Religion Debate: Pell vs Dan Barker

[linga_is_no1]

"It what promises to be a bloody battle, His Eminence Cardinal George Pell and American Atheist Activist Dan Barker, plan to face off tomorrow at Sydney's Macquarie University, in a debate on the topic 'That Without God We Are Nothing'. Sydney Festival observers will remember that this was the same topic that Cardinal Pell and Christopher Hitchens fought over last year."

full details at The Catholic League of Australia's website

For anyone else lucky enough to live in Sydney and live in the area reports would be great.

 

[Sloth]

"It what promises to be a bloody battle, His Eminence Cardinal George Pell and American Atheist Activist Dan Barker, plan to face off tomorrow at Sydney's Macquarie University, in a debate on the topic 'That Without God We Are Nothing'. Sydney Festival observers will remember that this was the same topic that Cardinal Pell and Christopher Hitchens fought over last year."

full details at The Catholic League of Australia's website

For anyone else lucky enough to live in Sydney and live in the area reports would be great.

Hitchens debated Pell? I would have loved to see that, is there any footage?

 

[KevinCat07]

As would I. Word is that Pell comfortably accounted for Hitchens in that one.

That Dan Barker was a staunch Christian Preacher but he had some life event that made him turn Atheist in 84. No suprise a traumatic event made him lose hope and thus ever since he has felt the need to rebel and blame God for everything.

 

[Sloth]

As would I. Word is that Pell comfortably accounted for Hitchens in that one.

That remains to be seen but I seriously doubt it.

 

[Richo83]

Why didn't they get someone good? Even many Christians don't like or listen to Pell.

 

[Dr Pangloss]

They both delivered addressed to the festival of dangerous ideas last year. They did not directly oppose each other, but their respective speeches were the centrepieces of the saturday and the sunday sessions. I have no idea where KevinCat derived his certainty of a Pell knock-out from, since the two never squared off directly. Divine revelation?

 

[Papa G]

They both delivered addressed to the festival of dangerous ideas last year. They did not directly oppose each other, but their respective speeches were the centrepieces of the saturday and the sunday sessions. I have no idea where KevinCat derived his certainty of a Pell knock-out from, since the two never squared off directly. Divine revelation?

No evidence needed, if he wants to cite misinformation and truely believes in his heart that Pell won, well as a Christian, it is not only his right, but the formula for the last 2000 years.

 

[Dawson]

"It what promises to be a bloody battle, Intolerant Religious Activist George Pell and Deep Thinking Progressive Dan Barker, plan to face off tomorrow at Sydney's Macquarie University, in a debate on the topic 'That Without God We Are Nothing'. Sydney Festival observers will remember that this was the same topic that Cardinal Pell and Christopher Hitchens fought over last year."

edited for accuracy

 

[dmc333]

Don't bring the kids!

 

[Nasma]

No suprise a traumatic event made him lose hope and thus ever since he has felt the need to rebel and blame God for everything.

Honestly, you need to be more subtle in your trolls.

 

[Chief]

As would I. Word is that Pell comfortably accounted for Hitchens in that one.

That Dan Barker was a staunch Christian Preacher but he had some life event that made him turn Atheist in 84. No suprise a traumatic event made him lose hope and thus ever since he has felt the need to rebel and blame God for everything.

I thought there were no atheists in foxholes?

 

[mantis]

As would I. Word is that Pell comfortably accounted for Hitchens in that one.

That Dan Barker was a staunch Christian Preacher but he had some life event that made him turn Atheist in 84. No suprise a traumatic event made him lose hope and thus ever since he has felt the need to rebel and blame God for everything.

How can he be doing that, when he doesn't believe in god?

 

[Papa G]

How can he be doing that, when he doesn't believe in god?

This is genuinely the most intelligent thing you have ever written on this site. Kudos to you

 

[linga_is_no1]

Report is up here:

I'd expect the SMH to do a piece about it.

