Dawkins on The O Reilly Factor

[pastradamus]

I cant believe Dawkins actually went onto this wankers show. O Reilly simply made no sense from his arguments and Only cut Dawkins out.

O Reilly also Said that the most cruel leaders in history were athiests but told Dawkins "just forget about Al Queida and the Crusades for the moment".....fucking plonker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ

[SouthernBelle82]

And what about George Bush? He claimed God told him to invade Iraq (heh). I'm religious but even I have acknowledged that.

[Kronos]

Yeah I saw that a while back. Really it has to be an inside joke for people like us, the philosophically inclined. The general public, on the other hand, couldn't of noticed the grossly disproportionate match- Dawkins has no business even talking to that dip-shit, but rest assured O Reily fans the world over are too stupid to realize Dawkins supremacy.

At every turn in the conversation Dawkins corners O Reily, the O Reily tries to dodge, distract, or change the focus of attention.

What is the very first thing to come out of O Reily's mouth? Something a ten year old would say:

"I think an atheist has more faith because of nature and the tides and stuff."

Every poor excuse for an argument O Reily comes up with is an example of the typical mentality of people who do not have enough knowledge and understanding of logic- millions of theists in the world use the same arguments. It is as if people have a natural mechanism to think stupid shit until that crap is beat out of their head with logic.

Why is it that the smartest people are always atheists? How did God fuck that up? Is God also retarded? I just don't get it.

[Richard Nixon]

And what about George Bush? He claimed God told him to invade Iraq (heh). I'm religious but even I have acknowledged that.

Stalin>Bush.

[revolution inaction]

Stalin>Bush.

you think stalins better than bush? i'm not sure that i agree with you.

[#FF0000]

Stalin>Bush.

Yeah but Bush claims God spoke to him. People didn't die under Stalin because he was an atheist. That's dumb.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

O Reilly also Said that the most cruel leaders in history were athiests but told Dawkins "just forget about Al Queida and the Crusades for the moment".....fucking plonker.
I love that part. All the cruel leaders in history were atheists - except for, you know, the ones who weren't.

[Bud Struggle]

I love that part. All the cruel leaders in history were atheists - except for, you know, the ones who weren't.

No offense, but O'Rielly (like me a Catholic) crushed Dawkins--inside joke or not. Dawkins folded. (Being humble is a Christian virtue. :D) (Apollo is down there and he's not looking good. :D)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No offense, but O'Rielly (like me a Catholic) crushed Dawkins--inside joke or not. Dawkins folded. (Being humble is a Christian virtue. :D) (Apollo is down there and he's not looking good. :D)
How exactly did O'Reilly "crush" Dawkins? He didn't even make a coherent argument! Now, I think Dawkins is horribly wrong and doing a great disservice to Humanity, but at least he's well-intentioned. O'Reilly is evil, and an idiot.

And for a Catholic, O'Reilly sure as hell didn't seem to know much about his own religion. He didn't even appear to be aware of the fact that Christ is one person of the Trinity, and talked as if "Jesus" was simply synonymous with "God."

[Bud Struggle]

How exactly did O'Reilly "crush" Dawkins? He didn't even make a coherent argument! Now, I think Dawkins is horribly wrong and doing a great disservice to Humanity, but at least he's well-intentioned. O'Reilly is evil, and an idiot.

And for a Catholic, O'Reilly sure as hell didn't seem to know much about his own religion. He didn't even appear to be aware of the fact that Christ is one person of the Trinity, and talked as if "Jesus" was simply synonymous with "God."

Well yea, if you think the is "news" and your think this is a real debate. But for sheer entertainmant of "us guys" against "you guys" it was great.

Think "sports" not "news" and you see the fun in it all.

[Richard Nixon]

Yeah but Bush claims God spoke to him. People didn't die under Stalin because he was an atheist. That's dumb.

He persecuted theists during the height of the purges, while I don't recall Bush persecuting people for being Muslims or atheists.

[Radical]

He persecuted theists during the height of the purges, while I don't recall Bush persecuting people for being Muslims or atheists.

No, he just persecuted people on behalf of a minority(Terrorists)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

He persecuted theists during the height of the purges, while I don't recall Bush persecuting people for being Muslims or atheists.
According to himself, Stalin did not persecute theists; he took reasonable measures to stop the nefarious plots of the exceptionally large number of imperialist spies and saboteurs within the USSR. *ahem*

Of course that's a BS excuse, but the point is, he had an excuse. Just like Bush: According to himself, Bush didn't persecute Muslims, he fought terrorism.

