Separate names with a comma.
Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.
Discussion in 'The Pub' started by snuff3r, Apr 3, 2012.
Richard Dawkins vs George Pell. Let the ownage begin.
two inflexible people and two inflexible world views, yawn
This is worrying. I'm finding myself repeatedly agreeing with Paul today .
Heh. No one mentioned ownage when John Lennox was on.
Dawkins is a such a terrible debater that he's likely to loose it to Pell anyway. Hitchens was always better to watch and listen to, that man could actually think on his feet and not read from a script.
Tomorrow is another day :wink:
Yeah, but the entertainment is going to be epic.
Meh. People who won't engage in proper give and take are usually frustrating to watch.
It'll be like watching 2 Julia Gillards argue. It won't matter what actual question is asked, all you'll get is a rigid, scripted answer that's most likely only tangentially relevant to the actual question.
I'll watch because I always find these interesting if only to watch for the holes in the logic used. Pell will undoubtably annoy the **** out of me, but at least I expect it.
I love Dawkins, (who would have though it!)
I can't wait to see him school Pell, who ever he is haha.
Problem with Dawkins, is he doesn't speak well in a forum like that. We have seen it before, and its painful at times.
If new evidence came to light Dawkins would change his mind. No amount of evidence would change Pell's.
That's why he turns down so many "debates" there's quite a few "professional" debaters in the US queuing up to take a pop.
The plan? Used to be to offer Hitchins but obviously they weren't up got that.
Regarding the existence of god and the impact of religion on society? About as likely as Pell announcing that the mardi gras is fun night out.
Not sure where you get that from.
If there was evidence most if not all atheists would change their view.
Show me evidence and i'll change my mind.
Or become a satanist. Probably this option. :angel:
Hell yeh, this will be both boring and very interesting.
Was meant more as a comment on Dawkins, esp. his views on religion as A Bad Thing, but now that you mention it...
Should an all powerful being show up and start smiting, manifesting in gold showers and hogging the remote, would your common or garden atheist then acknowledge the existence of (a) god, or merely the existence of the cornier kind of star trek alien?
Lets assume, as is so often quoted, that the mk1 omnipotent, omniscient creator god is by its nature not a (dis)provable concept. Pell won't change his opinion as he does not acknowledge the existence of evidence that would require him to do so. Yet the average atheist considering the same concept of god won't change his, as the evidence required cannot exist. Are their viewpoints so different?
Sorry mate you'll have to go again there, other than the normal apologists ploy of implying that Atheism and Theism are positions of faith I don't get your meaning.
Actually I wasn't calling atheism a position of faith, but I was rambling a bit. To summarise:
1. God as a concept not provable or falsifiable*
2. A believer A acknowledges the lack of evidence and relies on faith
3. A non believer B not only recognises the lack of evidence, but also (given 1.) that sufficient evidence can't exist.
As a result, neither A nor B can be convinced to change their viewpoints. B can ask for evidence all they want, safe in the knowledge that it can't be provided. In practical terms, both are as inflexible as each other.
*I don't believe that this is strictly true, but its a little OT
Which only works if you accept 1.