Richard Dawkins misunderstands original sin. Alex O'Connor responds. 

Alex was a great Christian apologist in this interview.

Richard Dawkins has never been accused of being a philosopher.

Dawkins's child-like naivety when it comes to theology, morality, human psychology is beyond belief! To utter a sentence that some of Jesus"s teachings are "nice", reveals his appalling ignorance.

Richard Dawkins has the same understanding of theology as a child

Really great commentary on an interesting interview. Thank you.

Jesus loves Richard Dawkins. and so do I

"She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21 It's right there....

8:28 It is so funny hearing Dawkins call someone else patronizing just after he said that the only reason that people like Jorden Peterson is because they are impressed by him using big words they don't understand. The hypocrisy is immense lol.

Dude.... I LOVE this channel!!! Recent discovery, and very grateful

For reference: when Dawkins talks about Peterson's thoughts regarding ancient people viewing the structure of DNA, he is referring to part of their conversation when Dawkins appeared as a guest on Peterson's podcast. It is in episode 256 of Peterson's show (available on his RU-vid channel) at about the 41 minute mark and again at about the 54 minute mark. I like Peterson in general, but I agree with Dawkins that this particular idea is ridiculous. Personally, I think that this moment is the main thing that Dawkins remembers from his interaction with Peterson, and I think it colors his perception of Peterson as a whole. It's unfortunate that Dawkins is willing to dismiss the rest of Peterson's ideas because of this one association, but it makes complete sense that this would be the one moment that sticks in his mind most prominently.

Thank you Glen!

This cpurse at the end is great!! Thank you

Great content Glen!

Great stuff about grounds for morality. Thanks!

Not just for thy life given to have abundantly but beyond can contain. Will be contain!

If Alex is asking such brilliant questions and cutting through with his clarity, how come Alex believes none of it? He's still an atheist.

Great commentary. I have always understood the term original sin to mean something like guilt imputed from Adam's sin. You seem to be using it more like universal fallenness. Appreciate your thoughts.

I think Jordan was joking about the double helix. He jokes around a lot but his sense of humour really doesn't seem to land well with lots of people.

We do not require Dawkins to demolish the veracity of Christianity, there are innumerable scholars, academics and scientists of multiple fields who have already achieved that.

Hi Glen, congrats on the channel. Just commenting as a couple of times now you've misrepresented how Dawkins thinks of this concept of "memes". Rather than simply being an evolutionarily advantageous idea or belief, it's better to think of them as equivalent to a gene that perpetuate itself through cultural or social transmission. From the Dawkins perspective memes are not directly serving to help a group outcompete their opponents but are being shaped by evolutionary forces in order to replicate and pass through generations. It's a subtle distinction but I think this perspective will help you understand where Dawkins is coming from when he likens religions to mind viruses.

For such a celebrated atheist, Dawkins displays a frankly shocking lack of awareness of Jesus's self-proclaimed mission and purpose. I'm speechless.

Ah, the modern sport of Dawkins bashing. All anyone has to do to show Dawkins wrong is demonstrate their God, right? But instead we get this.

Penal Substitution is by no means "Christianity 101" It's just one amongst other interpretations of scripture, but it has become so widespread that most people don't know anything different. It's something like the idea that we are going to be God is unbelievably blasphemous to pretty much all Christians, but is just "Christianity 101" to Mormons. If you reverse the roles, if it was the Mormons who covered the planet and the other Christians who were confined largely to small areas, then you get the situation with satisfaction theories of the atonement. If this sounds far fetched to you and you're a Protestant, you should look around and realize you're in the same position right now. Even as you claim penal substitution is the clear and true doctrine of the Bible, you will deny that the Pope is Christ's personal representative on earth who is infallible and has supreme authority. But if you consider the whole planet, Catholics make up something like 80% of Christians worldwide and papism is "Christianity 101" to them.

Richard Dawkins is at that level of brilliance where his intelligence has made him arrogant rather than wise. Assuming that people that listen to Jordan Peterson are basically a bunch of rubes because Dawkin's doesn't understand, or rather chooses not to engage with, his argument is sheer fucking hubris.

Interacting with a point at 13 minutes... I think the argument that 'people can be good without god' is really merely looking at goodness from a human dimension. Sure, we can do some good things without God, e.g. even as an atheist, we might honour our parents or care for our children, we can be outwardly 'moral'. I will concede this point. However goodness is a multidimensional thing. We need God to save us (1 Peter 1:5, and justify us (Romans 4:5), through Christ (Acts 16:31), we need God's Spirit to sanctify and indwell us (Romans 5.5; 8.9; 1 Peter 1.2). We need God's word to transform us (2 Corinthians 3:18). ETC. - All this is needed so that we might become truly 'good' - or better 'holy'. (Eph 1.4). So while I understand the apologetic (1) it is true to say that there can be no goodness without God - is true, because you can't have morality at all (the reference point) without God, it is also true to say that (2) When this reference point is removed from a society, and the ideal associated with it, that society loses its way and can fall into deeply immoral behaviour, and to say (3) that God's standard of goodness is only achieved through the process of New Birth and New Creation - which begins with new life in the soul of the individual when they trust Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and will end when all the redeemed of the ages are transformed before Him, and with Him eternally.

