsty child. Not very rational, my dude.
Alex violated the thou shalt not kill commandment with the way he slaughtered Dinesh in this debate.
Thou shalt not ‘murder’, not ‘kill’.
Alex treated Dinesh D'Felon like a non-combatant Amalekite
Thank you very much, Alex. It is so wonderfull to listen to a true intellectual guy who is able to find the «spot on» arguments, and who is able to dig right down to what the whole thing is about.
Alex finally succeeded in overpowering the person trying to interrupt 😂
I love when he said something along lines of "Why make another point if it's still going to be wrong." (Not the actual quote)
He literally used the word of god to do that. Awesome :)
@@Iwillreply
"You can't now move the goalpost especially if you're still going to miss."
@@2l8avenue27 ,
Thank you.
@@Iwillreply
No sure. No problem.
Every time I’ve ever argued with my fundamentalist father about the brutality of the Old Testament he uses the same tactic as Danesh.
“Oh, the Old Testament doesn’t matter because Jesus came and made it ok.”
It’s nice to see Alex challenge this mentality so succinctly. I can only hope to one day possess such a quick wit and rigorous intellect.
Yeah. I've recently come to realize that jesus isn't Our savior, he's gods😂. Saving gods reputation from his former self.
Tell your dad that gawd is the SAME yesterday, today and forever.
Therefore (especially if you believe in the trinity) it was jeebus the bloodthirsty maniac of the OT 👹
@@sadderwhiskeymann,
Seriously! Either Jesus was always there, and was wholly, not partly, involved in every divine command to enslave, rape, and murder.
I also, admittedly, don't know if Jesus ever directly said/addressed all the "Father's" previous acts, claiming they were justified. Jesus, clearly, handled it all differently (minus the table flipping), yet, was there the whole time? I gotta see that character arc, when do those chapters come out?!
@@Iwillreply I can't remember chapter/verses etc but I do remember that jeebus said that he did NOT come to change the law (the OT) but to add to it. And he also said that anyone who change a letter or a dot of the OT will win a ticket to hell 🔥
So...there's that...
Would that mean then that your father isn't fundamentalist?
I'm a Christian but clear Alex is wiping the floor with this guy.
Stop believing in bronze age lies, you can.
This was gold. Sadly, it will probably be Alex’s last religious debate. I don’t see anyone lining up for a whipping any time soon.
Love this dude!
This dude got owned so hard, even the Old Testament would say it's too much slavery.
I will steal this. In fact, I live for the day I'll be able to use it
Dinesh D'Souza just got owned harder than a non-Hebrew slave in the Bible.
@@mrl9418😂😂😂
To fully acknowledge the atrocities committed by your God, recognize their horror, but still have the cognitive dissonance to convince yourself that he’s good is impressive. Must be peaceful to live so ignorantly and be okay with it.
A true _Compartmentalizer._
And they actually think this unhealthy way of forming beliefs won't affect how they navigate reality 😅
Lmao true
I'm confident that the bible is false
@@anormal-3d and you should be, but even if the Bible were true and it wasn’t as flawed as it is, that simply means their God is unworthy of being praised. The God of the Bible, especially the OT, is impressively despicable. Vain, conceited, genocidal, petty, the list goes on.
As someone who previously dedicated the majority of their life to Christianity, it’s insane how much the believer is willing to overlook under the guise of “his ways are better than mine” and the excuse of historical context.
@@joshuafleckenstein351 man!!true bro.
I aslo grew up in a Christian house hold and truly believed in the bible for like14 years! But as I kept growing it was just painfully obvious this GOD'S cruel in the bible
And also God loves us yet he sends us to hell and then he feels some kind of grief? What kind of illogical entity does this?
And Christians call this "UNCONDITIONAL LOVE",while the bible revolves around conditions. I also recommend you a book called "CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD" very fascinating book I would say.(you would really hope that such a God exists)
_"To argue with a man who has renounced the use & authority of reason, & whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."_ [Thomas Paine]
Stop, O people, that I may give you rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.” (Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra, (Vol. 9, p. 90
@@xiontion9993 _"With great power comes great responsibility."_ [Spider-Man]
@@Egooist. It seems the world has forgotten that responsibility....
@@xiontion9993 The "world" has no responsibilities.
@@Egooist. it depends on who your asking,,,,,if your asking islam then the list is big,,,,,,if your asking a brainwashed atheist he will say everything means is nothing and nothing means everything...........
I don't think Yahweh was "ACTING" like a Tribal God😂
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say he...... WAS a tribal God. At least until a crap ton of post hoc rationalizations came along.
