Richard Dawkins VS Archbishop George Pell

[Nine]

That's what I hate with these programmes. The show will always fill the audience with people who will support who they want it to support so it looks like they are winning the argument when the audience suddenly starts clapping because he's said "gawd is real".

Yeah.. Its really frustrating when a good argument is followed my silence when the other guy sprouts some absolute non-sense then the whole room goes nuts.

I'm glad that he did point out that they were clearly biased.

[Faith No More]

One of the tweets said that Dawkins comes off as arrogant, but I thought that the Archbishop was a much bigger pompous ass.

[fuckass365]

I really didn't think the audience or even the host came across as biased. The host seemed to be jabbing more at the priest.

[Napoléon]

I really didn't think the audience or even the host came across as biased. The host seemed to be jabbing more at the priest.

The host wasn't, but if you didn't think the audience was biased you must of been watching a different video to me.

There were a few cheering for Dawkins don't get me wrong, but it seemed the bible basher could say basically anything and he'd get an applause.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The host wasn't, but if you didn't think the audience was biased you must of been watching a different video to me.

Interesting you should say that. I posted the clip without comment because I DID comment on another forum,with what I thought was a relatively objective view and was pilloried .

I seem to remember some rather petulant questions from some apparent theists in the audience:

THIS is what I saw: At the beginning,Dawkins not come across well. The lurid tie and tacky suit vs Pell's dignified black. At times Dawkins seemed a bit shrill and visibly upset. Pell maintained a calm arrogance.

At first, I was surprised at how well Pell came across,he seemed quite intelligent ,especially when arguing about the concept of nothing. Having admitted he is not a physicist,(and does not really understand) Dawkins should have shut up,instead of arguing from ignorance.

Pell scored there,but went downhill pretty much immediately, there,looking increasingly arrogant,, dogmatic and rather ignorant (but not stupid) as Dawkins handed him his head..


I'm still an atheist and still think George Pell is slimy.

---

One of the tweets said that Dawkins comes off as arrogant, but I thought that the Archbishop was a much bigger pompous ass.

True,but tu quoque.

[Napoléon]

They still seemed to cheer louder for him than for Dawkins. Jus' sayin'.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

They still seemed to cheer louder for him than for Dawkins. Jus' sayin'.

Not my perception. PLUS Pell DID actaully score a few points,and showed he has a sense of humour. From Dawkins we got a querulous "why is that funny?",more than once.

I am not especially an admirer of St Richard and never have been. I see him as a smart scientist with a good mind. Also a skilled debater and polemicist,but weak philosopher. He has nothing original to say,but says it very well. He seems to have had a huge impact on people unaccustomed to actually thinking.

[Napoléon]

From Dawkins we got a querulous "why is that funny?",more than once.

He seemed agitated yeah, but I didn't think it was that funny.

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

Ultimately it comes down to bias and presentation, doesn't it? Dawkins could have the best argument in the world, backing the most noble cause, and a few plants in the audience and an unsteady voice would hand the "victory" to a thiest.

[Reforged]

"What if I'm a lesbian AND a good person?" HarrietHorsfall

Well Harriet; you should become bi-sexual, come straight to my house and show me just how good you are. Bring a friend.