The numbers are vastly different, of course, but I'm trying to point out the similarity in attitudes.

[Demogorgon]

Dawkins goes on discussing something that really isn't his field (philosophy etc) against O'Reilly doing what is exactly his field (TV infotainment) and still comes off looking better. You have to wonder why people bother going on O'Reilly though, he isn't there to ask them questions, just to talk over them and feed his ego.

I am no fan of Dawkins. I agree with them that there is no God, but I disagree with him regarding his reasoning and what I see as his rather intolerant conclusions, but any reasonable person watching that is going to see Dawkins as the sensible one. Of course the way FOX works, viewers are encouraged instead to focus solely on the supposed entertainment of the presenters talking over others, obscuring the actual subject being discussed.

[Decolonize The Left]

Of course the way FOX works, viewers are encouraged instead to focus solely on the supposed entertainment of the presenters talking over others, obscuring the actual subject being discussed.

Exactly, case in point:

Well yea, if you think the is "news" and your think this is a real debate. But for sheer entertainmant of "us guys" against "you guys" it was great.

Think "sports" not "news" and you see the fun in it all.

No offense, but O'Rielly (like me a Catholic) crushed Dawkins--inside joke or not. Dawkins folded. (Being humble is a Christian virtue. :D) (Apollo is down there and he's not looking good. :D)

It works wonders.

- August

[rednordman]

No offense, but O'Rielly (like me a Catholic) crushed Dawkins--inside joke or not. Dawkins folded. (Being humble is a Christian virtue. :D) (Apollo is down there and he's not looking good. :D)Hold on a second, Bill stated that the most evil people in history where athiests. Wasnt Hitler actually a Catholic, or at least was to begin with? Or doesnt Hitler count to Bill O'Rielly?

[Kronos]

Hitler was a 'positive Christian".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

Bud, being humble may or may not be a christian virtue but that is irrelevant to the point O Reilly was trying to make with that comment, failing miserably.

Scientists accept that they cannot explain everything, while Christians both claim to be able to explain everything, and, that scientists are not being humble when they call Christians on their bullshit.

So, the tables turn. Now, the creationists are the arrogant ones who charge scientists for not believing the nonsense they believe.

How do you like them apples?

That comment about Apollo was O Reilly's trying to say something witty and quick, and.......he failed miserably.

Dawkins didn't fold. He was cut off. Dawkins has forgotten more than O Reilly will ever learn. O Reilly is a cheap media pundit who everyone thinks is intelligent and well informed because he has a show the idiot middle class watches while eating dinner. Not much more to him.

[Radical]

Hold on a second, Bill stated that the most evil people in history where athiests. Wasnt Hitler actually a Catholic, or at least was to begin with? Or doesnt Hitler count to Bill O'Rielly?

Yes Hitler was raised a catholic, but he later converted to Christianity.

Theres no such thing as a Christian Child, only a child of Christian parents.

[gorillafuck]

I love Dawkin's smirk 53 seconds in

[Trystan]

And what about George Bush? He claimed God told him to invade Iraq (heh). I'm religious but even I have acknowledged that.

Yeah. Religion is the great excuse. Have you ever heard the Dylan song, "With God on Our Side"?

The First World War, boys
It came and it went
The reason for fighting
I never did get
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

Change "First World War" to "Iraq war".

[Richard Nixon]

According to himself, Stalin did not persecute theists; he took reasonable measures to stop the nefarious plots of the exceptionally large number of imperialist spies and saboteurs within the USSR. *ahem*

Of course that's a BS excuse, but the point is, he had an excuse. Just like Bush: According to himself, Bush didn't persecute Muslims, he fought terrorism.

The numbers are vastly different, of course, but I'm trying to point out the similarity in attitudes.

Bush visited a mosque a few days after 9-11 while I don't recall Stalin visiting an Orthodox church to show that he wasn't persecuting theists.

[progressive_lefty]

I cant believe Dawkins actually went onto this wankers show. O Reilly simply made no sense from his arguments and Only cut Dawkins out.

O Reilly also Said that the most cruel leaders in history were athiests but told Dawkins "just forget about Al Queida and the Crusades for the moment".....fucking plonker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ

I'm an atheist but I'm not a supporter of Dawkins, he's like an evangelical atheist.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm a fan of Dawkins. Fighting for talking time against O Reilly would've been pointless. People on the atheist side of the fence rarely get swayed by the "great Christian arguments for God." Even a few simple points, like Dawkins made, might be enough to push a reasonable person in the right direction. However, most of the reasonable people would be those who stumbled onto the segment while channel surfing. Those who regularly watch his program are probably pretty ignorant.

