Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (105)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Cardinal Pell seemed like a nice guy, but it seems he is not very learned in the arguments for and against god.

  • I don't even know what Pell is talking about...

    It's like Mr. Bean giving a lecture on muffled marbles and mumbo jumbo.

  • Please tell me this subscriber isn't a believer?

    Every believer.... OMG it is huh?

    So my comments will never get through cause they always require approval.

  • 'You need a voicebox so you can articulate thoughts and develop them.' well, no, you don't...

  • Wow. This was just a bloodbath. Poor Pell...

  • Pell fails to give an answer for God.

  • I take offense to the notion of "no atheist can explain the smile of a child" My daughters smile quite frequently without god's help. All social animals are capable of showing enjoyment, delight and mirth. A dog wags its tail. A horse prances. A cat purrs. How is this basic expression of emotion - a child smiling - in any way evidence for a divine creator of any sort, much less one who needs to have his own son sacrificially slaughtered as part of a divine plan?

  • I take offense to the notion of "no atheist can explain the smile of a child" My daughters smile quite frequently without god's help. All social animals are capable of showing enjoyment, delight and mirth. A dog wags its tail. A horse prances. A cat purrs. How is this basic expression of emotion - a child smiling - in any way evidence for a divine creator of any sort, much less one who needs to have his own son sacrificially slaughtered as part of a divine plan?

  • The Cardinal's comments about the lack of language among animals explains only his lack of knowledge about animal behavior. The difference between human language and animal language is one of degree. Animal behaviorists are continually being quite surprised at how intelligent and capable of communication - even abstract communication - animals are. 

  • Cardinal asks where are you atheist institutions doing good? Well, unlike religionists, we don't need to slap the name of our position regarding the god hypothesis on every good thing we do. Secular organizations exist. There are atheist doctors at those Catholic and Anglican hospitals he names.

  • I never understood the Justice debate. Justice is a purely human construct. The universe shows no need for justice or revenge. Outside of the human realm where do we see any concept of "justice"? Saying the Atheist view is bleak is just a matter of taste. I do not see it as depressing or hopeless in the slightest. Life is hard sometimes. Deal with it.

  • 0:02:02 - reminded me of the dragon in my garage..

  • The George Pell chap mentioned the monkeys and typewriters thing. The correct statement is an infinite amount of monkeys with an infinite amount of typewriters would at some point create the entire works of Shakespeare (I think that's how it goes anyway).

    He said that the monkeys couldn't even type "a" after 6 months which was missing the point completely.

  • 1:06:02 The cardinal says: "The Universe doesn't explain itself." This is incorrect. It does. We humans are a part of the Cosmos (which contains our universe), we are made of existing elementary particles created within the stars through nuclear fusion, and we are progressively explaining more and more of how the Universe is and works. Therfore, the Universe IS explaining itself. If you do not understand this, you will readily accept simple, general statements such as the one the cardinal made.

  • Boy oh Boy Someone from the Catholic church pointing the finger at thoes who will have to answer to god at the end, how ironic it will be.

    A bishop arrives at pearly gates, gate keeper says "we can not accomodate you there is no suitable room for a Bishop, he asks why not, Well we never had one before.

  • The arrogant sod. Catholic Schools yes we pay, my wife works at a catholic hospital they are more interested profit than patients. Why not sell some of the massive assets of the church pell and give it to the poor.

    Hitler was Catholic you lie, Starlin did 3 years in seminary can only wonder where he got some of his ideas.

  • I believe i want a different explination one based on Me Me Me being sooo important and having a super special mission (which by the way is to die so you can go to heven or hell). Sorry Pell magic won't do it. Sneeky for you to use Miricles of biology, I think you mean natural processes which we understand no magic. how cheeky comparing an untestable myth to Physics and Maths, thats just dishonest. The great deciever lives in religion as we so often see.

    Accept reality and live.

  • Oh George it is not reasonable to believe in God. If one did why should it be your God or for that matter your child abusing church.

    Today when you won't be killed or tortured for disbelief, when we have all the information we now have and you can ask questions.

    With the evidence for the man made creation of a God in his image plus scriptures to go with it. The lack of Gaps God used to fill till we knew better.