 

[skilts]

Report is up here:

I'd expect the SMH to do a piece about it.

If the SMH does a piece on it, you won't be reading it. It was enlightening to see that farcical catholic example of bigotry you posted as a link. Do you get your ideas from any other source, ever?

 

[Archimedes]

No evidence needed, if he wants to cite misinformation and truely believes in his heart that Pell won, well as a Christian, it is not only his right, but the formula for the last 2000 years.

What evidence do you have to disprove it?

 

[linga_is_no1]

If the SMH does a piece on it, you won't be reading it. It was enlightening to see that farcical catholic example of bigotry you posted as a link. Do you get your ideas from any other source, ever?

You need to get over this chip on your shoulder about Catholics, posts like these are just trolling, you don't contribute anything. I don't know how you have the energy to keep up with your bigoted diatribe.

And I assure if the SMH does a piece on it I will be reading it, obviously the double meaning of your post was lost on me and everyone else, because it was obviously so intelligent that no one else can pick up on it.

Furthermore I have no problem quoting Catholic Sources, because unlike most modern sources, Catholic sources originate from 2000 years of Catholic tradition that have seen empires fall and rise. If you don't like the fact that I quote Catholic sources, then don't read my posts. I would however suggest to you, that in order to participate in liberal democracy, like Australia, you have at the very least respect and tolerate other opinions.

 

[btdg]

What evidence do you have to disprove it?

I'm fairly sure the burden of proof rests with the one making outrageous claims like 'the son of god came to earth and rose from the dead'.

I know this to be true because the invisible pink unicorn told me so - disprove it if you can.

As for the Australian Catholic league website- its hilarious, although I suspect linga_is_number_1 might be the author of the site considering it uses similarly poor grammar and even worse arguments, only has about 3 members/readers, and he seems to be the only person linking to it anywhere.

How funny is the whole 'persecuted Catholic' thing? Really? The largest and richest church group in the world? A massive business with enormous assets that nevertheless receives tax-free status in Australia? A member of a religion that counts the prime minister, the opposition leader, most of parliament, and pretty much every important political figure in the country as members? An organisation that runs its own schools and community organisations? And all this without any need to justify itself or explain its actions, even when those actions are patently discriminatory and against the law. This is what passes for persecution in 2010?

If thats true, sign me up for some persecution.

 

[mantis]

You need to get over this chip on your shoulder about Catholics, posts like these are just trolling, you don't contribute anything. I don't know how you have the energy to keep up with your bigoted diatribe.

And I assure if the SMH does a piece on it I will be reading it, obviously the double meaning of your post was lost on me and everyone else, because it was obviously so intelligent that no one else can pick up on it.

Furthermore I have no problem quoting Catholic Sources, because unlike most modern sources, Catholic sources originate from 2000 years of Catholic tradition that have seen empires fall and rise. If you don't like the fact that I quote Catholic sources, then don't read my posts. I would however suggest to you, that in order to participate in liberal democracy, like Australia, you have at the very least respect and tolerate other opinions.

The irony is delicious.

 

[Archimedes]

I'm fairly sure the burden of proof rests with the one making outrageous claims like 'the son of god came to earth and rose from the dead'.

I know this to be true because the invisible pink unicorn told me so - disprove it if you can.

As for the Australian Catholic league website- its hilarious, although I suspect linga_is_number_1 might be the author of the site considering it uses similarly poor grammar and even worse arguments, only has about 3 members/readers, and he seems to be the only person linking to it anywhere.

How funny is the whole 'persecuted Catholic' thing? Really? The largest and richest church group in the world? A massive business with enormous assets that nevertheless receives tax-free status in Australia? A member of a religion that counts the prime minister, the opposition leader, most of parliament, and pretty much every important political figure in the country as members? An organisation that runs its own schools and community organisations? And all this without any need to justify itself or explain its actions, even when those actions are patently discriminatory and against the law. This is what passes for persecution in 2010?