Nice...😂
@@riskybiscuits688 tbh the bible makes more sense to me once I learned that the jewish faith was originally polytheistic and was retconned into monotheism, meaning all these stories were originally about different gods, and combining them all into one character just makes him seem schizophrenic.
He is a tribal God, God of the tribe of Israel.
@@Keira_Blackstonethat I didn't know.
It makes sense as to why gawd is sooooo insane!
Dinesh is a good example of the phrase “little knowldege is a dangerous thing”.
Dinesh got eviscerated.
He is the gift that keeps on giving.
@@teresaamanfu7408He is the grift that keeps on giving.
no he didnt. he is still alive.
oh wait. only you can use hyperbole.
got it
Alex cut him off when he was trying to explain why he said “Yahweh.” He was saying that there was a movement within the Bible itself….then he was cut off.
Dinesh spent this entire debate teetering on Marcionism
Most people don’t even know what that is. Honestly I can’t believe it’s not more popular. It is completely impossible to reconcile the character of the god in the Old Testament with that of Jesus, or at least the character that modern Christians ascribe to Jesus.
@justsomeguy859 It's not more popular because 99% of Christians are completely inconsistent with their logical assessment of their own religion. When ones have tried to actually think through how it COULD work out, eg: Marcionism and Arianism, they get branded as heretics and kicked out of the club. If you were to use a Socratic method on the average Christian to find out what they "really" believe then it would be all over the place and completely out of touch with anything their specific branch may have as dogma.
@@justsomeguy859If only the neoplatonists would’ve won out in the 3rd century I truly believe western culture would’ve progressed hundreds of years faster than happened under the tyranny of Christian hegemony.
That's what I thought he was getting at in this clip 😅
@@justsomeguy859 Macrionism/Valentinianism/Sethianism are the only verisons of Christianity I can take serious. Jewish history and the New Testament are irreconsible.
"That's not what Jesus thought." - Alex O'Connor 2024
This is the point Apologists do not want to acknowledge: The God of the Old Teatament & The God of the New Testament are 1 & the same, Begotten not Made, so Yahweh & Jesus are the same God. That makes Yahweh's atrocities Jesus' 'crimes' too.
Edited 4 Spelling
Great logic. I hadn't really thought of that. Yahweh = Jesus
Thanks
(If the non-biblical doctrine of the Trinity is true. The mainstream current understanding of the Trinity was decided by the Church hundreds of years after the last books of the New Testament were written.)
@@fpcoleman57 the son is the one speaking to moses and the prophets
he is the angel of the Lord
the one wrestling with Jacob and in the burning furnace with the Shadrach Meshach and Abednego "one like the Son of God"
Noone sees the Father at any, the only begotton who is in the bosom of the Father has decleared him
The trinity is absolutely biblical and all throughout the old testament and on almost every other page in Genesis and Exodus especially
@@Justin-tk1wr
You are giving me just conjecture and later theological interpretations. Proves nothing.
Personally, I don't accept that Yahweh is Jesus, nor do I accept that the tribal god of the Old Testament is, in fact, the same as the God of the New Testament. The only place where the doctrine of the Trinity could be defended is in John's Gospel which is hardly surprising considering how late it was written. The absence of anything demonstrating this doctrine in the earlier Gospels or in Paul's letters is quite strange if it is so important.
Also going to 1 John 5 doesn't help because the words supporting the doctrine of the Trinity are not in the earliest Greek manuscripts and only appeared in the Latin translation of Jerome and then later in the 3rd edition of Erasmus' translation when a Greek translation was produced to support it. Deep down he knew that it was false but, of course, in those days they couldn't forensically examine the paper and the ink. The great reformer, Martin Luther didn't accept it and his German translation didn't contain it until after his death. Unfortunately Tyndale's translation, the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the 1611 Authorised Version which is commonly known as the King James Version are all based on Erasmus' 3rd edition of the Greek New Testament which, itself, in time, became known as the Received Text (or the Textus Receptus). The 1769 version of the KJV, which we are all familiar with perpetuates this translation. Yes, I have studied this subject in some depth.
@@fpcoleman57 Notice how I didnt prove the trinity using the new testament or the gospel of John but went straight to genesis and exodus. If you are genuinely interested in the topic and dont want to just restate your position 20 times, theres a lecture Jay Dyer did recently going over both Genesis and Exodus once again. Its called "The Trinity in the Old Testament Part 1: Genesis & Exodus -Jay Dyer (Half)" starts about 8 minutes in because it was a livestream. God bless.
@@Justin-tk1wr
Sorry, not convinced.
