Cardinal Problems. . currect' cal Patd' v, i.. orr Richard Dawkins Fur mat. I remember that debate. That moment WAS the highlight, but Pell got absolutely destroyed the whole way through. I think he backpedaled almost the entire way. Co Cardinal Problems currect' cal Patd' v i orr Richard Dawkins Fur mat I remember that debate That moment WAS the highlight but Pell got absolutely destroyed whole way through think he backpedaled almost entire Co
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (41)
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#2 - facekicked
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2013) [-]
I've been looking for this debate all over the internet, but I can't find it for some reason -.-
User avatar #3 to #2 - therebemoose
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(07/31/2013) [-]
Richard Dawkins vs Cardinal George Pell on Q&A (10-4-2012)
User avatar #7 to #3 - stuartbewbzz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2013) [-]
I didn't think rape was legal.

Then I saw this interview...
#4 to #3 - facekicked
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2013) [-]
Thank you, kind sir. Have a thumb for your time
User avatar #1 - minnten
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/31/2013) [-]
I remember that debate. That moment WAS the highlight, but Pell got absolutely destroyed the whole way through. I think he backpedaled almost the entire way. Conflicting answers and personal attacks were about all he had in his repertoire.
User avatar #5 to #1 - happyfox
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/31/2013) [-]
pissed me off the way the audience reacted to Dawkins though. They were clearly more sided with the priest, who just showed himself to be a really horrible man.
#9 - anon id: 1cd3aa67
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2013) [-]
I really hate people who bash religion but I also hate people who bash atheist really annoys the hell out of me
#12 to #9 - jdeezifer
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
#16 to #12 - anon id: 1cd3aa67
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
are you just assuming I am an atheist because I wouldn't count myself as one I don't believe in any religion and I would deny them all in fact but I wouldn't deny that a god exists or even if there is a force completely beyond our understanding that creates all, but to be honest I don't think its relevant to worry about what made us or why we are here I mean if we were supposed to know you would have been give the answer but all in all I believe in science and don't deny that there is something out there that as made or at least moulded the universe as we know it
User avatar #17 to #16 - jdeezifer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
i agree with everything you say one hundred percent, i was just teasing. you told the internet what pissed you off and you dont expect someone to do it to you? cmon anon
#15 to #12 - trevcars
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
This image has expired
#13 to #9 - esmebuffay
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
User avatar #31 to #9 - hudis
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
I just really hate people, it's more fair that way.
#32 to #9 - masterchiefawesome
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
so you're saying you hate assholes...
#6 - anon id: 3931ba47
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2013) [-]
Both of them are assholes,end of story...
#10 to #6 - anon id: 887b599d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2013) [-]
Just because you don't have the balls to take one side or the other doesn't mean that everyone who knows their side is an asshole.

There are irreconcilable differences between science and religion, to accept both is to be too weak willed to deal with reality or stand by your beliefs.
#11 to #10 - matthewngl
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
I believe both...

I see Science as the "How" and Faith as the "Why".

Go be a militant ********************* somewhere else.
#21 to #11 - anon id: 887b599d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
And when did god tell you this belief is acceptable?

The fact is, if you accept both, you are claiming your own words are the words of god.

You can not pick and chose which passages your holy book are literal, and which pages are metaphorical. Either be religious, or be atheist, don't be an apologist and say both sides are right because you can't stand any form of controversy.
User avatar #24 to #21 - zappasc **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
You are taking religion waay too literal yourself.
It is indeed possible and very very common, to be religious while still 'believing' in science. There is nothing that makes that impossible.

You do not claim your words are the words of god, you merely trying to understand the world you believe he created. And dont come with no bible argument, the bible is can be interdependent in many ways, and are after all just a book.

I as an athiest too believe both are assholes, and im not walking away from any argument, im just of the opinion that religion is a PRIVATE matter, and should stay as such. It about BELIEVING not knowing. And you can believe whatever you like.
#27 to #24 - anon id: 887b599d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
But to claim your own amalgamation of religion + science is the fact of the matter is to ENTIRELY remove any evidence for the existence of god.

The only evidence for something like Christianity being real is that it happened way to long ago to be able to objectively disprove many stories.

To make your own mix of the two is to make up your own creation story with no evidence whatsoever because modern people can just say "yeah, he sure pulled that out of his ass."
Why can you objectively say Scientology is retarded? Because it's clearly a work of fiction made up in the last century to take advantage of people.

Yet if you moved Scientology back 2000 years, it would suddenly be just as real as Christianity, because we can't objectively say "yeah, that's just fiction."

And this is why any amalgamation of beliefs is false. You are making up your own creation story then claiming it is fact on your word, not the potential of a godly word from thousands of years ago.
User avatar #28 to #27 - zappasc **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
Look, I dont disagree with you it sounds stupid. And its kinda silly. Even believing in God is kinda silly.
But what I WILL tell you, is that the WHOLE discussion is silly.
I explained myself terrible, and im sorry.

My main point is you cannot have a rational discussion about a Irational subject. So even HAVING the discussion is stupid, and therefore they are both assholes. They are doing nothing but telling eachother "your stupid!" , making no progress what so ever, because you cant. He believes in God, you should not try to change that, or you are just as bad.
#30 to #28 - anon id: 887b599d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
Well I suppose I can't disagree on the inability of having a rational discussion, but that doesn't make them assholes.

Both are trying to find the truth of our existence. And the truth is important.

Sure, don't aggressively try to force people into atheism/Christianity, but making the truth known is important.

Is it not better for someone to know that we exist on the planet Earth, of a solar system with stars and planets, one of many, rather than the belief that night is brought by a wolf swallowing the sun and the world is a single piece of land sitting in an endless ocean.

