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

[@duncanhollands5218]

Really great commentary on an interesting interview. Thank you.

[@Tatiana-cp1fc]

Alex was a great Christian apologist in this interview.

[@Eilfylijokul]

I disagree with a lot of Alex's positions but he is seemingly the only prominent atheist able to give Christianity a fair shake

[@kbeetles]

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.

[@wet-read]

Yes and no. I think some things, like morality and human psychology, are clearly far more important than something like theology. I could stand to learn more about theology myself, even though I don't take it as seriously as metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology.

[@Eloign]

"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....

[@feedingravens]

Oh yes, it's true becauser the Bible tells me so, and the Bible comes directly from God, because the Bible says so, and God is perfect, because he is defined so, and therefor it is all true. In ANY other circumstances you would identify that as baseless, useless circular reasoning - but you MUST accept it

[@Eloign]

@@feedingravens Nothing is true “because the Bible says it” it’s the opposite, the Bible says what IS true. It’s wrong to murder, was wrong before it was written down. The history of Jesus life, death and yes resurrection was predicted before it happened and then accurately recorded afterwards. We have outside historical witnesses beyond the four Gospels to show this. So to your argument two things: Is a math book circular because it’s accurate? How about a history book? How else would you know if it’s accurate unless you read it yourself?

[@danielmcdonagh2889]

Thank you Glen!

[@diegocharlin5502]

Jesus loves Richard Dawkins. and so do I

[@danielononose1148]

Richard Dawkins has the same understanding of theology as a child

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

If only. Matthew 11:25-26.

[@HearGodsWord]

​@@SpeakLifeMediaso true

[@aguspuig6615]

Even worse, a child has a very strong intuitive understanding of this type of stuff imo. Dawkins is what a lifetime of effort in un-learning intuitive morality looks like

[@musanetesakupwanya1050]

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

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Thanks! Welcome aboard!

[@JohnDowFirst]

Richard Dawkins has never been accused of being a philosopher.

[@lzzrdgrrl7379]

And of course as a muppet he doesn't get it. The incidental configuration of DNA as a double helix fits the symbolic meme of the intertwined snakes which ALREADY HAD EXISTED before the discovery of genetics......

[@diegocharlin5502]

and with good reason

[@annapobst]

This cpurse at the end is great!! Thank you

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@rehbeinator]

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 KZbin 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.

[@bcatcool]

Our dog is called Perry after watching Phin and Ferb

[@aguspuig6615]

To be entirely fair you can make a good case for the double helix thing, with 300k years of humans existing on earth, it could just be that someone way back was advanced enough to discover DNA and it ended up engrained in culture. After all why are snakes coiling in that shape asociated with medicine and healing of all things? Ive heard copes as big as ''snakes just do that in the real world so they made that into a god of healing'' i dont think a single part of that statement makes sense, at most some snakes might do that in real life that im just not aware of

[@thefunkslamdunk9224]

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.

[@christianbensel]

Great stuff about grounds for morality. Thanks!

[@sebjuliussen9378]

Great content Glen!

[@zachrabun7161]

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.

[@michaelsokolnicki7028]

Why would we assume Dawkins is brilliant? As you point out, either he doesn’t understand Peterson’s arguments or he chooses not to think them through. I don’t know which one is worse: if the former, it means he’s just not that intelligent, and if the latter, he can’t be called an honest intellectual. Frankly, nothing I’ve heard or read from Dawkins points to a towering intellect. He is successful in his domain, sure, but that’s more likely to be the product of hard work than evidence of high IQ. We are talking about biology after all, not quantum physics.

[@zachrabun7161]

​@@michaelsokolnicki7028 I think it's as silly for you to deny that Dawkins is clearly a very intelligent person as it is for Dawkins to assume that people who follow Peterson are stupefied by his rhetoric. If he was just another average scientist neither of us would know who he is. He's clearly more intelligent than most people (and it comes across as a bit hubristic to deny it, frankly), but that doesn't mean he can never be wrong. I believe when it comes to theological discussions Dawkins isn't an honest actor, because he clearly assumes anyone that isn't an atheist is not rational, and if you won't take an interlocutor seriously you can't seriously engage with their ideas. That doesn't necessarily make him stupid, it makes him arrogant.

[@michaelsokolnicki7028]

Me saying he’s not a towering intellect doesn’t imply I think he’s stupid. I making an assessment about his IQ, which is partly the ability to think very abstractly. My point is that, from everything I’ve seen of Dawkins, my impression is that his IQ is not as high as his fame would suggest (and I reject the proposition that fame is evidence of intelligence). I think Alex O’Conner here has clearly a higher IQ, so does Sam Harris, both of whom disagree with Peterson but are able to comprehend his ideas.

[@zachrabun7161]

@michaelsokolnicki7028 I don't really feel like defending Dawkins, I don't think he needs it anyway. I think we can both agree that he, at best, doesn't understand the Christian conception of God, or, at worst, willfully chooses not to engage with the argument at all.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@@zachrabun7161 I think hubris = IQ^2. In other words: very hard to avoid. My take on both Connor on Dawkins is that their will is somehow not directed directly at the Truth. Without the aid of the will, Truth cannot be found?

