Q&A Believes In Mass Effect And The Lazarus Project

Mass Effect featured on Q&A last night -- while my wife was 'making' me watch Downton Abbey? Why wasn't I informed!

I'm not an avid watcher of Q&A, but I wish I'd tuned in last night. Richard Dawkins made an appearance on the show, and considering it was Easter Weekend and all, I'm assuming there was some sort of religious theme. That's most likely the only reason why some joker managed to get the above tweet featured on the show!

Awesome job Ceekel. I'm totally following you on Twitter now.

Thanks Will!


    Hahahaha, winner!


    +10 Internets to that man!

      Edit: That woman

    totes saw that and laughed

    Richard Dawkins!? Dammit... wish I watched it too now :(

      Still can - http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/past-programs-by-date.htm

      It was pretty disappointing, I was always more of a Hitchens fan than Dawkin myself but he's definitely been better in the past, he seemed pretty jet-lagged and the catholic mosh-pit at the front put him off a bit laughing at things they couldn't understand.

        I find that Dawkins doesn't really know how to relate to people. It always makes me feel uncomfortable for him when he's trying to explain something. He comes across as though he doesn't really want to explain things. I get the impression it's because he doesn't understand why people don't think the same way as him. That's kind of understandable, but it doesn't help him; I'd go so far as to say it often makes him seem as petty as his detractors.

        But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

          I agree with what you're saying, though I do want to reiterate that he actually doesn't want to explain things. He's said a number of times now he hates doing debates like this anymore because he always gets the same easily refuted arguments. On the show last night, you could tell he was bored of talking to Pell after 20 minutes, because Pell didn't have a coherent position to debate. And Pell invoked Godwins law 5 minutes in, which is a really a poor choices seeing as he and Hitler have Catholicism in common (not that I think this had anything to do with it, in fact, I believe that religious faith has little to do with it either way). What was the point of passionate debate from Dawkins under such circumstances.

          I think Dawkins was tired and simply overwhelmed by the volume of stupid (especially from the peanut gallery Pell had bussed in). I've seen several interviews and debates where Dawkins remains extremely polite and very coherent in the face of such commentary. He was clearly pretty "over it" last night.

          I actually thought he was great. But then I always do tend to get a bit of a boner when he talks. He explains things incredibly well, and his sentences are often perfect.

      Me too, if only there was a way to watch television shows after they have screened live.

      *cough* http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/panel *cough*

      *cough* http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/abc-iview/id401778175?mt=8 *cough*

      *cough* http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/australian-broadcasting-corporation/id376620068?mt=8 *cough*

      *cough* http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm *cough*

      *cough* http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/vodcast/qanda_2012_ep10.mp4 *cough*

        You sho uld get that cough looked at man.

          Somebody's got the black lung

            I lol'd

        Hey, I bet that'd make it easier to get a screen shot like the one in this article too. Well easier than watching it live with your finger sitting on a button waiting for the right moment.

    It was well worth watching, just ABC iView it! it had Cardinal Pell and Dawkins on. Was just the 2 of them.

    you can see it here
    its at about the 54 minute mark

    It was actually a fairly good and relatively balanced debate about whether religious belief makes the world a better place.
    "No" won 74 to 26 but it was fun watching the priest stumble over his arguments when the moderator tried to clarify some points.
    Some interesting tweets, too.

    Hah, I didn't think this'd get published. Go Serrels!

    Video game references are good, but the best bit was when George Pell said he was preparing some young English boys and everybody burst out laughing.

    (Not starting a discussion about the Catholic church, just pointing out something that happened)

      I remember that, and I laughed so hard I may have peed a little.

      Note: I did not actually pee a little.

    I noticed this last night and had a good laugh!
    I have seen every Dawkins Debate on the net and this was not one of the better ones. Hopefully I can get a book signed by Professor Dawkins this weekend.
    And in case anyone was interested in how you get something from nothing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U

      Thanks, that two hour conversation brightened up my otherwise dull gameless afternoon in the office yesterday.

