Watch this debate

Pharaoh714

I found this debate interesting its between Richard Dawkins vs Cardinal George from the Catholic Church..




My comments:

- I don't get why Catholics think that Adam and Eve are not real.
- I don't like How the Catholic cardinal says Athiests can be good and go to heaven. -- WHAT!!!

Its an interesting debate to watch non the less.

peter_saad

Catholicism is such a watered-down, compassionate denomination. As long as you're 'good' you'll go to heaven. LOL

peter_saad

Archbishop: "I think it helps to believe in God"

Christrules

I want to see Richard Dawkins talk to one of the Coptic Bishops! That would be interesting :)

servant33

Great debate! I think both sides presented well and had fair representation.

meanz

I was so disappointed when i watched this on tv!
Cardinal Pell made an image for himself here in Australia as being a strict "to the core" roman catholic but then when asked by dawkins if atheists were going to heaven he answered yes!!!!!
Why then Cardinal are you on this program debating the existence of God if it clearly doesn't matter?
As well when asked if the the Garden of Eden story was true, he said "it is a story"!!!!!!
Even Dawkins was confused and asked him "i wonder where the idea of original sin came in if that is the case"!!!
very bad arguments i was really disappointed

Mary E

They dont beleive in Adam and Eve because they believe that the whole entire Bible is a myth :( Dont noe yyyy

qawe

He also said this (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm). I'm not quite sure about it, and to what extent we agree with it:

Q: if there was human evolution, then how did humans get a soul if they simply evolved (btw this is the strongest point I've personally found against the evolution of humans)

Look, a soul is not like putting a spot of gin in a tonic. The soul is the principle of life. So whenever there was a principle of life that could question, that could be open to awe, that was able to communicate then we had the first human. Now, we believe that the first humans developed in South Africa. I’m not quite sure how long ago and that all, you know, humans have developed from that. We know most about that. There aren't remains. We know most about that because of the drawings they left on the on walls and caves and that sort of thing. No such thing from Neanderthals, so we can't say exactly when there was a first human but we have to say if there are humans there must have been a first one. They might have been equal first but if there is a progression there’s got to be first.

The soul is the principle of life. There are animal souls.

All living things have some principle of life. An animal has a principle of life. A human has a soul, a principle of life, which is immensely more sophisticated. We even have a voice box, which is one of the great miracles, so we can communicate our thoughts to one another rather than just grunting.

peterfarrington

The animal soul is not the same as the higher soul in man which is related to God.

We are not simply animals. When we are conceived God also creates our human soul which is united to our flesh. This is a particular creation of God. Without it we are just animals. With it we may become children of God.

mark.naguib7

[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13198.msg154917#msg154917 date=1335265719]
The animal soul is not the same as the higher soul in man which is related to God.

We are not simply animals. When we are conceived God also creates our human soul which is united to our flesh. This is a particular creation of God. Without it we are just animals. With it we may become children of God.


So then all of the Christian scientists, who believe that God used evolution as a method of creation are all wrong?

imikhail

There is a difference between evolution and adaptation. To say that man evolved out of a chimpanzee is nonsense.

mark.naguib7

[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13198.msg154923#msg154923 date=1335279174]
There is a difference between evolution and adaptation. To say that man evolved out of a chimpanzee is nonsense.


Micro vs. Macro, yes I know.

peterfarrington

Yes they are wrong. We are not mere animals and our soul is not simply animal life. For one thing how would mere animal life persist after animal death to enjoy life as spirit un paradise.

Ioannes

Genetic entropy is far more sensible than evolution. When I was an atheist I could never subscribe to evolution because ancient human history contradicted the idea that we were simple and evolved to a more advanced being and culture. Evolution says that mutations create adaptations, basically a loss of information results in an evolutionary gain. Genetic entropy is that our DNA is breaking down from a superior form. This model best fits science, history, AND religion. Evolution is like stuffing a square peg in a round hole, then telling everyone else they are stupid for not believing that it fits.

mark.naguib7

[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=13198.msg154928#msg154928 date=1335288702]
Genetic entropy is far more sensible than evolution. When I was an atheist I could never subscribe to evolution because ancient human history contradicted the idea that we were simple and evolved to a more advanced being and culture. Evolution says that mutations create adaptations, basically a loss of information results in an evolutionary gain. Genetic entropy is that our DNA is breaking down from a superior form. This model best fits science, history, AND religion. Evolution is like stuffing a square peg in a round hole, then telling everyone else they are stupid for not believing that it fits.


It fits the theory presented in the book "Finger prints of the gods" too.

Ioannes

That is a fantastic book. Graham Hancock is a wonderful author because he is one of the few in that genre who is not trying to push some sort of agenda. He says, here is the evidence, it does not fit with what we are told.