The reason many Christians now accept so much of science as true is just because they have been repeatedly challenged by it.
#23 to #10 - trickytrickster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
That's not true at all...a lot of great scientists were also very religious. I'm no great scientists, but I am still a scientist, and everything I have learned and studied in molecular biology has only made my faith in God stronger. So speak for yourself.
#25 to #23 - anon id: 887b599d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
You can't just say your own understanding of the world is the absolute fact.

Just because you see creation in one light does not mean it is reality as deemed by a divine being.

Religious books put forth "official" word of god.
You can not defy this word of god to appease scientific findings and still claim to be Christian, or Muslim, or anything else.

To be these religions, you must accept a word as the one true word, if you claim certain passages are metaphorical, while others are literal, you are claiming your own word is the one true word of god(s).

And if you decide to make your own religion, you are acknowledging that the basis of your religion is not some holy communication passed down to mortals, but rather your own flawed human opinion of reality, and therefore even more baseless than other holy books.
#26 to #25 - trickytrickster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
I don't really follow what you are saying. Catholicism teaches that evolution is very likely, and the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic Priest and very much in line with the faith. There is never a final answer in science, but there are still absolute truths in the world. Not everything is science.
#29 to #26 - anon id: 887b599d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
The religious standing of a scientist has no bearing on reality, only interpretation of reality.

Modern Catholicism may teach that evolution is likely, but when did god say "no, Adam and Eve and the seven days was a metaphor, it's actually evolution, I just planted the seeds."
Never.
Perhaps some pope claimed god communed with him and told him evolution did occur, but that is not Jesus tier proof of gods word, that's just some random (flawed) human claiming god told him something.

And this is my point.
Religion is not something that can change, it can not be adapted.
You can not say "The world is on the back of a turtle and was created when said turtle dived to the bottom of the sea to pick up clay then molded it into life on his back" (some native American creation myth)
and then, once the world is proved round, not a turtle, claim "no, that original divine word actually meant the greko-roman interpretation of turtle as solar system."
#34 to #29 - trickytrickster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
Um...the original founder of Christianity didn't interpret Genesis as literal, and a literal interpretation didn't come up really until more recent times. It was usually interpreted nonliterally.
#35 to #34 - anon id: 887b599d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
"Original founder" Jesus?
Do you have a source for that?
#37 to #35 - trickytrickster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
I meant the founders. As in the Doctors of the Church, the big wigs who headed all the councils in 100AD, etc. It's pretty well documented so if you want to look that up go for it. Jesus also never said anything about literally interpreting Genesis...etc. Jews didn't interpret it literally either. I mean there are always sects that do, but for the most part not really.
#36 to #35 - anon id: 887b599d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
Oh, and that still doesn't contradict my point.
Religion is not something that can change. Evolution does not fit with religion.
#38 to #36 - trickytrickster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
Evolution 100% goes with religion. I am a Molecular Biologist man, and I go to church every weekend. There is nothing in Catholicism that would rule out the possibility of God pushing evolution in a favorable direction, etc. I know a lot about evolution, a lot about genetics, genes, proteins, etc. The more I learn about how complex and ridiculous they are, the more I believe that they had to be influenced by a higher being, and that is exactly what the Catholic Church says is possible. If you are talking about the physical, as in evolution means constant change, and religion isn't meant to change, you are comparing a physical entity to a ideological entity. That isn't a fair comparison.
#39 to #38 - anon id: 887b599d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
I'm not saying religion is meant to change, I'm saying religion contradicts science on many fronts. Evolution is just one. The bible is the one true word of god. You can either accept it all as fact, or claim it is entirely metaphor and therefore either 1) provides no evidence of any divine being or 2) is made by flawed humans and therefore is an absolutely baseless text.

Damn it is hard to argue something with someone when you are literally arguing over what their imaginary friend whispered into their ear.

I suppose being a molecular biologist still does nothing to allow you to grasp the concept of 4.5 billion years (and ~3.7 billion of evolution) and just how much can be done in that time.
#40 to #39 - trickytrickster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
You don't have enough background or knowledge in Bible history or how people interpreted it over the years to make that claim. You are making assumptions that are incorrect, especially with this whole literal/not literal interpretation thing. How many times do I have to tell you that evolution doesn't contradict Catholicism. It contradicts Evangelicals because they think the world is 6000 years old, etc, but not every sect of Christianity believes that.

I know exactly how long that is and how much can get done in that time, trust me. You just seem to take me for an idiot because I'm religious.
#41 to #40 - anon id: 887b599d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2013) [-]
No, I take you for an idiot because you attribute your own personal view of the world onto god and claim that because you hold a certain opinion, god does as well.
#42 to #41 - trickytrickster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/03/2013) [-]
It's not my opinion alone. It's the opinion of the Catholic church...
User avatar #19 to #10 - gayboard
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
And to say one cannot be neutral is weak willed.

To stand firmly by one side is hard, to stand firmly between both is harder.
#22 to #19 - anon id: 887b599d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
Yes...

To firmly say "I don't know, anyone could be right" is EXTREMELY difficult.

Remember when Notler executed 50 billion agnostics and evolutionary Christians for not making up their minds?
#33 - iffyjiffy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
If anyone watched the Q&A (not a debate) could you tell me if you truly listened to both sides of the arguments and took into the account of what both of their points were?
#18 - anon id: 7cbad99d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/01/2013) [-]
Great even people who believe both in a way are even hated on, is there a reason to hate on others?
User avatar #8 - gotohemp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2013) [-]
danm I was just watching this debate like 1 hour ago

that ******* cardinal can present his argument, but ends up with no point

and watching him act all cool about it and then the awkward hesitation of the audience clapping made it all the more harder to watch