    To believe seems very unreasonable and illogical. Only vestages of Myths.

  • Why were people clapping then laughing when they briefly discussed Hitler's religion? Wasn't Hitler really a Catholic at some point in his life?

  • @baconada

    They are in denial its embarrassing.

    Yep Catholic taking communion, did a deal with the pope, they loved each other. Hailed the Church and they celebrated his birthday from the pulpit when not idetifying Jews for the authorities. He was a bible reader and took inspiration from John the only gospel that has Jesus scourge the money lenders. He thought he was doing the same with Jews. In his book "I am doing Gods work" the SS had God is with Us on the belt buckles. and more.

  • @baconada -- in "Mein Kampf", Hitler wrote "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."

    In 1941, he told Gerhard Engel (one of his generals) "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

    In a speech in 1933, he declared "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and...we have stamped it out."

  • @kiilu - LOL OMG really? You believe that you know exactly how the universe started and what happens when we die and you mention sinful pride?

  • @kiilu Or you can't rid that very personal thing bc of your sinful pride :D

  • Poor old Cardinal Pell looked many times as if he didn't understand the arguments of Dan. Dan won this debate easily. He needs cleverer opponents.

  • You have got to be shitting me!! The cardinal starts right off with what is essentially Pascal's Wager? IDIOT!

  • @MotoAtheist lol, play nice :p

  • gravity moves the stars

  • @kiilu Pride is being a high school drop out and telling a professor he is wrong because one black 2,000 year old book says so.

  • @kiilu LMAO pride? You have no idea the level of ego and pride it takes to think your religion is better then everyone else s.

  • Ha I finally get to see mr Barker call the cardinal, George without the title.

    He he he, Barker is funny, right george

    

  • Why aren't atheist able to enjoy life just because they don't believe in God, lame argument ....Babies are born atheist, one of their first emotions is happiness.

  • 1:04:45  " it doesn't matter! " lmao!

    Great debate. Another fail for the Christians.

  • 1:04:45 " it doesn't matter! " lmao!

    Great debate. Another fail for the Christians.

  • Are there no better debaters for the cristian couse, this Catholic Archbishop of Sydney is stumbling and stuttering his circulair logics, very anoing to hear this man spend 10 min on the same topic the "bananaman" could cover in a minute, athougt the bananaman is not an intelectual equal, but neither is the Archbishop....

  • to hotdog antony flew to make a point for theism is such a declaration of bankruptcy. if it takes senility to become a theist, well then halleluja.. i liked the fact that pell declared that he believes in truth.. what a sentence.. what is worse than being a theist? being an atheist pretending to be a theist..

  • Less than 1 minute in I have a question: which god?

  • Dawkins scale is 1 to 7 and page 51 of the god delusion states " I count myself a 6 leaning to 7" but has since stated 6.9. Pell was lucky he was un embarrassed by Dan imagine him on the receiving end of hitchens! I would love to see him hitch slapped.

  • Good job Dan!

  • Does Pell not know the difference between theism and deism? That was a bit embarrassing...

  • Jesus Christ Pell is a boring idiot. I think I fell asleep..

  • It's unfortunate that a proponent of superstition can get more applause at a 21st century intellectual hub like MQ than an actual academic. The christian studies & chaplaincy squad must've been present; unfortunate that such things even dwell at MQ, an otherwise awesome place.

  • Does Dan Barker have a facebook or a twitter account?

  • @aprox23 he does.

  • Pell started with false arguments within a minute of commencement. His knowledge of science and its history was very distorted. Pell has had his silly statements challenged and thoroughly refuted on previous occasions. Whereas a scientist or a real philosopher would rise to this and modify or retract their arguments, churchmen repeat the same lies.

  • sigh.. wow...

    1 minute in.. fallacy of false dichotomy.. misunderstanding of what Atheism entails.. straw-manning secular explanations of the origins of the universe..

  • @moyga Yeah. My jaw had dropped before the first minute was up. Not that this surprised me among believers, but it's just so annoying to be misrepresented so often.

  • I didn't realise catholic Arch-Bishops could be so ignorant. They're usually fairly well educated.