Your friend Jay Dyer, like all apologists, starts with a belief and then looks for evidence to back it up. It is well known among real Biblical scholars that the early inhabitants of the whole of the "fertile crescent" were polytheists. His inability to accept that the Bible has contradictions is also to be expected. His reading into the text things that aren't there is not what I would expect from an objective scholar. Talking about types of Jesus throughout the Old Testament may convince a midweek Bible study class or a congregation on a Sunday of what they already believe to be true but it won't convince a skeptic. Undue dependence on later interpretations of the extant original text, including using the Septuagint, is not helpful.
His throat clearing and constant fidgeting, especially with his glasses is extremely distracting. I also hope that he paid the copyright holder for the use of the James Bond theme music.
The Old Testament doesn’t count cos reasons. Jesus said he’s here to fulfill the old law
Fulfill in this context means to go back to the original purpose as Jesus acknowledges that some of the old laws that were originally meant to protect humans and make them live peacefully together were taken too literally and seriously and lost their actual purpose. As Jesus says that shabbat and law are there for the human and not the human for them
How Dinesh manages to get on to any stage is a miracle in itself.
how cosmic skeptic managed to get on to any stage is the only miracle that has ever existed
I’ve said it before. I fuckin love this kid
I think he's a man now.
Dinesh clowned again! Utterly outclassed by Alex.
The organizer of the debate didn’t intend to have a comedy show but then they invited Dinesh 2K Mules.
De Souza is a HYPOCRITE. Kudos to Alex for exposing such hypocrites.
When you're indoctrinated into it, trying to defend it requires hypocrisy, but the fact that he stammers and pauses at times might imply that some of these Q's are getting through. Hopefully, he'll go home and in the process of trying to find a reason to justify these things, he'll eventually realize he just can't and there really is no reason to believe any of this.
I remember going through the same process. Arguing it, trying to defend it and eventually realizing you can't and there's no proof that there is a god.
He's also a proven liar after his 2000 Mules film
Intellectual slam dunk - cosmic skeptic 1 - Guy with funny socks and funnier logic 0
I love the recognition of the subtle language change that most others wouldn't even notice or interpret the intent of!
Alex is an absolute intellectual bruiser.
Well in, Matey.
Always fun when the critic knows and quotes the sacred text more than the defendent.
I'm 100% sure Dinesh knows that scripture.
They never defend the book, thay defend their cherry picked reading of it.
That's that Hitchens taugh me, and i still think its the fundamental problem with modern religious movements.
They know the book does not work as a moral document if you acually read it from front to end, its not moral preaching worthy of modern societys.
Its not useless, but not good enough.
Stop, O people, that I may give you rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.” (Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra, (Vol. 9, p. 90
It's not just religion. It's pretty much everything. Humans are cherry pickers.
The Good Book is fairly easy to defend. It does work as a moral document. It certainly has better morals than modern societies. And yes, I have read it from cover to cover.
This reminds me of that time when the Israelites slaughtered the Amelicites.
You were there? Damn, must've been horrible.
I like how Alex doesn't let up and take Dinesh to task with his bullshit.
If only somebody would stand up to tRump like this...
“Well I’m not trying to distance myself.” Oh bs. That is EXACTLY what you’re doing.
Dude is such a weasel 😅
Dude was your average xtian.
It was Alex who SHINED in that debate 🌞
lol
Quit insulting weasels by comparing them to de Souza.
Stop, O people, that I may give you rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.” (Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra, (Vol. 9, p. 90
Ah Dinesh, that grifter is still plying his trade.
I don’t understand how religious people can willingly ignore all the horrific and ridiculous things in their holy book and cherry pick only the bits they like and live by them. Its lunacy.
That's exactly what I did when I was a Christian! For example, when I was a believer, I don't remember reading past Exodus 20, Deuteronomy, or Judges. We never studied or heard sermons on the "difficult" passages. It was mostly the Gospels or Paul.
Give an example
@@johno1954 it would be easier for me to tell you what isn’t ridiculous about them
@@johno1954 why don’t you tell me what isn’t ridiculous about whichever holy book you follow as my list is incredibly short
@@Sir-loin86 I’m a Christian. God has done nothing “immoral” as he made morals and morals are based from God. He is all just
I love Alex debating, he’s a very smart fella. 👏🏼
better to be a smart fella..
“Smart does always equate to being correct.”
The moment you begin to question the supposedly unquestionable... 🤔
I had a stroke just to understand him😂
That is my go to verse when talking to any Christian. Its basically saying that you are not following gods laws unless you are following exodus. But Christians have to cherry pick and ignore so much of the bible or else they would be thrown in prison because those laws are barbaric.
