I'm not sure I will watch that, Dawkins is a brilliant man, but i have found he lacks the ability to keep a debate on track. I think he has spent too much time in the science community, where truth is held as a virtue. In religion, they don't care whats real, or whats true, they only care about their own power over others, and how to get more. Watching him debate is painful, not because hes wrong, but because hes too kind and polite to say what needs to be said.
Damn, I miss Hitchens. Even if you didn't agree with him, nobody could deny that in a debate, the man was our Juggernaut. He truly struck intellectual fear into the religious, his ability to wield his words, had others afraid to even speak.
I too wish Hitchens was there, especially to make the obvious counter to the point made at 48:45-49:15; namely that the teachings of jesus suggest that Hitler would have been forgiven, because jesus died for his (and everyone else's) sins.
Pell makes a lot of snide remarks and null points, all the while displaying huge ignorance and offering pointless rhetoric as answers to some of the questions he is given.
I do very much like Dawkins and have a lot of respect for him, although I do think that he sometimes comes across as too arrogant, to the point where I can understand theists turning away from him. However, in this video he seems very measured and reasonable and makes a good go of the arguments presented.
It's grizzly bear vs sloth, in my opinion.
Pell is supposed to be god's top guy in this country, yet could only muster child-like responses and explanations.
Pell, explaining how he knows hell exists, (I thought that even the Catholics had surrendered hell, but it seems not): one word from Pell: "Hitler".
You see, given what a nasty-parsty Hitler was, surely he must be in hell now. Clearly, if he wasn't, then he got off way too lightly. Ergo: there is a hell.
Pell promptly undid even this *evidence* by stating that he truly hopes no one is in hell. Pell believes in some sort of cleansing house, where everyone on their way to hell is so shocked and awed by the vision of god that they repent, and, presumably go straight to heaven. (How easy is that, hey? Why bother going to confession while here on Earth?)
Obviously, Pell's theory means that Hitler might not be in hell, therefore Pell's only evidence of the necessary existence of hell vanishes.
Despite decades devoted to his own cause, Pell also struggled with the simple and obvious question of why god allows so much suffering. Pell stumbled all over the place, basically he didn't know, then decided - his trump card - that Christ also suffered, so there!
He also drowned under the burden of his own nonsense when asked why he demands "proof" for climate change, but doesn't require any such thing for his god.
Dawkins was tetchy, although mostly very polite when answering questions he clearly considers to be quite stupid. It's not difficult to appreciate that he must be wholly exasperated by the "debate"; exasperated that in the 21st century the burden of respect and proof is on him (and other non-theists), rather than being on the guys who wear frocks. It is, when you think about it for a few nanoseconds, quite bizarre. Just as bizarre as getting tax exemptions for believing in virgin birth, resurrection and god.
I especially agree on your thoughts towards Pell's logic regarding there being a Hell because of how horrible Hitler was. Quite ridiculous.
I kinda wish that there was a neutral party in the room to point out abruptly to EITHER side any logical incongruities that occured during the debate. (I wouldn't worry too much about Dawkins)