As for criticism of Dawkins as being outside his field, I don't agree. Intro-level philosophy is very accessible. At my university, you discuss religious philosophy in entry level courses. After that, there is a single philosophy of religion course. Mainstream philosophy doesn't take religion seriously. God doesn't appear in arguments for anything in my 200 and 300 level metaphysics courses. Even the religious-based arguments, which appeared in philosophy of law, eliminated God so non-believers might be swayed by their ideas.

Really, religious philosophy is one of the few philosophical fields I consider "solved." Ironically, Aquinas begun the death of God when he argued that it was a conclusion achievable through rationality. It's not. After everyone discovered that thanks to Hume and many others, in came the "faith based philosophers." It's somehow a conclusion you know "necessarily" without any external knowledge.

Well, good luck convincing someone who doesn't know it. Basically that means the only way to progress from these "known faith-based truths" is to get people who "happen" to agree with you on "faith." Then you can't argue based on reason except if you share self-evident falsehoods.

Watching religious people debate interpretations of religious law is one of the most ridiculously stupid things you'll ever see. It's like arguing that given that 1+1=3, how many apples do I have if I add 1+1 together. You're never going to get the right answer.

Rationality utterly destroys God. The only people who think otherwise are basically psychologically incapable of rejecting the idea and/or are actually relying on faith.

I can believe in God because I was trained to as a child. I know this is training, no faith. Why? Because if God was perfect, he wouldn't be a white guy with a beard. She'd be Angelina Jolie. I'm not intending to be sexist. But really envision rationally both the characteristics and moral laws your "perfect being" would have. It becomes so ridiculous from there.

Ideally, I think, God doesn't exist. We accept responsibility for our own lives, thereby accepting reality, and come to terms with the world as it is. People think to think God is perfection. If the world was perfect, there would be no masters. No one who truly believes in perfection could believe in God unless they're a sheep that needs to be led.

I think future generations will treat religious people as symptomatic of a deeper psychological problem. Some people get drugs for illnesses they could solve through exercise. Some people get therapy when they have a medical problem. Some people come to terms with the fact that they're pedophiles. Ideal solution? Don't be a pedophile. Obviously easier said than done.

Religion is often a very benign symptom of an underlying psychological condition, I think. In individual cases, it seems to help some people. So does not paying for the train fair. The problem is when everyone doesn't pay, we don't have a train. When everyone signs up for the quick fix religion treatment, we get fundamentalism, ignorance, and social degeneration.

Most of all, I have a grudge against belief in God as a perfect, kind being. I've suffered from clinical depression at various points in my life. Plenty of people have lived "much worse" lives than me. I think it's an absolutely disgusting slap in the face to anyone who has suffered to say such a being exists. It's the equivalent of talking about holocaust denial to a survivor, as I see it.

Of course, I'll treat anyone as an individual. I don't go around persecuting religious people. Dawkins himself is also respectful, as I have seen, in his discussions with religious individuals. I think he is providing a great service and is a leader (metaphorically, hopefully) in an important movement.

I'll fully admit to being a dogmatic atheist. I'm also a dogmatic believer in the existence of trees.

[Revy]

Dawkins isn't as bad as the other two in the trinity of "buy my book" atheists, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, who both supported the Iraq war, which Dawkins took a stand against. Of course, Dawkins is actually the scientist, and the intellectual, while Hitchens and Harris are the pundits.

[Richard Nixon]

Dawkins isn't as bad as the other two in the trinity of "buy my book" atheists, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, who both supported the Iraq war, which Dawkins took a stand against. Of course, Dawkins is actually the scientist, and the intellectual, while Hitchens and Harris are the pundits.

Both Hitchens and Harris supported the Iraq War. That's rather interesting, have any links?

[Demogorgon]

Bush visited a mosque a few days after 9-11 while I don't recall Stalin visiting an Orthodox church to show that he wasn't persecuting theists.
Stalin actually went to considerable pains to be friends with the Orthodox Church. Most dictators have tame churches to help them rule and the Orthodox Church was Stalin's.

[Demogorgon]

Dawkins isn't as bad as the other two in the trinity of "buy my book" atheists, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, who both supported the Iraq war, which Dawkins took a stand against. Of course, Dawkins is actually the scientist, and the intellectual, while Hitchens and Harris are the pundits.
Hitchens and Harris are good examples of the dangers of anti-theism. Their intolerance for religion has led them to support imperialist war (that actually benefitted religious extremism) pretty much solely because they wanted to make war on the Islamic World.