And that's religion for you
LOL exactly
If you read the whole chapter you'll see that Jesus was referring to the commands that he gave in that context . The commands Jesus gave are the fulfillment of the law, not the abolishment of it. But this does mean that some commands governing the Jews as a nation no longer applied to Christians as a worldwide religion
@Will_92 yeah it's referring to the laws of Moses which is exodus
@@Will_92”.. abolish the law OR prophets…” Jesus is not talking about commands he just gave. He’s clearly talking about Mosaic law. Otherwise why mention prophets? lol.
More coping from Christians.
I bet Dinesh crashed his car on the way home from this debate because he kept trying to win the argument with a card board cut-out of Alex sitting in his passenger seat.... 🤣🤣🤣
Alex catching Dinesh on his sneakily sudden use of "Yahweh" was impressive. He was completely right that it was an attempt to distance "God" from "Yahweh" in a manipulative way.
Alex nailed him. Dinesh is so dishonest.
“Before Abraham was, I AM.” Somebody famous said that, but I’m having trouble remembering who it was…
I know! It was that Jesus character in the Christian myth.
@@brenta2634 Actually only in the Gospel of John, not in the synoptic gospels. John is the latest gospel of the four
@@KartonRealista2 Yeah that's the thing about myths, right? They change and there are different versions that pop up.
That would have been the anonymous author of the Gospel according to "John"
Not sure that being anonymous equates to being famous, however.
Oh, did you actually think that JESUS said that? Oh, you sweet summer child LOL
I said that. It's in the quote. Weird name for someone, though
Damn Alex really stopped him dead in his tracks
The full discussion was a massacre of biblical proportions. Alex reminds me of a kinder, gentler Hitchens.
Dinesh: _"Because, because, because..... ummmm"_
Thanks for holding this slime ball to account. Dinesh is so annoying and frustrating. You and Hitch have been the best at shutting him down and embarrassing him 👏 cheers to that!
I think Hitchens would have been very pleased with Alex's intellect and debating skill.
Dinesh is definitely on top for one of the greasiest weasels of all christian appologists. This was so satisfying to watch i find myself going back to it again and again
Alex is my hero 👍🏼 I love how he just dismantles the act of Christians trying to keep the Bible current 😂
A British person enslaving a man of Indian descent. History really does repeat itself
Like watching Mike Tyson fight an infant.
I'm glad Alex has the patience to suffer fools, cause I sure don't.
False Interpretation is the work of the charlatan or the uneducated. Isn't it ironic, that the more thorough the study of the bible, the more the lean towards agnosticism or atheism.
Delusional
(A)Gnosticism is dealing with the (lack of) knowability of "God(s)" & (a)theism with the (lack of) belief in "God(s)".
So the question is:
_Are you a(n) (a)gnostic (a)theist?_
DANCE little man!
Moral of the story...To destroy your opponent just make them read their own book. 😮
Ending the argument with "That's not what Jesus thought" is so good 🔥
As a Christian, Dinesh was very unprepared for Alex.
The only thing Dinesh was prepared for was his appearance fee. His opening speech was a mess and it was telling that he wanted Alex to go first. He needed something to argue against despite being for the proposition.
I don't think preparation was the issue.
Bible wasnt written to be defended
Who would you rather be stuck on an island? Dinesh is insufferable.
Cosmic is slaughtering this dude old testament style this was not a debate but a feight train lol good shit man
Christians truly are the champions of mental gymnastics. 🤔
Or they just ignore the "difficult" teachings.
They really give flat earthers a run for their money. Those people can come up with anything to fit their narrative lmfao
hah!...they're all flatfaced noggin bashers!
didnt know dinesh was a gnostic
He's just a No-Stick! 🤣 Slimy fu¢¥er 😝
I love how you are able to discuss. You are civilized, you don't scream, you don't get angry and you answer arguments sharp and clear instead of just repeating arguments of the Ideology you identify with. I think these are the marks of a real truth seeker. No wonder you discovered mysticism.
But Dinesh, what YOU are missing is the fact that Yahweh is SUMERIAN Storm God... one out of a pantheon of dozens! And he did not choose the Jews; the Jews chose him!
Stop! Stop! He's already dead!
Alex is the master at editing clips. Absolutely untouchable.
Alex is RUTHLESS and i love ittt
God thinks slavery is okay. I do not. Therefore, I am more moral than God.
Why are you not okay with slavery?
Excellent work here Alex ! I remember the Priest in Catholic School would tell us to respectfully downplay any unsavoury references to bad things "apparently ordered " by God - and simply concentrate on the New Testament !
We were all uncomfortable with this but had Alex been in my class in school - well that would have been interesting !
