greeney2 wrote:So the big question is why does Dawkins have to be arrogant and rude? It is a reflection of his own doubts maybe.
I dunno, why are you a complete ass 99% of the time?
A reflection of your own doubt?
greeney2 wrote:Why was he so unable to give a scientific explantion that was coherent? No excuses, if he doesn't know it, he can't believe it.
Ridiculous. No one knows how the Universe started.
I repeat. No one.
That does not mean we have to believe in God.
I don't know who killed JFK, does that mean I should believe God did it?
greeney2 wrote:The Cardinal is a priest, and knew his subjects, and told dawkins exactly a scientific rebuttal, as Dawkins floundered.
A scientific rebuttal to what? There is no science in saying "God did it".
That is at very best a philosophical statement.
greeney2 wrote:On of the times the audiance laughed at Dawkins.
Most likely it was filled with believers, who knows. Who cares?
Thanks for derailing my thread, once again though
greeney2 wrote:It does not surprize me the Cardinal gave this explanation, and even a bigger explanation you missed was what he said about Moses, and if God actually carved the 10 Commandments on the tablets.
If we can reject one story as mythical, why not reject the rest of them too?
It's pretty easy to throw away the Bible as a historical document of any kind once you start chucking things in the "myth" pile.
greeney2 wrote:Not one time did the Cardinal elude to Dawkins or Atheists going to Hell, in fact even said it was possible for them to see Heaven.
This is great, he sounds like a good guy, but he's not taking the Bible very seriously and is scarcely even a Christian, by the sounds of it.
I'm all for it, I'm just not sure why you are.
greeney2 wrote:The Cardinal was not mean to him, nor did he do any of the things you claim all priests do telling you will go to Hell. The Cardinal actually said Hell may only be for the likes of Hitler, and others of that caliber. To hear you and EH tell it, all Christians condem you to Hell, but you herd just the opposite from the Cardinal, and why. Again, the total misconceptions you and other atheists seem to have about religions was not shown by Cardinal Pell.
He is watering down his own religion, he is only not offensive to me because he is not really a proper Christian.
Frrosted gets it. Halfabo probably gets it too. You, apparently, do not.
greeney2 wrote:If the Pope, and regional Cardinals are the voices of Catholics, Dawkins is certainly a voice for your beliefs,
No one is a voice for my beliefs, atheism is not a religion.
Dawkins can do whatever he likes and it has no impact on me.
He is not the pope of atheism
greeney2 wrote:and he was unable IMHO to even explain in laymans terms, parts of the science proof, you think is so logical and implies to you, God does not exist.
You cannot prove God does not exist.
You cannot prove unicorns do not exist.
Such a scientific proof is not possible in either case.
Come on greeney, you know this, you've been told so many times.
By the way, science does not deal with the "whys" but neither does "religion" really, it just makes stuff up, and they all contradict. That is not really dealing with the "why" issue, it's just offering an ad-hoc explanation to something no one knows and is essentially useless.
In court, you deal with the motive (the why), as well as (the how), the method of the murder, for instance. But the motive (the why) is not explained by making stuff up, it is not an explanation until it is proved to be true. No religion has been proved true, therefore the "why" questions still exist as they ever have.
I would like to say "you are better than this, greeney", but you aren't, so I'll leave you be.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."
- Sam Harris