Q&A Believes In Mass Effect And The Lazarus Project

44
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!

Comments

  • 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.

  • 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)

  • 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.

  • 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!

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!