  • I found it very odd that George couldn't really explain what a spirit is.

  • With God, I am a thoughtless zombie going along with the crowd. Without God, I am a free thinker and life gains much more meaning when I realize it isn't just a waiting room for the next existance.

  • Cardinal in response to other animals says that we have a gift of language. How embarrassing. Other species communicate, but because they don't speak like us, he feels we are superior? No question that we have the highest intelligence in the animal kingdom, but that does not mean that other high-intellect species are not communicating. This level of ignorance must pass.

  • Cardinal Pell responding to a lack of eternal judgment "I find that..bleak."

    It is irrelevant whether he finds it to be disappointing if it is true. You cannot make heaven and hell, the afterlife, true because you find the alternative to be disappointing.

  • One cannot make a myth true by developing a more sophisticated argument.

  • A mighty wizard creating the world is the best hypothesis.

  • How can Pell calculate the probability of something happening (abiogenesis) that isn't fully understood how exactly it did happen, OR the likelihood of it happening in whatever way Pell thinks it did happen (special creation by god)? Pell is just making numbers up! There is no frickin' way you can calculate that as a number!

  • "Would you go for the broccoli or the dog?"

    "Broccoli!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

    that made me laugh so hard...

  • With prolific over-population throughout the world, how is it worthy of praise to reproduce? I found that jab by Dan Barker quite odd.

    Perhaps it would benefit theists to not iterate the fallacious watch-maker argument. Instead, focus on the pragmatic benefits of having faith. Compare faith to the concepts of optimism and hope.

    That approach may counter the assertion that all faith is bad, forcing the opponent to debate the woes of specific religious doctrines and not religion itself.

  • God is at most a hypothesis, at the least a rumor or outright lie.

  • Thank you for uploading this, the great argument is always a pleasure to watch.

  • The priests arguments were old and have been debunked many times.

  • We welcome your comments and hope to keep this debate alive but please be respectful of others.

  • I love Brocolli!!! :D , but i rather preffer to be an Octopus :P

  • "if monotheism was a great improvement , what is the next great improvement!" Nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Dan Barker is a godsend

  • Barker 'wins' on clarity of logic and compelling argument. Pell tries to 'reify' concepts like truth, beauty and goodness; Barker doesn't let him get away with this sophistry. Truth, Beauty and Goodness are NOT things in and of themselves - they are exhibited in thought and action. Capitalising such words is just a grammatical trick to elevate such concepts into the realsms 'mystery'. In appealing to such 'mysteries' Pell betrays his underlying motivation - elitist self aggrandisement.

  • Dan gave him a nice uppercut at the closing speech!!

  • you want evidence and say Pell has none for God. but you Athiests believe in metaphysical things like "conscience", "honesty", "Goodness"...none of which can be placed in a test tube. nor can you "measure" either...when you can put "conscience" in a lab experiment then ur on to somethin...

  • @CapitalC20 i can test your honesty by putting you into a FMRI and asking you a series of questions.

  • @CapitalC20 theres lots of things we cant measure but because we cant measure everything we cant as dan says fill in the gaps with a god who made those things. its an intelligent way to think about the world but most atheists see this thinking theists make and are skeptical about that as well. you guys buy this concept that these things honesty, goodness exist therefore an all knowing deity must exist that understands everything. its possible but we dont believe these things as fast

  • @CapitalC20 You can measure and test conscience in a FMRI.

  • Cardinal George Pell got his ass handed to him in dozens of different ways... I almost feel sorry for the old guy; I'm sure he meant well.

  • 0:09:23 "against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand".

    What a shocking display of agnotology by Pell, I sit here stunned as he lists information which is obviously false and gives no evidence for his statements.

  • 0:09:23 "against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand".

    What a shocking display of agnotology by Pell, I sit here stunnded as he lists information which is obviously false and gives no evidence for his statements.

  • Dan: "Why doesn't god need another god to exist?"

    Pell: "MAGIC!"

  • Dan Barker is my new favorite atheist speaker. Sorry Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris.