[@Stigtoes]

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.

[@jenniferjoyner112]

Exactly. Very interesting and makes one wander whether Alex is pretending to be an Atheist!!

[@oliverjamito9902]

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

[@francescacook6623]

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.

[@lzzrdgrrl7379]

Jordan is simply noting that the incidental form of the DNA double helix mirrors the symbolic image of the intertwined snakes, which existed in memetic form before the advent of genetics......

[@bradwhelan4466]

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.

[@patrickbarnes9874]

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.

[@davidbanner6230]

I think the lack of (free-will) thinkers, are really saying that what we are is predetermined by what we have experienced previously in our lives. We only have a free will as much our background will allow us... Isn't that why narcissistic people cannot overcome their behaviour, because they have been pre-programed by their past experiences...? And, isn’t that why the Christian message is based upon forgiveness, because people are made what they are, by the ‘good or bad’ experiences that have befallen them….? And isn’t that why Richard Dawkins can never recognise such reality, because, in doing so, he would have to admit, that there is a vital purpose for religion, in our lives, to focus on the truths that Atheism can never admit to…

[@MarcusAndersonMusic]

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.

[@bcatcool]

Who cares

[@aguspuig6615]

@@bcatcool quite literally everyone who is choosing to watch this vid

[@Whatsisface4]

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.

[@danielmaher964]

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.

[@andrewwilliamson450]

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.

[@BoldUlysses]

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

[@davidscott5859]

@@LindaCho-t4q In the New Testament, Jesus explicitly stated His mission and purpose to die on NUMEROUS occasions. Here are a few instances: Matthew 20:28 (New International Version): "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." In this verse, Jesus articulates that His purpose is to give His life as a ransom for many, emphasizing the sacrificial nature of His mission. Mark 10:45 (New International Version): "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." This statement in Mark is similar to Matthew 20:28, underscoring the purpose of Jesus' mission to give His life as a ransom. John 10:17-18 (New International Version): "The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life-only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." Jesus here asserts that He willingly lays down His life, indicating that His sacrificial death is part of His divine purpose and plan. Matthew 26:28 (New International Version): "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." During the Last Supper, Jesus connects the shedding of His blood with the establishment of a new covenant, highlighting its purpose for the forgiveness of sins. These passages make it clear that Jesus, throughout His ministry, articulated His mission to give His life as a ransom, to serve, and to bring about the forgiveness of sins through His sacrificial death.

[@HiHoSilvey]

The fact that it was his mission and purpose to die does not absolve his murderers. “The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

[@tgrogan6049]

FYI 39 articles of the Church of England IX- OF ORIGINAL OR BIRTH-SIN "Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth [concupiscat] always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, “Phronema Sarkos”, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin."

[@jefferyperkins4668]

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.

[@HiHoSilvey]

David wondered the same thing when he wrote Psalm 8: “When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.”

[@thefunkslamdunk9224]

I really don't think that 'space and time are big, therefore their is no God' is a good argument.

[@johnrowland9570]

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.

[@PastPresented]

It would help if the details of that real historical event were even close to being the same in any two gospels.

[@donaldlococo954]

Richard Dawkins is a theological ignoramus.

[@rezeren5326]

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".)

[@dmi3kno]

I am surprised you use that word. Doesn't substituting a letter with a * make one a hypocrite? :)

[@christianbensel]

Yeah, please all use new lingo. Bovine excretion is the proper posh word 😂

[@Minininja0412]

Typically we should speak truth with gentleness and grace. Sometimes it is necessary to use harsh words like Jesus and Paul did. We should also think about our neighbor because repeating by those kinds of words in certain contexts is sinful. Also your own conscience may indicate it’s a sin for you to repeat those words. I don’t think what he did was a sin in the video though. Hope that helps. ”Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.“ - Eph‬ ‭4‬:‭29‬ ‭ESV‬‬ ”Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.“ - Rom‬ ‭14‬:‭13‬-‭14‬ ‭

[@rezeren5326]

@@dmi3kno No one's perfect, lad :)

[@bethanywood6812]

Yes is the simple answer, Colossians speaks against using evil words, and other places do also in the new testament. Its a hard habbit to break though, and in our culture foul language surrounds us constantly, I frequently have to take captive thoughts that don't honour and glorify God. I may not say those words out loud but they do run through my mind and I have to rebuke them.

[@JuanRamónSilva-Piano]

Richard Dawkins arguments agaisnt christians are always the same. “Do YoU ReAlly BeLieve MoSeS DiD tHaT?”, “Do YOu rEAlly BeLievE ThAt BuLlShit?” Never once have I heard him delve into the philosophical side of theology. The metaphysics. In fact, his fixation alone seems to be agaisnt Christians, it’s not even theology, because he can’t even delve into the philosophy behind creationism, his sole fixation is with the bible.