    Dawkins was struggling to keep his eyes open. And they audience just laughed randomly. I don't think they where the brightest bunch. I did laugh when I saw that comment though! Another quote about Jesus having to Dads was pretty good to.

      It's a Q&A audience. Folks who believe that mentioning a topic and discussing it in the most surfacey way possible without actually degenerating into morning-televisio-esque discourse makes them well-informed and culturally savvy people.

    Hugging Brian Lake. Keeps getting better.

      I'd totally tap that ass.

    I couldn't tell whether Dawkins was either jetlagged or just fed up with hearing the 'arguments' put forth by these fools. And those Christian 'cheerleaders' laughing and cheering like the audience from the Ellen Degeneres show annoyed me to no end.

    I was extremely disappointed; there are some coherent religious leaders out there (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc), but instead when pressed on any of the statements that he actually had a 'position' on; he'd resort to the brilliant "God is beyond reason and science".

      Oh boy...

      So you'd be happy if he tried to scientifically justify god then? I have to admit I was impressed with Pell and his views of religion that can sit nicely with science. He did make a couple of blunders last night, but I think my respect for the catholic church has grown from watching this.

      Although I still couldn't help but laugh when he talked about "Preparing some young English boys" (which was for communion of course). But he was interrupted by laughter before he could finish his sentence.

        My position is that although I can't validate or refute the existence of God directly, I can empirically test many of the individual claims in the bible, koran, torah etc. Unfortunately for the hierarchy within organized religions, most of the specific claims don't stack up. In fact, the evidence is almost entirely contrary. The rest is incidental, or untestable, and therefore provides no basis for continued investigation or consideration. Thats how religion and science actually fit together.

        The suggestion that religion provides the why is only valid if it is also true. At this point, the religious explanation of the how (which is what we can actually test) is so thoroughly debunked that to assume that the "why" is true nonetheless is terribly irrational. I could accept someone saying they are agnostic and will keep an open mind on the subject - after all, skepticism is an admirable trait in science - but to act as though it were true because we want an answer is ridiculous.

        That's my point. If you can't scientifically justify something; or give any form of evidence of its existance - it just doesn't exist.

        And yes, I'm well aware science hasn't YET explained a number of phenomena, but there's about as much evidence for the Tooth Fairy as there is an all knowing, all powerful deity...

    Pell's arguments were based on an acceptance of faith whereas Dawkin's were based on science. Who would have thought, eh? "I believe we're cousins of Neanderthal-type creatures". Oh, the outrage!

    oh god this is amazing.Props to that lady who made the joke. Props to the ABC who either got the joke and posted it or who didn't get the joke.

    Regardless, thats made my day!

    yet if Luke Plunkett posted this article you watch the different tone in these comments section...

      that's right, the first thing I thought was "that's it?" Not that I care but with so many raging at Plunkett's barely relevant articles makes the well accepted barely relevant Australian articles stick out like a sore thumb.

    haha same could be said of the lazarus pit in batman!

    iView, its on iView, get on it now

    If you want to see someone with a true understanding of Christianity and science debating Dawkins checkout John Lennox. Pell couldn't argue himself out of a paper bag and Catholicism isn't Christianity.

      Catholicism is a form of Christianity.

    wow, that ceekel chick is really into ME, if her twitter account is anything to go by. Good for her.

    As someone who has spent the Easter holidays battling questions like "What is Easter like for an atheist" , as if it is our kryptonite, and sarcasm like "happy easter atheist!!" I think I can somewhat sympathise with Dawkins having to answer the same question, any of which you could find answer for on the net, over and over again.

    I recorded the episode. I might watch it in the future.

      I just call it International Chocolate Appreciation Day instead.

      Easter for athiests is all the chocolate with out any of the worship, its a win win situation! :P atleast thats my view

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now