  • I've never seen Dan this nervous before, but he's still possesses a much greater knowledge of the world in which we live. Pell's responses and arguments were either inadequate or entirely unrelated.

    Why do theists get stuck on this question of the origins of love, honor, and other products of the mind? My grandfather's mind is crippled with Alzheimer's. He doesn't love his own daughter anymore because he can't remember who she is. Is that god's beauty? It god did exist, it would be pure evil.

  • i was a catholic ..... i want to change teams .....

  • Poor george....might have to join the dole que .....:)

  • using flew? please

  • 0:38:27 Was George Pell's speaking cut out?

  • @RottenRroses No dialogue was cut from the debate.

  • @MacquarieUniversity Os course there was. Or did George not wish to speak?

  • so the spirit is the dragon in Cal Sagan's garage?

  • the pell guy clearly crushed barker

  • Dan Barker rocks! Probably the most effective atheist debater out there, in my opinion, since he concisely and vividly makes all the important points, whether in terms of biblical scholarship, moral reasoning, or natural science. He crushed Pell.

  • Pell has only shown, by regurgitating age old arguments that have long since been put to bed, that he limits himself to reading creationist literature and not any scientific literature.

  • if Pell wants to define god as "spiritual" and then define "spiritual" as love, honor, dignity... then... ok, god is love, honor, dignity? guess I believe in god too? Pell is not helping by further obscuring the issue, and serves to make Dan's point that nobody who believes in god can actually say anything useful about him.

  • Dan Barker remarks that Pell is 'informed'. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. At this stage of the game Pell is completely misinformed and it is simply no longer reasonable to present any of the arguments he put out, they have all been debunked. Either he is informed and a liar or he is uninformed.

  • Pell does not understand modern biology in which the precise mechanism

    of how information appears is exactly known now. He is only 3

    centuries behind the times!

  • All of his physics arguments are old and already debunked. He needs to read an actual physcist rather than creationist hacks:

    God: The Failed Hypothesis: how Science Shows that God Does Not Exist

    by Victor J. Stenger

  • By 0:44 Pell has utterly failed by saying that the only explanations are 'god' and 'chance'. How dishonest of him not to understand natural law (Newton) and natural selection (Darwin).

  • I have not seen one debate with Dan Barker where he has lost. A miracle, or simply Logic and Reason at it's best?

  • The old gentleman is very nice but he lost the debate in a big way in my opinion!

  • pell is wrong when he makes the distinction between agnostics and atheists. agnostics are atheists. atheists don't claim to know for sure there is no god, they claim to have an absence of belief in one. a capital A Atheist claims positive knowledge. people call them selves agnostics cause it sounds more acceptable. its just a euphemism.

  • @robaquarian agnostics believe there COULD be a god whereas, athiests beleive strongly that there is no god, understood?

  • @onhermis Actually, I have yet to meet an atheist who does not think that God could exist. The atheistic position seems to almost always be that God's existence is unlikely, yet possible.

    Even the philosophical "brain in a vat" scenario provides a means for explaining how God could potentially exist.

    Richard Dawkins himself explained that on a scale from 1 to 10 where a 1 is absolutely knowing God exists and a 10 is absolutely knowing that God does not exist - Dawkins rates himself as a 6.

  • @free2question I believe Dawkins actually rates himself a 6 when the scale is 1 to 7.

  • @free2question

    Dawkins' scale tried to fuel a move away from a binary scale of assertion of existence or non-existence of God. The atheist position on this matter, by definition, is -not- an assertion that God does not exist, rather a non-belief in theism. I think any rational atheist would not stick their head in the sand should undeniable evidence emerge for God...which is more than can be said for many theists.

  • @free2question I believe the scale was only 7, and Richard rated himself a 6.5.

  • What George Pell says sounds good, and has emotional appeal, but it's not true. How can he say it's love that moves the sun and the stars? Evidence please, Mr. Pell?

  • Macquarie uni atheist leauge....HAHAHA...probably formeed by " professional students", or those studying that all important useful * cough * degree......Bachelor of arts.

  • Really classy to refuse having your picture taken together with your opponent at the end.

  • @d7urban he said it was because he dissed mother theresa.

  • Comment removed

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more