I honestly don't understand why Alex would want to discuss religion with an expert on politics and why Dinesh would discuss the Bible when her clearly is not an expert on it.
calling Dinesh an 'expert' in politics is a gross exaggeration.
@@Keira_Blackstone perhaps just state that he knows politics better than religion/philosophy
It’s bcz he needs money, a gig
@@KC.edits1
He certainly had to work hard and suffer a lot of humiliation and embarrassment.
I think Dinesh underestimated Alex. He is over 60 years of age and Alex is still in his early 20s. Alex, though, has a degree from Oxford University in Theology and Dinesh only has a BA in English. Also, just like Christopher Hitchens, Alex has a very sharp mind and can process information quickly. Whereas someone like myself would fumble around even though I know a lot, Alex responds immediately.
There's so much going on in what Alex said. 1st, "I've come to fulfill the prophets not condemn them" was inserted by early Christian fathers to make it appear that the man Christians call Jesus is God. He never, ever referred to himself this way. 2nd, "heaven & earth shall not.... until these words are fulfilled". He was talking about spiritual truths which he was teaching to the Jews. Spiritual truths that will never change because they are embedded in us, the human species. Jesus was a learned scholar & had intuitive & profound spiritual knowledge which he tried to impart to an audience that was ignorant ( lacking knowledge) & could not grasp it. He was trying to convince them that what he said was the truth. Sometimes, what he said is an answer in relation to what someone said or asked before he spoke. Problem is that it was not written down . All we have is Jesus' response which can be quite ambiguous. 3rd, the God of the OT was different from the God of the NT because God is a human construct & as civilization advanced in the Levant, the concept of God evolved. The raging & vitriolic God of the OT sanctioned the land grabs that all the tribes at that time were engaged for one reason or another; whether it was grazing land, water rights, fertile valleys for crops or hills & mountains for mineral mining. This suggests that God is man's alter ego.
You mean god didn't create us in his image? We have created him in ours and worship it.
^
@@playerone3018 yes
@@playerone3018there are a thousand religions made in man's image like the old testament and there are a few that spread the gospel of Jesus like Buddhism for example which are actually preaching truth and love.
Im a Christian and Alex is 1000% right!
Get emm
Look I know there's a history of British people obliterating Indian people but goddamn, calm down Alex
This debate WAS a horrific massacre ordained by Alex
cook, king‼️🗣️🔥
Even as a Christian, i completely support Alex here.
Then you’re being deceived like the others who support him.
I watched that debate, it bounced back and forth between incredibly satisfying and incredibly frustrating, depending on who was talking.
As for who, lets just say one of the participants should be really proud of how well he did, and the other is D'Souza
The logic though👌👌👌
Thanks
"You're completely missing it"
"You don't understand"
"There's context"
EVERY TIME a theist gets confronted with stuff in their storybook they don't like...
Fantastic. Alex is really articulate and I believe he can take on all the religious figureheads with ease except ISLAM. If Alex reverts to Islam, he would be unstoppable Da’ee😂 - May Allah guide him to Islam
Alex handing out massacres like God
Thanks for letting him answer and articulate his idea Alex. Really useful clip here.
Christopher Hitchens used the same tactic: constantly interrupting the other part. And that is a tactic of somente with no arguments.
So. Good. First one of these where I think Alex has absolutely nailed it (pun intended).
This is so painful to listen to . Alex is very sharp and always to the point.
Dinesh can’t always remember what he says he believes in because he’s a conman, and not a very good one.
Being fact-checked on stage in real-time by someone who was a Kid when you debated Christopher Hitchens, gotta hurt.
What the hell kind of argument is this? How can you be so snide and confident and not have an even basic understanding of Christian theology?
This is the only debate I've ever seen that made me laugh the entire way through. It genuinely felt like a long take from the Office, or an extended SNL sketch. It just feels... bizarre, in a very special way that makes you wonder how a loving God could ever put Dinesh on stage opposite Alex
Dinesh Certainly can't turm disagree with words of "Jesus".
This is legendary, man. The last World Series before we entered the war, same season as DiMaggio’s unbreakable streak.
And this is the man who is
now being sued for, and admits to using 'faulty' information in his film, 2000 mules, which has been removed from distribution along with the book of the same name..............
“Appear to be.” LMAO 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
This guy could be an amazing lawyer
Dinesh has the rhetorical skills of a 3rd grader “explaining” why he didn’t do his homework
To be honest just let the poor man talk. Sometimes silence allows people to come to the same conclusion when they go through it. If you interrupt him you are not going to convince him.
This young man has a great future. I'm sure Christopher Hitchens would be proud.