If thats true, sign me up for some persecution.

Nice rant. The burden of proof however is on the one making the statement i.e. Papa G that the Bible is misinformation and not evidence in itself. Comparing ancient writings and scriptures about events occuring in those times to an invisible pink elephant is a very weak and pathetic arguement. Clearly you have nothing to prove/disprove your opinion on its accuracy, however once you state your opinion as fact and inturn compare others opinions on it accuracy, reliability, relevance etc, as speaking to invisible pink elephants, then I suggest your the one that needs to provide the evidence.

Clearly you do not watch the news/read papers etc very often, because the Catholic Church is often required to justify and explain its actions.

 

[WCEforeverman]

Nice rant. The burden of proof however is on the one making the statement i.e. Papa G that the Bible is misinformation and not evidence in itself. Comparing ancient writings and scriptures about events occuring in those times to an invisible pink elephant is a very weak and pathetic arguement. Clearly you have nothing to prove/disprove your opinion on its accuracy, however once you state your opinion as fact and inturn compare others opinions on it accuracy, reliability, relevance etc, as speaking to invisible pink elephants, then I suggest your the one that needs to provide the evidence.

Clearly you do not watch the news/read papers etc very often, because the Catholic Church is often required to justify and explain its actions.

The burden of proof relies upon those who claim that ancient writings and scriptures are the word of god.

The 'invisible unicorn' is a varitation of Russell's Tea.

What does the age of the statement have to do with the validity of it?

 

[skilts]

You need to get over this chip on your shoulder about Catholics, posts like these are just trolling, you don't contribute anything. I don't know how you have the energy to keep up with your bigoted diatribe.

And I assure if the SMH does a piece on it I will be reading it, obviously the double meaning of your post was lost on me and everyone else, because it was obviously so intelligent that no one else can pick up on it.

Furthermore I have no problem quoting Catholic Sources, because unlike most modern sources, Catholic sources originate from 2000 years of Catholic tradition that have seen empires fall and rise. If you don't like the fact that I quote Catholic sources, then don't read my posts. I would however suggest to you, that in order to participate in liberal democracy, like Australia, you have at the very least respect and tolerate other opinions.

If you stop posting your asinine crap, I'll be happy to desist from exposing you as the bigot everyone on here, with three exceptions, knows you to be.

It's surprising that you detected a double meaning in what I posted. It's of no surprise that still you have no understanding of what I posted. You're not the brightest light in the chandelier, are you?

 

[skilts]

.
Clearly you do not watch the news/read papers etc very often, because the Catholic Church is often required to justify and explain its actions.

Still haven't seen any justification or explanation for it being a haven for vile, power-obsessed perverts and vicious sadists. When can we expect them to address this issue?

 

[linga_is_no1]

Still haven't seen any justification or explanation for it being a haven for vile, power-obsessed perverts and vicious sadists. When can we expect them to address this issue?

That must be why the Church is the largest non-government aid giver in the world. The Church's charities must somehow be involved in a massive perverted ring designed to appease vicious sadists. I mean like it simply does not make sense, why else would the Church help so many people?

BTW obviously you must contribute more to society than the Church does if you have the nerve to attack it. So do you fund schools, hospitals, universities, drug clinics, hospices, aged care homes, orphanages and literally 1000's of other charitable institutions? Or do you just attack other people for doing the things that you can't be bothered to do?

 

[Niximus]

That must be why the Church is the largest non-government aid giver in the world. The Church's charities must somehow be involved in a massive perverted ring designed to appease vicious sadists. I mean like it simply does not make sense, why else would the Church help so many people?

BTW obviously you must contribute more to society than the Church does if you have the nerve to attack it. So do you fund schools, hospitals, universities, drug clinics, hospices, aged care homes, orphanages and literally 1000's of other charitable institutions? Or do you just attack other people for doing the things that you can't be bothered to do?

If Dennis Ferguson started doing charity work would it excuse his crimes?