[@JohnnyMagorish]

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

[@euanthompson]

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.

[@PastPresented]

As a believer in a religion, you can have what that religion claims to be objective morality- but in reality it may be just that religion's version of subjective morality.

[@euanthompson]

@@PastPresented that might be true, but it changes nothing about what I said.

[@PastPresented]

@@euanthompson It changes objective to subjective ...

[@euanthompson]

@@PastPresented ok. How exactly does that affect the argument?

[@PastPresented]

@@euanthompson "Objective" means unarguable; "subjective" means based on opinion (in this case, the opinion of the creators of holy texts)

[@quetzelmichaels1637]

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)

[@302indian]

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.

[@tonygoodkind7858]

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.)

[@tonygoodkind7858]

Also it really feels dishonest to call it "incredibly Christian" for truth to be one's goal. * truth is the set of facts about reality * we can only reliably known it by evidence * we don't have evidence of any gods * so it's not Christian at all to match one's beliefs to the evidence (ie to value truth above everything) * in fact Christians are told they're blessed if they believe _without_ seeing (without evidence!) * and that's why atheists tend to be the more truth-focused position. Certainly more than Christians are (I have Christians denying reality in favor of the Bible's mistakes all the time in conversations).

[@tonygoodkind7858]

@@LindaCho-t4q No. Truth has no obligation to any ideology, Either that ideology matches the set of facts about reality (truth), or not (falsehood). Only falsehoods have a motivation to redefine truth (which is what your "should make sense from the religious perspective" comment is trying to do). After all, if the religious perspective was rooted in facts about reality, then _Actual Truth_ isn't an issue, is it? Only people dishonestly trying to believe or spread falsehoods are motivated to change truth's definition. Nobody has evidence of "spiritual" anything. Love isn't evidence of that. (We have hundreds, maybe over a thousand, scientific papers on love in its various forms. We know it's a real emotion experienced by minds. We know what it looks like when we record a brain experiencing it.) Is it egotistical to refuse to be gullible? I suppose from a certain perspective it's at least _very slightly egotistical._ Isn't that exactly as much ego as we _should_ have? Shouldn't we value truth?

[@tonygoodkind7858]

@@LindaCho-t4q I only care about what's true. Truth is the set of facts about reality which we only know by evidence (detections of reality), which we don't have of gods or any other supernatural claim. So when you claim things about "our spirit selves", unless you have evidence of those things, then you don't know it. (That's fine. Nobody does. It's like talking about how we don't know leprechauns exist.) Additionally what you said s wrong. It's not contradictory to our desire for survival to cooperate in a civilization. Today I ordered burritos online. I didn't make them. They improved my well-being. So my well-being rested on the well-being of tens maybe a hundred other people. (You know, the cooks, managers, delivery drivers, all the way to the people who made the fertilizer that the farmers used to grow the ingredients.) So no, it's not even remotely contradictory to value the well-being of others and cooperate as a group greater than you. That's how we have all the nice things improving our life! As for atheist vs. Christian, the only person making that comparison is you man. I split things atheist vs. theist. (Because that's the actual split.)

[@HearGodsWord]

Its not just Christians who have pointed out the death of new athiesm.

[@tonygoodkind7858]

@@HearGodsWord How does that address what I said? It doesn't. In fact I made a point of explaining exactly why we'd expect the term to decline (because it wasn't meaningfully distinct in the first place; it's _just atheism._ And guess what? That's on a dramatic rise still, here in the US!). Why do believers so often seem _absolutely incapable_ of reading and responding to the other side?

[@mokeboi3328]

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

[@aguspuig6615]

that typo not helping your argument... Also what is there more christian than ''wasting'' time on everybody? We have to stop this moral trend of considering so many people ''too far gone to talk to'' its tearing society apart and its not good

[@mokeboi3328]

@aguspuig6615 fair enough...perhaps i was a trifle sharp..i think i was implying that dawky fails to see his blind spot..(we all have blind spots of course)...but o conner reveals his blind spots so eloquently and yet dawky doubles down..

[@johnrowland9570]

See Roman's 5 on this

[@bcatcool]

The truth about delusional Dawkins as Alastair McGrath coined him

[@tonygoodkind7858]

Yet McGrath, like all theists, doesn't have reasonable evidence of a god. So one of the two certainly seems afflicted by delusion, but I wouldn't say it's the person _matching their beliefs to reality (to evidence)._

[@maddi62]

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.

[@lrye-xyz]

Dawkins is so jealous of Petersons success

[@stevenshumate3430]

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.

[@lzzrdgrrl7379]

The Iron law of new atheist projection, which is religious people and their religion is the issue, not the gods they believe in.....'>....

[@daviddeida]

Guess you have'nt done acid like dawkins.Equating reality to material results you being a meat puppet with no free will

[@stevenshumate3430]

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

[@comicbookguy591]

Hey hot take i think richard dawkins is an alright bloke

[@drewmcmahon2629]

yea he's been a net positive for society😂

[@HearGodsWord]

​@@drewmcmahon2629 great comment