Take a NT. Use a black marker to obliterate every reference to the resurrection of Jesus. Now cut out all these references. That NT would we in tatters. This proves that Christianity could not exist without the resurrection. Around 100 CE a number of secular writers referred to the existence of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Hence the resurrection is a real historical event. Let Richard and Jordan deal with this logic.

Alex O’Connor is also an atheist. You didn’t mention that

The earth is infinitesimally small compared to the universe. Man’s time here is also a spec in time. You really think a creator of a universe this vast really cares about us? I don’t.

See Roman's 5 on this

Dont waste your breath on dawky....he is interlectually bankrupt.

Completely off-topic, but, is it a sin for us Christians to use vulgar language like in this here vid? (Glenn repeating Alex and Richard "bullsh*t".)

I think Dawkins is a dreadful little character. He doesn’t have a penetrating vision on anything. That he has any popularity at all is astonishing to me.

The truth about delusional Dawkins as Alastair McGrath coined him

1. "Death of new atheism" is such a Christian take on it, to (a) ignore atheism is more dominant than ever, (b) theists still don't have reasonable evidence of a god (which is likely the explanation of point "A"), but (c) "new atheism" was always a nonsense term (new atheism _just_ atheism.) and so the term itself is hopefully in decline. But notice the Christian take is focusing only on the irrelevant part ("c") of these three points. That's why it's such a Christian response. 2. I do agree with some of the corrections here. But it feels like a repeat of 'the Christian take' that at 2:43 the correction is about "this universal meme", ignoring the fact that (a) popularity of an idea doesn't indicate truth, and (b) Dawkins (like myself) only cares about what's actually true. So when he insults Peterson's take on things that's almost certainly Dawkins' reasoning: that Peterson isn't fixated on something that would indicate the truth of religion. (In fact one thing that goes unmentioned is Peterson's very dishonest willingness to call memes "true" _just by being popular._ This is Jordan "fiction isn't false" Peterson we're talking about after all (source: the JBP Podcast S4:E69). When someone redefines the word "truth", that's a person you have to be extremely cautious around, because nobody does that for _your_ benefit. They only do it to spread falsehoods.)

It really annoys me that Alex still gets the argument from morality wrong despite the fact he has heard it a lot and he presumably had some study in it. We are not saying atheist can't have morality or can't ground morality of any kind. The argument specifically addresses objective morality. You can't have objective morality as an atheist. That one word has a huge effect on what is actually being argued.

My belief doesn't come from the Bible, or anything external. I define God's plan of salvation with the Bible. Now is the time of judgment on this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. (Joh 12:31 NABO) In an intergalactic cruiser to; Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. (Mat 25:34 NABO) Jesus is a third-party mediator to this world and these heavens, between you and the Father you spring from. He hands the kingdom over to his God and Father. Jesus is the one who ascended far above all the heavens themselves (Eph 4:10 NABO) never to return to corruption (Act 13:34 NABO) The original sin of Adam is the sacrifice of being made to be sin when he wields the fiery sword guarding the way to the Tree of Life on the day of vengeance AS judgment, setting up the abomination of desolation in himself, as the Temple without one stone left standing upon another. If you are reading the Bible like a history book, by all rights, you should be nothing more than a pillar of salt, like Lot's wife. Christ is the Lamp of the Light of the Father and the word of the will of the Father. In this way; The Father and I are one." (Joh 10:30 NABO) Ok. Let's get started. Take out your textbooks on the crucifixion as imagery and prophecy. Let me know when you are ready. Perspective: Sarah gives Hagar to Abraham. The origin of the story is that Lilith, Adam's wife, gives Eve to Adam, the Christ, when he begins his work of the salvation of the kingdom of Eve's Shining One (snake) David, the Morning Star. I’m inclined to believe that David (Yahweh) is saving those behind the gates of hell. Those who have lost hope. Light and vegetation are created before the sun and moon because the story is about the new heaven and new earth. Yahweh is the light and Adam, the Christ, is the lamp. Your creation story is when, in the beginning, Adam found you in a wasteland, (Gen 1:2 NABO), empty, and void of understanding, your having become corrupted by sin, and he shielded you as the apple of his eye. (Deu 32:10 NABO) Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. (Mat 25:34 NABO) The earth was barren, with no shrub of the field and, as yet, no man to till the soil. Adam tilled the soil and prepared the Garden of Eden, a promised land, a heavenly home, a new heaven and new earth, according to the plan of his Father, and then he settled east of Eden and has tilled and cultivated the earth ever since. I am with you always, until the end of the age. (Mat 28:20 NAB)

OMG both in the video and the comments...you guys think yourselves fit to comment on what other people don't understand when it is you, yourselves, that don't understand. Seriously, don't be so quick to congratulate yourselves. RD says Original Sin is a hideous idea. Duh, you say, the person who wrote The Selfish Gene?! Look, there are no implications about your relationship with your maker or where you will spend eternity, whether you will be punished and tortured forever in your having Selfish Genes!!! Original Sin, on the hand is the idea that you were created sick, and then denounced for being sick.

Dawkins is so jealous of Petersons success

Same old apologist claims passed on supernatural vapors. Logos. All there is is material reality until this very late in appearing yeshua/gods. makes an appearance. We are debating to the empty winds like the Babylonians, Greeks and Roman to their extinct fabled gods. Religion and the religious are hopelessly bound to continue this nonsense.

2,000 thousand years of silence time to move on.

Hey hot take i think richard dawkins is an alright bloke

Richard Dawkins is a theological ignoramus.