Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

[Muhaha]

I always have to watch these videos in 30 second intervals, the blatant ignorance and smugness that comes from people like O'Reilly is way too much to handle in one take.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk9cXJ1MljI

If you don't want to watch, here's a basic jist of the thing:


Dawkins - Science doesn't know everything yet, that doesn't mean we have to make up stories to fill in the gaps, we can simply continue to work on getting the answers.

O'Reilly - Science can't tell me how it all happened and until it does, I'm going to believe in the story of Jesus and it isn't fair to leave Jesus out of the Science class because the Science is incomplete.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

O'Reilly is a fascist douche.... and Dawkins is a fascist douche.... they deserve each other.

[Armanen]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

O'Reilly is a fascist douche.... and Dawkins is a fascist douche.... they deserve each other.

Well said!

[Stark Evade]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

What makes Dawkins a "fascist douche" exactly? His logical abilities and contributions to science? What lame rhetoric. Give me break.

[Siggie]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

What makes Dawkins a "fascist douche" exactly? His logical abilities and contributions to science? What lame rhetoric. Give me break.

Kanada likes to throw that word around. According to him, I'm a fascist too. He dislikes scientists.

[HyeClown]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

The word fascist is intended to mean "oppressive", "intolerant", "chauvinist", "genocidal", "dictatorial", "racist", or "aggressive" – all concepts that are at least loosely inspired by the ideology of actual fascism.

It's really another word for "bully". Dawkins is as intolerant as they come and I wouldn't doubt it if O'Reilly has ties to the IRA.

[hipeter924]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Dawkins is a militant Atheist meaning he wants to attack and criticise religion, he wishes religion did not exist aka he wants to "rock the boat", he is the opposing force to militant theism that wants to kill or stone to death all non-believers.

Then there are Secular forces usually supported by minority religious groups, agnostics and most atheists that want separation of church and state and to tolerate each others ideologies/beliefs.

Dawkins only represents a small percentage of Atheists, but he is perhaps the most vocal and controversial which is why that Fox chooses him over Secularists (not a single Secularist voice has been given a chance on Fox or American media so far I think)

[HyeClown]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Dawkins sounds like a mental midget if you look at his point of views. He doesn't understand the complexities of the world (or he does and just writes in an ignorant fashion to appeal to his readers) He sounds as naive and unworldly as any happy clappy believer.

In his book "The God Delusion" he wrote simplistic statements like

'Imagine with John Lennon a world with no religion'

'Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of xxxs, etc, etc."

Many of these clashes – over the Palestinian state, or in Northern Ireland, for instance – are originally secular struggles that have, with the degradation of politics, come to appear as religious struggle. Suicide bombings are not a religious phenomenon - the tactic was pioneered by the secular Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. It's war for the poor man.

[Siggie]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Dawkins is a militant Atheist meaning he wants to attack and criticise religion, he wishes religion did not exist aka he wants to "rock the boat", he is the opposing force to militant theism that wants to kill or stone to death all non-believers.

Then there are Secular forces usually supported by minority religious groups, agnostics and most atheists that want separation of church and state and to tolerate each others ideologies/beliefs.

Dawkins only represents a small percentage of Atheists, but he is perhaps the most vocal and controversial which is why that Fox chooses him over Secularists (not a single Secularist voice has been given a chance on Fox or American media so far I think)

The word militant is misapplied to atheists. Are they on par with militant fundi christians or militant fundi islamists?
No... The word militant means something completely different in those contexts and so it is inappropriate to apply to atheists.
Even the most outspoken of all, like Dawkins, what does he do? Give talks? Write books? Ooooh noes!!!!!
[sarcasm ] That's exactly like a suicide bomber. [/ sarcasm]

Dawkins sounds like a mental midget if you look at his point of views. He doesn't understand the complexities of the world (or he does and just writes in an ignorant fashion to appeal to his readers) He sounds as naive and unworldly as any happy clappy believer.

In his book "The God Delusion" he wrote simplistic statements like

'Imagine with John Lennon a world with no religion'

'Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of xxxs, etc, etc."

Many of these clashes – over the Palestinian state, or in Northern Ireland, for instance – are originally secular struggles that have, with the degradation of politics, come to appear as religious struggle. Suicide bombings are not a religious phenomenon - the tactic was pioneered by the secular Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. It's war for the poor man.

Have you read the book? Or are you just pulling a couple lines that someone else noted?

You're going to pick out two conflicts and then call him a mental midget on that basis? That's absurd.

[HyeClown]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Have you read the book? Or are you just pulling a couple lines that someone else noted?

You're going to pick out two conflicts and then call him a mental midget on that basis? That's absurd.

No I haven't read the book but I find his views narrow minded. I've read many reviews and comments and discussions on the internet. Has he read the Bible? The Koran? The Torah? What are his reasons for preaching his beliefs?