[Bud Struggle]

Hitchens and Harris are good examples of the dangers of anti-theism. Their intolerance for religion has led them to support imperialist war (that actually benefitted religious extremism) pretty much solely because they wanted to make war on the Islamic World.

And O'Reilly is a good example of an Irish wit that can make a joke out of anything.

He's brilliant at the thing which he does. (And he gets payed accordingly.)

We all enjoyed the show. It's not serious business.

(That some people here (moi) agree with him the the details of life is incidental.)

[Richard Nixon]

Stalin actually went to considerable pains to be friends with the Orthodox Church. Most dictators have tame churches to help them rule and the Orthodox Church was Stalin's.

Only during World War 2 for the sakes of national unity.

[Sarah Palin]

I'm gonna be that guy and challenge Dawkins on his assumption. I will argue that Stalin and Hitler did kill because of their mustaches.

All kidding aside though, I'm a big fan of Dawkins, big "anti-fan" if you will, of O'reilly. It was fun to see O'reilly tripped up by Dawkins' smooth talking and actual logic. Thanks for sharing.

[Bud Struggle]

All kidding aside though, I'm a big fan of Dawkins, big "anti-fan" if you will, of O'reilly. It was fun to see O'reilly tripped up by Dawkins' smooth talking and actual logic. Thanks for sharing.

Spin. And Bill definitely calls the "Factor" a "no spin zone." You would have to view things through a real gimlet's eye to see things in that Dawkins centered perspective.

I wager most viewers by far saw Bill as taking the day. Seeing Dawkin's "glint in his eye" or "missive smile" is poetic in it's way...but it's just athiestic romanticism in the extreme. Even Dawkins would be embarassed by some of the posts on this thread.

[#FF0000]

Only during World War 2 for the sakes of national unity.

Mmmmm but he did it anyway.

And anyway, this entire line of argument is stupid as well, because even if Stalin persecuted theists, it doesn't mean that all atheist leaders will persecute theists. And vice-versa.

[Decolonize The Left]

Spin. And Bill definitely calls the "Factor" a "no spin zone." You would have to view things through a real gimlet's eye to see things in that Dawkins centered perspective.

I wager most viewers by far saw Bill as taking the day. Seeing Dawkin's "glint in his eye" or "missive smile" is poetic in it's way...but it's just athiestic romanticism in the extreme. Even Dawkins would be embarassed by some of the posts on this thread.

"Atheistic romanticism"? Hmmm....


And O'Reilly is a good example of an Irish wit that can make a joke out of anything.

He's brilliant at the thing which he does.

Do you ever take your foot out of your mouth?

- August

[Bud Struggle]

[Edit] Sorry.

[Bud Struggle]

August did you give me a neg rep for a post I deleted? No one else could have read it but you. Good use of your Mod powers.

You are one nasty person.

[Decolonize The Left]

August did you give me a neg rep for a post I deleted? No one else could have read it but you. Good use of your Mod powers.

You are one nasty person.

You mean the one right above your last? No, I did not. I am the local mod of the forum, but global mods and admins also moderate as they see fit.

Way to make assumptions and overreact to an internet forum which is accommodating your reactionary beliefs.

- August

[Bud Struggle]

You mean the one right above your last? No, I did not. I am the local mod of the forum, but global mods and admins also moderate as they see fit.

Way to make assumptions and overreact to an internet forum which is accommodating your reactionary beliefs.

- August

Yup, it's an ownership issue and as I Capitalist understand where you are comming from greatly. Forgive my impudence.

And if you are saying you didn't give me the rep point--I apoligize. It was right about the rep point that said me and my family were going to be killed. Sorry for taking that kind of thing personally.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yup, it's an ownership issue and as I Capitalist understand where you are comming from greatly. Forgive my impudence.

And if you are saying you didn't give me the rep point--I apoligize. It was right about the rep point that said me and my family were going to be killed. Sorry for taking that kind of thing personally.

Look Bud, I'm sorry if someone left you an insulting rep note. But you need to understand that this forum exists for the sole purpose of encouraging and fostering discussion among revolutionary leftists. The fact that we provide a space for those whose ideologies directly oppose our own is astounding. You are an unabashed capitalist - someone who directly and untiringly exploits and oppresses your workers. You enjoy this fact.

If someone sends you a mean note over an internet forum, you either need to grow a thicker skin, or (more reasonably) understand that you are indirectly insulting the vast majority of members on this forum and are going to encounter individuals who respond with quick and distasteful comments. I myself will not stoop to that level, but I will not apologize for their actions - they are their own.

With that said, this thread is closed as it no longer serves it's original purpose.

- August